This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGN NO. D. L.—33001/99 The Gazette of India

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

No. 10] NEW DELHI, SATURDAY, MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a

separate compilation

PART ÏI—-Sections 3—Sub-Section (ii)

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministres of the Governraent of India

(other than the Ministry of Defence)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

ORDER

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2002

STAMPS

S O 799 —In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits M/s ICICI Limited, Mumbai to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees three croie nineteen lakh thirty two thousand two hundred sixty three only chargable onaccountof the stamp duty on 851527 ICICI Unsecured Redeem-

(2483)

604 Gl/2002—11484 THE GAZETTE GF INDIA MARCH 9, 2C02/PHALGUXA 18, 1923 ' [P'wu II—SHC. 3(ii)1 able Bonds (D-"-mbcr, 2001 Issue) in the nature of Debsntures aggregating to rupees four hundred twenty five crores seventy six lakhs thirty five thou- sands only, to ba issued by the said company.

[No.3/2002-STAMPS F.No. 33/6/2002-ST] R. G- CHHABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002

STAMPS

S.O. 800.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Indien Stamp Acf, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits Indian Overseas Bank, Chenr.ai to pay Consolidated stamp dut y of rupses o".c crore fifty lakh only chargeablc on account of the Rîrmp duty on bands describsd as IOB Unsecured Rcdeom \bb Non-Convertible Sub-ordinatod Bonds-III Soricsin the nature of promissory notes aggre- g-.tb.g to ri'.pocs one hundred fifty crore only, to be i AV. :d by the said Bank.

[No. 5/2002-STAMPS/F.No. 33/8/2002-ST]

R. G- CHHABRA, Under Secy.

ORDER

New Delhi, the 15th February. 2002

STAMPS

S.O. 801.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act. 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government heveby permits Andhra Pradesh Power Finance Corporation Limited, Hyderabad to pay Consolidated stamp duty of rupees twelve crore twe nty one lakh fifty six thousand two hund-cd fifty only chargeable on account of ths stamp du*y on brmds describjd a:,:—

(a) APPFCL Non-Convertible and Redeemabïe Bonds (Series-3/2001) in the natire of Debjn- ture aggregating to rup^es three hundred forty two crore forty five lakh only;

(b) APPFCL Non-Convertible and Redeem- abïe Bonds (Series-4/2001) in ihe nature of Debjntures aggregating to ri'.pccs two hundred ninety chree crore ninetoen lakh only;

(c) APPFCL Noti-Coùvrrtib'.c and Redeem- abïe Bonds (Series-5/2001) in the nature of Dcbenufes aggiegating to rupees nina hundred ninety three crore eleven lakh only, to be issued by the said Corporation.

[No. 6/2002-STAMPS/F.No. 33/7/2002-ST] R. G, CHHABRA, Under Secy.

2485 New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002

S.O. 802.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Officiai Language (use for officiai purposes of the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under Board of Central Excise & Customs of Department of Revnue, the Staff where-of hâve acquired the working know- lege of Hindi.

Office of thé Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs, Division-II, 3rd Floor, C.G.O. Bhavan-ll Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad-201002

[F.No.E.-11017/9/2001-Hindi-IV]

PRASHANT MEHTA, Jt. Secy. (Admn.)² ⁴ ⁸⁶ J ?? G A Z E T TE ⁰F I N D IA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART I I - S E C. 3(ii)] OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (EXEMPTIONS) Kolkala, the 18îh January, 2002 (INCOME TAX)

S.O. 803.—It is hereby notificd for gênerai information that îhe organisation mentioned below Ihas b;en approved by ihc Prescribed Authority under Rule 6 of ths Iiicome-tax Rulcs, for the purposè of clause (ii) of Sub-section (1) cf section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under the category 'Institution' subject to the foilowing conditions :

(i) The organisation v.ill maintain separate books of accounts for its research acJvities, (ii) it wiii furnîsh the Annual Return of its research aciiviiies to the Secretary, Depart- ment cf Scicntific & Industrial Research, "Technology Ehawan", New Mehrauli Road. New Delhi-110016 for every finan-

cial year by 31 st May of each year, and

(iii) It will submit *o tlu (a) Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata (b) Secrcfary. Department of Scientific & Industrial R'-search, and (c) Commis- sioner of Inccme-tox Director of Income- tax (Exemptons), having jurisdiction over the organisation, by the 31 si October of each year, a copy of its audited annual ac- counts and also a copy of audited Licorne and Expenditute Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under Sub-seciion (1) of Section 35 of Income-tax Act. 1961.

NAME OF THE ORGANISATION : Centre for Development of Teleraatics (C-DOT), 9th Fioor, Akbar Bhawan. Chanakya Puri, New Délhi-110021.

This Notification is effective for the foilowing

period :

From 1-4-9S to 31-3-90

NOTE :

1. Condition (i) abov? will not apply to orga-

nisations categorised as Association.

2. The organisation is advised to appîy in trip- licate and well in advauce for further ex- tension of the npproval to the Prescribed Authority through the Commissioner of Income-tax Director of Income-tax (Ex- emptions) having jurisdiction over îhe orgsn:sat:on. Thrce copies of the applica- tion for extension of approval should be sent directly io the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Reseaich.

LNo. 20901F. No. DGiND-35iCAL|35(l)(ii)l89- IT(E)]

P. C. BISWAS, Addl. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions) Kolkata, the lSth Januafy, 2002

2487 INCOME TAX

S.O. 804.—Itr is hereby notified for général information that ths organisation mentioned below lias been approved by the Prescribed Authority under Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 under the category 'Association' subject to the following conditions :

(i) The organisation will maintain separate books of accounts for its research activities;

(ii) it will furnish the Annual Return of its research activities to the Secretary, Depart- ment of Scientific & Industrial Research, "Technology Bhawan", New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi-110016 for every finan- cial year by 31st May of each year; and (iii) It will submit lo the (a) Director General of Income-Tax (Exemptions), Kolkata (b) Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) Commis- sionpr of Income-tax Director of Income- tax (Exemptions),' having jurisdiction over the organisation, by the 31st- Gctober of each year, a copy of its audited annual ac- counts and also a copy of audited Jncome and Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was granted under sub-section (1v),of Section 35 of Income-lax Act, 1961.

NAME OF THE ORGANISATION :

Centre for Materials for Electronics Technology, Electronics Niketan : 6, C.G.O., Cbmplex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.

This Notification is effective for the following penod :

From 1-4-96 to 31-3-99.

NOTÉ :

1. Condition (i) above will not apply to orga- nisations rategorised as Association.

2. The organisation is advised to apply in trip- licate and well in advance for further ex- tension of the approval to the Prescribed Authority through the Commissioaer of Income-tax Directoi of Income-tax (Ex- cnipiions) having jurisdiction over the organisation. Titrée copies of the applica- tion for extension of approval should be sent dïrectly to the Secretary, Department of Scientific & Industrial Research.

[No. 2091 |F. No. DGjND-106|CAL|35(l)(ii)|92- IT(E)] P. C. BISWAS, Addl. Director of Income-tax (Exemptions).

(Department of Economie Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2002 S.O. 805.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-sectien 3 of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer cf Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) and (2)(a) of clause (9) of the Nationaliaed Banks (Manage- ment and Miscellanecus Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India hereby neminates Shri S. Roy Choudhury, General Secretary cf the AH India UCO Bank Officers Fédération, as a Director en the Board of Directcrs cf UCO Bank for the peried ffcm the date of notification and upto 30-11-2003 cr until he ceases to be an officer of UCO Bank, whichever is earlier. The nomination will be subject to the déci- sion of the Mumbai High Court in writ pétition No. 5394 of 2001 filed by Bank of Maharashtra Officers Association.

[ F. No. 9/2//2001-B.O.I. ] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

2488 THE GAZETTE OF INOIA : MARCH 9, 2002v PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(IÏ)]

2489 - New Delhi, the 20th February, 2001

S.O. 806 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub rule (2) of iule 9. and clause (b) of sub rule (2) of rule 12, and sub rule (1) of rule 24, of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the Président hereby makes the following further amendments in the order of the Government of India in the Minîstry of Finance (Department of Economie Affairs) No.S.R.O.627 dated 28th February, 1957, namely :

In the Schedule of the said order, (i) in Part-II, for entries relating to Bank Note Press, Dewas, the following entries shall be substituted, namely :—

SCHEDULE

3 4

5 Bank Note Press, Dewas

(i) Deputy Technical Officer, Chief Administrative Deputy General Manager Ail

General Manager Officer Or Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer

Inspector Control, Deputy Works Engineer, Store Keeper, Assistant Store Keeper, Junior Artist, Assistant Inspec- tor Control, Canteen Manager, Canteen Super- visor, Canteen Store Keeper and unciassified Industrial posts in the grade higher than Rs. 3050-4590.

Chief Administrative Works Manager/Chief Ail Deputy General

Manager (ii) AU unciassified posts in the scale of Rs. 3050- 4590.

Officer Or Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer

Chemist/Manager (Control)/Chief En- gineer.

(iii) AH classified posts in Chief Administrative Chief Administrative AH Gérerai Manager Officer Or Financial Adviser and Chief

. Accounts Officer.

Officer Or Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer.

the grade of Rs. 3050- 4590 and above other than those at Sr. No.(i) above.

M$QL THE GAZETTE OF INDLfc.: h§AM£% & _2ÛQ2/ H ^ L G y XA 18, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3#)1

,(ii) in Part III, for the entries relating to Bank Note Press, Dewas, the following entries shall be substituted, namely :—•

5 Ail Classified posts below the Administrative Officer Administrative Officer

Chief Administra-

grade of Rs. 3050-4590.

tive Officer Or Financial Adviser and Chief Ac- counts Officer.

Deputy General

Administratif Officer

Ail

Manager

Works Manager/Chief Chemist/Chief Engi- neer/Manager Control

AH Unclassified Industrial Posts below the grade of Rs. 3050-4590.

[F. No. 4/5/2000-Cy.II.]

R. K. MAGGO, Under Secy.

Foot Note Principal orders published vide S.R.O.No.627 dated 28-2-57 and subséquent amendments by : —

SI. Notification No.

Date

RO/SO No.

Date

5 "l ' 2

1349(RO)

17-04-76

26-03-75

1. F.1O/21/73-BNP

24-05-80

1118(SO)

17-04-80

2. F.4(36)/79-BNP

27-07-85

20-04-85

3459(SO)

3. F.4(55)/84-BNP

14-02-87

—

29-10-86

4. F.4(55)/84-BNP

—

13-03-87

5. F.4(55)/84-BNP

22-03-88

1204(SO)

16-04-88 6. F.4(55)/84-BNP

12-10-90

2830(SO)

10-11-90 7. F.4(l l)90-Cy.(BNP)

04-11-91

30-11-91

2943(SO)

8. F.4(ll)/90-Cy.(BNP)

16-08-96

2612(SO)

14-09-96 9. F.4/24/95-Cy.IÏBNP

2002 (A|N) dll further orders, in addition to his dutics as Managing Director, and he shall exercise ail the powers and the fimctions of the Chairman of the said Corporation.

[F. No. 14|2|2002-Ins. IV] AJIT M. SHARAN, Jt. Secy.

( Insurance Div îsionj

New Delhi, the 20th F^-bruary, 2002

S.O. 807.—In exercise of the powers conferred bv Section 4 of the Life Incurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), the Central Government fhereby d'iecîs that Shri A. Ramamurthy, Managing Direc- for, Life Insurance Corporation of India, will hold current charee of the Chairman of that Corporation vice Shri G. N. Bajpai with etlect from 20th February, (Banking Division)

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2002 S.O. 808.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of the Bank- ing Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Under- takings)Act, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) and (2)(a) of clause (9) of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India hereby nominates Shri Naray^n Ganesh Mhate, Secretary (Greater Mumbai Zcne) of the Ail India Bank of Baroda Officers Association as a Director on the Board of Directcfs of Bank of Baroda for a period of three years from the date of notification or until he cesses to be an officer of Bank of Baroda, whicheVer is earlier. The nomiraticn will be subject to the décision of the Mumbai High Court in writ pétition No. 5394 of 2001 filed by Bank of Maharashtra Officers Association.

[F. No. 9/16/2001 -B.O.I.] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 809.—In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987 (53 cf 1987), the Central Government, after consultation with Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri Ashok Kumai. Retd. IAS(J&K65) and résident of C-76, Gandhi- nagar, Moradabad (Up) as part-time non-ofBcial director on the Board of Directors of the National Housing Bank, for a period of three years with effect from 22nd February, 2002.

[F. No. 7/15/2000-B.O.L] RAMESH CHAND. Under Secv.

604 Gï/2002—2

2491 New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2000 S.O. 810.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-seetion (3) (h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of the Banking Ccmpanies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Acj, 1970 read with sub-clause (1) of Clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Nayan Kishore Mohanty, Advocate, plot No. 198, Maha- nandi Vihar, Cuttack-753004 (Orissa) as part-time non-official director of Central Bank of India for a period of three years commencing on 22nd February, 2002.

[F. No. 9/17/2000-B.O.L] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 811.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatie and çonsular Officers2492 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MAROEÏ 9, 2032/P0ALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(3)3 (Oaths and fées) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Govermmnt hereby authoriscs Shri Gunanand Gairola, Asst. in the Embassy of India, Dakar to perform the duties of Assistant Confrular Gfficor wilh t-fftct from 22-02-2002.

[No. T. 4330/1/2002] Y.C. NARANG, Dy. Secy.(Cons.) 2493 MINÏSTRY OF COAL AND MINES

(Department of Mines)

New D^lhi, the 21st February, 2002

S. O. 812.—In exercise of me powers coafcried by section -> of the Public Piem'S'is (Eviction of Unauthorised- Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), and in supjfsession of the notification of the Govem- nseat of India in the Ministry of Mines, published in tho Gazette of India, Part-Il, Section 3, Sub-section (li), vicie S. O. n?.mb?r 2154 dited the 21st July, 1999, îho Central Government hereby appoints the following officers of Hindustan Zinc L'iaiîed, Udaipur, a statu*ory authority, mentioncd in. Column (2)2494 THE GAZE1TE OF INDIA . MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] of the Table b;low, .. .g omeers équivalent to the rank of gazetted cfficers of the government •to b3 estate officers for the parpase of the said Act and further defines the local limits of public prcmi- so3 as spjcifi;d in Colurni (3) of the said Table, in respect of which, the said estate officers shall exercise ih.3 powers coaferred, and porform the duties imposed on estate officers by or undsr the said Act.

TABLE

Local limits of public promises Désignation of the Officers

SI.

TSJr>

(3)

(2)

1."

Zawar Group of Mines locatcd in Village Zawar, Tidi and Amarpu'a, Tehsil-Girwa and village Bhalaria. Singatwara and Rawatalia, Tuhsil—Sarada, District— Udaipur (Rajasthan ), including the rcsidential colony.

Zinc Smelter premises including the residential colony buildings and opan area and land and other premises under the Zinc Smelter in villages Debari and Bichdi in Tehsil—Girwa and village Gudli in Tehsil—Mavli, District—Udaipur (Rajasthan).

General Manag. r, Hi'.duUan Zinc Limited, Zaw£.r Mina;, District—UddpU", Rajathan. D^pufy Gene-al Manager, Hinduitan Zinc Limited, Zinc Smjlter D.bari, Post Office—DJbari, District—Uaaipur, Rajasthan.

Entire Mining lease arca of Rajpura Dariba group of mines (including lands acquired and buildings constructed thereon) in village Dariba, Rajpura, Anjana, Mahenduriya, Tehsil— Railmagara, District—Rajsamand and village Chakapriya, Tehsil—Kapasan, District—Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

Corporate Office buildiîtgs, residential quarter?. guest houses and Dispcnsary premises of the Company, located in District— Udaipur (Rajasthan).

Dcputy General Manager, Hindustan Zinc Limited. Rajpura Dariba Mines, Post Office—Dariba, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. Chief Manager (Personnel and Administration ), Hindustan Zinc Limited, Yashad Bhawan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Entire Mining lease arca of Maton Mines located in village Maton, Kanpur and Lakarvas, Tehsil—Girwa, District— Udaipur (Rajasthan), including the residential colony.

D pv.ty Gcr.sral Marxgrr, Hindu^ta^ Zinc Limited, Maton Mines, District—Udaipur. Rajasthan.

Chandsriya Lsad-Zinc Smslter premises, located in village Putholi, Tehsil—Gangrar, District—Chittorgarh, including residential colony, buildings and open areas, land and other premises pertaïning to Chanderiya Lead Zinc Smelter at ChiLtorgarh and Gosunda Dam site, Post Office—Gosunda, District—Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).

D,-puty Gon;ral Manager, Hindusian Zinc Limited, Chauder'ya Lea'l Zinc Stiieltcr, Post Office— Pr.tholi, District—Chiïtorgarh, Rajasthan. Depuly General Manager, Hindustan Zinc Limiied, Rampura Agu:ha Mines, Pust Office—Agucha, District—Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

Entire Mining lease arca of Rampura Agv.cha Mines, located near village Agucha, District—Bhilwara (Rajasthan) including the residential colony, building and open aieas, land and other premises under the Rampura Agucha Mines including Bar.as River Bed well site and Shahpura water pv.mp ho use in Dislrict—Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

Complète Zinc Smcker premises including residential colony and opon land and other promises in villages Miudi and Mulgunda, District—Visakhapatr.am (Andhra Pradesh).

General Manager, Hindustan Zirc Lirai!cd, Zinc Smelier, Visakhanaînam, Andhra Pradesh.

2495 (1) (2)

(3)

9. Superintendant, of Mines-II, Enti.'e Mining lease area of Agnigimdala located in Hindustan Zinc Limited, Bandalamottu village (including land acquired and building Agnigundala Lead Mines, constructed thereon), District—Guntir, Andhra P^adssh, Post Office—Bandclamottu, irxluding the residential colony. Distriet—Guntur, Andhra Pradc&h

10. Dcputy General Manager, Complète Lead Smelter, ics various buildings re idenlïal Hindustan Zinc Limited, coloay and opjn land and other promises under tlw Lead Lead Smelter Tundoo, Smolter in village Tundoo, Sub-division Bhagmara, Police Post Office—Tundoo, Station—Bhagmara, District—Dhanbad (Jharkhand). District—Dhanbnd, Jharkhand.

11. Dcputy General Manager, JEntire Mining lease area of Sargipalli (ipeluding land acquired Hindustan Zinc Limited. and building constructed thereon) and village Kirisara, • Sargipalli Mines, Lokdega, Nailipalli, Mahikani, Badabanga, Bharatpur and Post Office—Sargipalli, Ichanala, Post Office—Sargipalîi, District—Sundergarh. O/issa. District—Sundergarh, Orissa.

[F. No. 18(l)/2001-Mot.-II]

O. P. KATHURIA, Under Sccy.

24% THE GAZETTE OF INDIA . MARGH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

ORDER

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002

S. O. 813.—In pursuanceofsub-rule(2)ofruk9, ciausc(b)of sub-rule(2) oîruîe 12 and sub-rule(l) ofrule 24 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, the Président liereby directs thaï the following further amendmenls shall bernade to the Order of the Government of India in the Department of Atomic Energy, number S.O. 1044 dated the 3rd May, 1993, namely :—

In the Schedule to the said Order, under the heading "Part-II-General Central Services, Gioup ' C ", for sériai no. 8 and the entries relating thereto, the following sériai no. and entries shall be substituted. namelv •—

1 2

_ ^ _

"8. Posts in the Nuclear

Chief Administrative

Fuel Complex, Hyderabad

Chief Administrative . Officer,Nuclear Fuel

Complex

Officer, Nuclear Fi'el Complex.

Deputy Chief Execu- tive (Administra- tion) Nuclear Fuel Complex."

[No. l/6(2)/2001-Vig./18.| B. D. MISHRA, Dy. Secy Footnote : The Principal Order was published vide number S.O. 1044 dated 3-5-93 in the Gazette of India dated 22-5-93 and amended vide number S.O. 3519 dated 24-11-94 and published in the Gazette of India dated 24-12-94 and lastely amended vide Number S.O. 1131 dated 16-04-1997 in the Gazette of India dated 03-05-1997.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH & FAMILY

WELFARE

(Department of Health)

New Delhi, the 19ïh February, 2002

S. O. $14.—Whcraa" i/i pu'suance of clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Indkn Médical Council Act, 1956(102 of 1956) Dr. Bhavin S. Kothari, Rajkot has b^en elected by the Sonate of Saurashtra Universïty. Rsjkôt to bj membsr of the Modical Council of India with elfect from 4th Novemb3T, 2001.

Nôw, tliertifore, in pursuince of the provision of

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Contrai Governme-nt hereby makos the folîowing furthor amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the then Ministry of Health numb^r S.O. 138, dated the 9th J".nuary, 1950, namely: —

In the said Notification, undsr the head'ug, 'Elected under clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of

Section 3, for ierLl nttubjr 3? -Jid the entric. relôlir.^ 2497 tbereto the folîowing sériai irumber and entry shali

be substituted, namely:—

"37. Dr. Bhavin S. Kothari, Sairreshtra

hereby notifies fhe fcflcwir>g effices under

Kothari Surgical Hospiîal, University"

Mill Para Main Road,

1. Hindustan Latex Limited, Nircdh Factcry, Peroorkada.Thjruvanantbapuram—695 005., 9-Laxmiwadi Corner,

Rajkot-360002

.... Médical Cctmcil cf India, AiwaB-E-Galib

Marg, Kotîa Rcad, New Delhi—110 "02.

[No. V-11013/2/2001-ME (Policy-1)]

P. G. KALADHARAN, Under Secy.

3. Central Drugs Testing Laboratcry, 4th Fîcor, ESIS Hospital Building, Rcad 33, Wagle Hstate, Thane (Mumbai) 400 604.

Footnoie : The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of Incfe, vide S.O. 138 dated 9-1-1960.

4. Régional Health & FamiJy Weîfare Office

"Sangreela" Urcpck Road, Impbal.

5. Pcst Graduate Institutc cf Médical Edi'caïic n

and Research, Chandjgarh.

[No. E.l 1012/1/94-OLI (Hindi-Ï)]

JAWAHAR THAKUR, Chief Ccrtrclltr t f

Acccunts New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S. O. 815-—In pursuanee of sub-rule (4) cf Rule 10 ©f Ste Officiai Lapgtiafes (Use of Officiai purposes of Union) Ruîes, 1976, the Central Government2493 : THE GA7ETTE OF l$l>h\ : MARGE. 9, i002/.JPHALGUNA 12, 1923 [F*Rï H—SEC..3 MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi, the 21 st February, 2002

S. O. 816 .—Ii exercise of the powers

conferred by Article 40 of the Mémorandum

and Articles of Association of Pawan Hans

Helicopters Limited (PHHL), ex-post-facto approval

of the- Président is accorded for entrustitng the

additknal charge of Chairman-cum-Managing

Direcîor, PHHL to St>ri Anurag Goel, Joint

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING Secretary in the MQnistry of Civil Aviation for a

period of three months vith effect from 17-12-2001

or till the appointaient of new incumbent, whichever

(Shipping wing)

event occurs earlicr.

[Nu. AV.P 13015/032/2001-VE]

P. S. RADII\ KRISHNA, Dy. Secy.

New Delhi, the 26th February, 2002

S.O. 817.—In pursuance cf Sûb-Section (1)

of Seotion 4 of the LigWhousc Act, 1927 (No. 17 of

1927) read with Rule 4 of the Central Advisory Com-

mittee for Lighthouses (Procédural) Rules, 1976,

the Central Government hereby makes the following

amendments in the Government of India, Ministry

of Shipping (Shipping Wing's) Notification No.

LH-llOlô^OO-SL dated 22nd March, 2001.

In the said notification dated 22nd March, 2001,

for the existing e"ry at S.No. 10, the following entry

shall be substituted, namely ;

(10) Capt. Subhas Kumar,

Représentative of

Dy. Con^ervator,

Indian Ports

New Mangalore Port Trust Association.

Mant"alore.

[F. No. LH,11O16/3/2OOO-SL]

MUNSHI RAM, Under Secy.

2499 604 GÏ/2002—32500 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MÂRCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] MINISTRY OF STATISTICS ANP PROGRAMME I M P L E M E N T A T I ON New Delhi, the 28th February, 2002 S.O. 818.—In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (I) of Section 8 of the Indian Statis- tical Institute Act (No. 57) oF 1959, the Central Government hereby constitutes a Ccmmittee for 2002—2007 consisting of ;—

(i) Prof. Dr. B.K. Kale,

Chairman Prof essor of Statistics

(Retd.),

Department of Statistics,

University of Pune.

Prof. Dr. J. Nanda, •

Mefflbcr (ii)

Profcssor, Emeritus,

Department of Electrical

Engineering,

HT, Delhi.

Prof. Amitabh Bcse,

Mcmber (HO

Directôr,

Indien Institute of

Management,

Koklata.

Prof. K. B. Sinha,

(iv)

Member Director,

Indian Statistical Institute,

Kolkata.

Director General,

(v)

Member Central Statistical

Organisation,

Ministry of Statistics &

P.I.,

New Delhi,

(vi) Additicnal Secretary and Member Financial Adviser,

Ministry of Statistics &

P.I.,

New Delhi.

(vii) Director (Finance),

Member Secretary Ministry of Statistics &

P.I.,

New Delhi.

And assign the foliowing duties to the said Com- mittee, namely ;—

(1) Review of the agreed programme of work/ schemes/projects (both Plan and Non-Plan) and make recemmendations regard ing the amount to be provided in the RE & BE and also make recommendations regard ing the finâncial estimâtes for paying grant-in aid to the ISI.

(2) (a) Préparation and submission to the Central Government cf statement sho- wing programmes cf work (beth Plan & Non-Plan) agreed to be undertaken by the Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, during finâncial year fer which the Central Government may provide funds, as well as gênerai finâncial esti- mâtes of such work.

(o) The settlement of bropd lines of the programme of work.

(3) The Committee shall submit its Report to the Government on cr before 31st March.

(4) The Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation shall render secretarial assis- tance to the Committee, the headquarters of which will be at New Delhi.

[No. 12011/7/96-Coord/B&F]

K. K. Roy. Under Secy 2501 604GI/2002—42502 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9,2002/PHALGUNA18,1923 [PART II—SEC 3(ii)]

Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2002

S. O. 819.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby amends the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.1705 dated 16th July, 2001 published in the Gazette of India, Part-Il, Section 3, sub-section (ii) at pages 3491 to 3506 on 21st July, 2001 in the following manner namely:-

In the said notification, under heading:

(A) Village JAGANA at Page 3502, -

1. Against Survey No.229+230/1, foi the area "0-08-61 " substitute "0-10-3 2. Against Survey No.229+230/3, for the area "0-06-07" substitute "0-11 -8 3 Against Survey No.229+230/4, for the area "0-04-54" substitute "0-09-6

(B) Village ESBIPURA at Page 3502, -

1. Against Survey No.6/1, for the area "0-09-70" substitute "0-18-11" 2. Against Survey No.6/3, for the area "0-08-60" substitute "0-14-12" 3. Against Survey No.6/5, for the area "0-07-84" substitute "0-10-71" 4. Against Survey No.4+5, for the area "0-25-89" substitute "0-28-05"

1. Against Survey No.361/1, for the area "0-13-83" substitute "0-24-70" 2. Against Survey No.359, for the area "0-16-34" substitute "0-18-18" 3. Against Survey No.344, for the area "0-21-45" substitute "0-31-16"

(D) Village CHANDGADH KOTADA at Page 3506 -

1. Against Survey No.48, for the area "0-18-18" substitute "0-27-42" 2. Against Survey No.39, for the area "0-09-56" substitute "2-43-42"

[No. R-25011/20/2001—OR-I] S. S. KEMWAL, Under Secy.

25032504 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9,2002/PHALGUNA18,1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4thMarch, 2002

S. 0.820.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum (crude) from Viramgam in the State of Gujarat to Panipat in the State of Haryana via Chaksu in the State of Rajasthan, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the "Augmentation of Viramgam-Chaksu, Chaksu-Panipat and Chaksu-Mathura sections of Salaya-Mathura pipeline System";

And, whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerais Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gênerai public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to the Compétent Authority, Shri R.M.Pandya, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (Pipelines Division), P.B.No.4, P.O. Viramgam, Distt. Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382150.

SCHEDULE

Taluka: PALANPUR District: BANASKANTHA

State: GUJARAT Area

sq.mtr.

Sub-Division no.

Are

Name of the Village

Survey no.

Hectare 4

654

PALANPUR

654

19 19 44

745

(No. R-25011/20/2001—OR-IJ S. S. KEMWAL, Under Secy.

:505

"Whe'her the v/orkmen Shri Narayan Ram S|o Shii Jagannath Rum. Driver is entitled for employment after 5-7-96 wiilh the manage- ment cf M|s. jaipur Silica Supply Co., Jaipur ? If not, to what relief the work- inan is entitled to end what date".

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002

S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indtistnal Disputes Act, L947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 42/97) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal, Jaipur now &s shown in the Annexure in îhc Indusîrial Dispute between the employers m relation to the management of Jaipur Silica Supply Co. and their workman, wlrcb was received by the Central Gofernmcnt on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-29012|74]97-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

604 GI/2002—52506 THE GAZETTE OF INDJ-V : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGLXA 18, 1923 [PART H - S F C. Zn)l 25072503 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3îii)] New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002

S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indurtrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centiaî Governnicn* hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 1]42 of 96) of the Central Government Indusirial Tribunal, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in tela'ion to the management of M|s. SESA Goa Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Centrai 'Government on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-29012|51]96-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Shri Justice S. C. Pandey.—Presiding Officer

Réf. No. CGlT-1',42 of 1996

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the Management of

Mjs. Sesa Goa Ltd.

AND .

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For the Management.—Shri P. J. Kamat,

Advocate. For the Workman : Woiiman présent inperson.

STATE : Maharashtra.

Mumbai, dated the 28ih day of January, 2001

AWARD

The Central Govemment, in exercise of its power under clause (d) of sub-seclion 2A of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the dispute between the management of M|s. Sesa Goa Ltd. and its workmen for adjudication by this Tribu- nal in the following terms :

"Whether the action of Director, Sesa Goa Ltd. P. B. No. 125, Sesaghar Panjim Goa, Patta-403001 in discharging from the ser- vices Mr. Shankar P Naik, Ex-Asstt. Stores Offiœr, R|o H. No. 235, l|Saucho- wado, A&sonora Pin-4Q35O3, w.e.f. 4-7-1995 is just, proper and valid ? If not, what relief the employées is entitled to?"

Both the workman as well as the Counseî for the management hâve jointly fîled an application today for passing a consent award in terms indicated in the application. I hâve gone through the application and verified from the workman if ne is agreeable to passing of consent award in accordance with the terms mentioncd in the application. He gave his assent before îhis tribunal. I do not fuid anything unlawful or something opposed to Public poîicy authorising this tribunal to refuse permission of amicabîe settlement of dispute. Accordingîy, I grant permission and dispose cf the référence by the following consent award.

Terms cf Settlement

1. It is agreed between tàe parties that Mr. Shankar P. Naik hrs no dispute in regard to his terminatien from 4-7-1995.

2. It is agreed betwsen the parties that Mr. Shankar P. Naik shall be paid an amount of Rs. 1,40,000 (Rupees Oae Lakh Forty Thousand only) in full and final settlement of ail his légal dues, for the services rendered up to 4-7-1995. ït is further agreed by Mr. Shankar P. Naik that his gratuity and "other légal dues hâve already been paid to faim"

3. It is agreed and dedared by Mr. Shankar P. Naik _ that the smount payable by the Company to him in the mariner h'srcinabove provided for are iu full and final seulement and satisfaction of ail h:s claims against the Company including claims for compensation fer loss of office or otherwise how- soever.

4. It is agreed by Mr. Shcakar P. Naik thaï he shall not raise ary dispute before any authorities in- cluding Cjvil Criminal or High Court in respect of îhis raatter as his Matter is ilaally settied and tb.iî any dispute pendirsg before any oîfcer authorities in- duding Civil Court "shall be deemed to be witbdrawn.

2509 5. It is agreed between the parties that the amount payable within two weeks of filing of this settlement before the Horfble Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial at Mumbai in référence No. CGIT-IJ42 of 1996 îor consent award.

6. It is açrec-d betwsen the parties that the parties shaïi appeaf before the CGIT No. 1 at Mumbai and fils an application for consent award in terms above.

Accotdingîy, the référence is answered by saying that dispute between the paities is adjudicated as per terms aforesaid and the parties shall now be govem- ed by terms No. 1 to 5. In view of the subséquent settlement of dispute the référence is disposed by granting this consent award insiead of answering the référence which îelated to the dispute now amicably setilcd by the parties.

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th Febraary. 2002 S.O. 823.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Âcî, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/128 of 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai now as shown in îhe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-29012/24/98-IR(M)l, B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Référence No. CGIT-2/128 of 1998 Empîoyers in relation to the management of Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

The Executive Director (P & A), Indian Rare Earths Ltd.,

Sherbanoo, 6th FJoor, 111, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020.

2510 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 25, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J AND

Their Workmen. Shri B. R. Tandel, Pratiksha Nagar. ChawlNo. 181, R. No. 1952, Sion, Koliwada, Mumbai-400022.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer : Mr. K. Sreedharan, Advocate i/b. Mulla and Mulla and Craig'e Blunt and Caroe.

For the Workmen: Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocaie.

Mumbai, daled 8th January, 2002 AWARD—PART-II

By the Intérim Award. dated 28th January. 2000" my Learned Predecessor held that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per the Prin- ciples of Natural Justice and that findings of the inquiry officer were not perverse. Consequently the only point as to "Whether the punishment if proportionate or not. in view of the action taken by the management, re- mains for the considération of this tribunal in the light of Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act". 2. Workman, Shri Tandel was charged after suspen- sion on 7-5-92 vide charge sheet dated 6-10-92 for the charges of misappropriation of the company's funds amounting to Rs. 75,761.70 ps. towards the médical re-imbursement, leave Iravel concession, tui- tion fee and TA and DA and that those charges were found proved in the inquiry as per the inquiry report dated 18-4-94, and that the disciplinary authority since the charge proved, fall under the Rule (5) of CDA rules of the company, dismissed bim from ser- vice on 4-7-94. The findings recorded by the inquiry officer held not perverse and the inquiry fair. The workman contended that the punishmeni of dismissal awarded by the management is shockingîy d'spropor- tionate. The management opposed the same contending that con"idering the charges punishment is propor- tionate.

3. On the point of quantum of punishment workman Tandel filed his affidavit by way of Examination-in- Chief (Exhibît-24) and passed purshis (Exhibit-28). No oral évidence was. lecl by the management on this count. Workman filed writte.n submissions (Exhibit- 29) and the management (Exhibit-30) alongwith the copies of the décisions.

4. On hearing the counsel and perusing the record as a whole and the written submissions, I record my findings on the following issue Nos. 3 and 4 for the

reasons stated below :—

Issues Fmdmgs Whether the action of the management Yes.

in terminatmg the services of Shri B. R. Tandeî w.e.f. 4-10-94 is iustified?

4. If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled to ?

As per order, below.

REASONS

5. At the outset it is to be noted that in catena of judgments, it is obseived that after the employées services are terminated on proper domestic inquiry held in accordance with the rules of Natural Justice and the conclusions arrived at the inquiry are not perverse, the tribunal is not entitled to consider the propriety and the correetness of the said conclusions. Their Lord- ships of the Suprême Court in Sur Enamel and Stamp- ing Works Ltd. Vs. Their Workmen 1963 II UJ (S.C.) pg. 367 and further in J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd. Vs. Its Workmen, 1%5 II LLJ pg. 156 observed :

"This court has pointed out time and aga'n that an industrial tribunal to which a dispute arising from dismissal has been referred for adjudication is not an appeal court having the power to examine the correetness of the conclusions of fact arrived at by a domestic tribunal. Whsre the industrial tribunal finds that there was nothing improper or unfair in an enquiry conducted by the domestic tri- bunal and where the action taken against workmen was not actuated by any ulterior motive and where the principles of Natural Justice hâve not been infringed, it is beyond the powers of an industrial tribunal to set at nought the action taken by the manage- ment which lay within its compétence under the standing orders."

6. It is seen from the cross-examination of work- man (Exhibit-24), he had attained the âge of retire- ment of 60 years on 31-3-99. He has stated in his affidavit that he has put about 26 years clean and un- blemished service. He was 55 years old at the time of dismissal and considering his âge and the previous record, the punishment is dispropartionate. True it is penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gra- vity of misconduct and that any penalty dispropor- tionate to the gravity of misconduct. could be violative of Art -14 of the constitution. Their Lordships in "Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India, (1987) 4 S.C.C. 611 (AIR 1987 SC 2386) observed :

"The question of choice and quantum of punish- ment is within the jurisdiction ol the Tri- bunal (Court Martial). But the sentence has to suit (he offence and the ofïender. It should not be vindictive or unduely harsh, it should not be so disproportionate to the offence to shock the conscience "and amount in itself to conclusive évidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as a part of the cencept of judicial review would ensure that even on an'aspect which is otherwise, within the exclusive power of tribunal, if the déci- sion of the court even as to sentence is an outrageous défiance of logic then sentence would not be immuned from correction. Irrationality arirî perversîty are tecognisei grounds of judicial review." The proved charges are about raisappropriation of company's funds running into thousands, not in con- nection with one item, but, in ail four items. Even a single act of misconduct if found to be of grave nature, warrants dismissal for which reliance can be had to Punjab and Ors. Vs. Ramsingh Ex-constable, 1992 (4) SCC 54, page, 59.

7. Considering the proved charges and the nature of the same in the light of the rules of the Company, warrant dismissal and the company has acted in con- sonance to the rules. The punishment of dismissal is thus not at ail disproportionate. There is no reasonable ground to interfère the punishment awarded, under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The action being justifîed and proper and the punishment being appropriate, workman is not entitled to any relief. Issues are therefore answered accordingly and hence the order :—

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri B. R. Tandel. Cashier. w.e.f. 4-7-1994 is justified and consequently he is not entitîed to any reliefs.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officei New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 168/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s. Singh Stone Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-29011/48/98-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR, (M.P.)

2511 Presiding Officer : K. M. Rai.

Case No. CGIT/LC/(R)(168) of 99 The Président,

Lai Zanda Mazdoor Union. Union.

Vs.

M/s. Singh Stone Mines. . .. Management.

AWARD

(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L-29011/48/98-IR(M) dated 2Î-4-98 for adjudication as under:

"Whether the demand for payment of bonus at 20 per cent for the accounting year 1996-97 to the workers employed in Dhaurabhata Dolomite Mines of M/s. Singh Stone Mines is justified ? If so, to what relief the work- man are entitled ?"

2. The applicant has filed application, praying for passing award in terms thereof. He does not want to proceed with his claim as the matter has been finally settled between the parties.

3. In view of the workman's application it is held ihat no dispute exists between the parties in this case.

4. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for publication as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 nf the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 90/1999) of the Central Government Industnal Tri- bunal, Jabalpur now as "shown in the Annexure in the ïndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bhilai Steel Plant and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.

• [No. L-29011/39/98-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy, ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN, JABALPUR (MP)

Presiding Officer : K. M. Rai.

Case No. CGIT/LC(R)(90) of 1999 The Président, Pragaîisheel Mazdoor Union, In front of Tehsil Office, P.O. Dalli-Rajhara, Distt. Durg, (CG) 491228.

.. .Union.

Vs.

1. The General Manager (Mines). Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) 490001. .. .Management.

2. The Mines Managsr Dalli Mines of BSP, P.O, Dalli-Rajal Distî. Durg, (MP) 491228.

AWARD

(Passed on 21st day of January, 2002) The Government of ïndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, has referred t^.e présent dispute vide Order No. L-290ll/39/98/IR(M) dated 5th Februaty, 1999 for adjudication as under :

"Whether the demand offcePrésident, Pragati- sheel Mazdoor Union, Dalli-Rajhara to régu- larise Smt. Kumari Bai, W/o Mohan, P. No. 804631 Gang No. 207 of DaOi Mines of BSP w.ei. î 994 is nsstified ? If so, to what relief the workman is cntitîed ?"

2. The workman remained r.bsent in spite of service of notice on her. It appears that she is not interested. i i pursuin^ her daim as referred by îhe Government of In::'la. Ffence, no disp_:e exists bctv,-e:r< inc parties T: îhs présent case. ',

3. In the light cl the fact stated above, it is held 'V.î m d'^pnie exists between the parties in this case.

'1. Copv of Ihe award be sent to ths Ministry of L'ir-oi'.r, Govornrr.cnt of îndia ?s per mies.

; P AM I Ï — S5C, 3 3 )]

Nsw Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- custrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government ht-.reby publishes the av/ard (Réf. No. 200/93) of ths Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal, Jabaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bstv/ten the employers in relation •-o the management of M. P. State Mining Corpn. and ilieir werkman, whicli was reccivsd by the Central Government or- 7-2-2002.

[No. L-29011/19/92-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, 1230, WRIGHT TOWN JABALPUR,

(MP)

Pres'ding Officer : K. M. RAI.

Case No. CGIT/LC/(R)(200) of 1993

Vs.

Shri Satish Kumar Agarwal, Ccnlractor, MP State Mining Corporation. Main Rend, PO-Baradwar, District. Bilaspur.

. . . Workraan.

Vs.

Madhya Pradesh Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, Baradwar. ' • .. .Union.

AWARD

(Passed on 23rd day of January, 2002) The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred the présent dispute vide Order No. L-29011/19/92-TR(M3sc.) dated 17/23-9-93 for adjudication as under :

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer

"Whether the contractuel workers engaged in transportation of dolomite by M/s. Satish Kumar Agarwal engaged a contracter in MP State Mining Corp. Ltd., Baraduar at there Dumarpare Dolomite Mines, Baraduar, Disîr.cî Bilaspur are justified to demand pay- ment of Rs. 4.04 as a dearness aîlowance w.e.f. Ist April, 1991. If not, to what relief thèse workeis are entitled to ?"

2. The workman remained absent in spite of service of notice on him. It appears that he is not interested in trarsuïn" hirn claim as referred by the Government of India. Hence, no dispute exists between the parties in the présent case.

3. In the light of the fact stated above, it js held that no dispute exists between the parties in this case.

4. Cooy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India as per rules.

K. M. RAI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central .Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 8J2001) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in' the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Alankar Shipping & Trading and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.

[No. L-3301l!3!99-IR(M)] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Friday, the 28th Decembcr, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikexan, Presiding Ofiicer.

Industrial Dispute No. 812001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. '612000)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), bet- ween the Workmen of Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd., and the Manage- ment of Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Chennai).

BETWEEN

The General Secretary, : I FartyjClaimant. Madras Port & Dock National Wprkers Union,

AND

The Manager, : II Farty|Management. Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Chennai. 604 Gl'2002—6

2513 APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant : Sri P. K. G. Menon, Authurised

Représentative For the Management : M|s. T. S. Gopalan&Co.

Advocatcs

The Govt. of India Ministry oc Labour in exercise of powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dis- pute Act, 1947 (14 of J947), hâve referred the con- cerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-33O11|3|99-IR(M) dated 7-10-1999.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was tak.:n on file as I.D. No. 6|2000. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribnual, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was plsased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal fqr adju- dication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 8|2001 and notices were sent to the authorised représentative for the I Partyl Claimant and îhe counsel on record for the II Party|Management, informing them .tbout the transfer of this case to the file of this Tribnual, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 18-1-2001. On receipt of notices from this Tribunal, the authorised représentative for îhe I PartyjClaimant and the counsel for the II P'artyjManagement were présent and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 13-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Stalemenf, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documenîary évidence let in on either side, the written submissions filed by îhe learned authorised représentative for the I Party/Claimant, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the II Party /Management, this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribnual has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Govt. for adjudica- tion by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd., Chennai in terminating the services of the 16 workmen listed in Annexure 'A' (Nos. 1 to 16 mentioned by nam?) is justified ? If not, to what relief, they are entitled ?"'

2. The averments in the Claim Statement filcd by the I Party/CIaimant, the General Secretary, Madras Port & Dock National Workcrs Union, Chennai are briefly as follows :—

This industrial dispute has been raised by *he I Party/CIaimant Madras Port and Dock National Workers Union (hercinafter refers to as the Peti- tioner) espousing the cause of the 16 workmen who hâve said to hâve been terminated from service by the II Party/Management, Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd. Chennai, (hereinafter refers to as Res- pondent). The II Party/Alankar Shipping and J514 ffifc GAZETTE OU JNDIA ; MARCH 9, 2002/ T!, •, ' .-NA 1 8 ^ 23 ^..''."^JS- lïading Co. (P) Lld. Chenuai ib one of i\vi lcading stevedoring companies in Chenuai Port Trust. lt was cstablished about 15 years ago :inri engag;d in stevè- doring work for many compames botti private and public secîor underteldngs. The concerned sixteen workers hâve put up services varying from cnc year lo seven years at the Orne of tcnninafion and they aie peramneiu workerj of the Respoiideut. The/ are the members of the Petitioner Union. The Respondent was paying them a Consolidated salary of Rs. 750 per mou b. The concerned workmeti were denied even the statutory minimum wages and the benefits like Provident Fund and ESI facilities. Therefore, the Peti- tioner Union submitted a charter of demands to the Respondent on 19-11-98. As soon as ihe R e f o n- dent received the said charier of demands, they termi- nated the services of the concerned 16 workers with iTiimediate effect without any notice or enquiry. The action of the Respondent is illégal unjust and against the prindples of natural justice besicles beïng an act of unfair labour practice as defined under section 2(a) of the Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner Union raised an industrial dispute before the Régional Labour Commissioner, Chennai, but it ended i'n a failu^ because the Respondent refused to consider the just demands of the Union. The termination of the concerned 16 workecs from service by the Respondent is illégal, uninst and ngninsf the principles of natural justice. Her.ce. ibe Petitioner Union prays that the Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award reinstating fhe sixteen workmen w'th back wages. 8nd continuity of service. . ,„. >•

Shipping Corporation of India allotled stevedormg \vork to the Respondent only on ten occasions between 14-10-96 anti 5-9-97. Aïïer 5-9-97, the Shipping Corporation of India did not allot any stevedoring work to the Respondent. After September, 1997, the concerned workmen were practically remaifiing idle and they were paid wages. AfKr September, !998-, the Shipping Corporation of India did not retie\\ tnë contract, nor was any new eontrict pivert to the ReS- pondent. Each of the eo'ricferncd t'6 workmen was paid Rs. 750 "respective of whethor or not they hâve work. Thèse workmen were to çall at the dock office of tîte Respondent in the respective ships on rotation and if there was .steyedoring work, they would attend to the work of pîacmg the equipments near the ship. Tf there was no work to be attended, they will sign the attendance register and go away. In other words, their services would be utilised only qrt days and when there was any stevedû'riftg Work.to be dorlè, Aftér September, 1997 they were, paid wages of Rs. 75Q without praeticaUy any 'work being done. It would îippeaf thàt in September, 1998 when once it be- cafne clear that Shipping Corporation of India ftac not renewed the contract of Ihe Respondent the con- cerned workmen thougbt tfiàt if they raise fin inHûst- rial dispute "rid "allège termirjation, of Smployment, it v/ould provide them aîî opportunity to demanfl 9 fabulous amount -by way of compensation, it Was in that found hqpe, î'hèy stopt>éu reporting for dûty submitted & gÇaçîçtftfdém^nds and alleced terminà- ^Ot" f? e'm^oyïnent, The. Respondent dénies itie •aiiègâtion .tjiaj it.terminatèd the, services of 16 work- men. On 21-12-53. the R.espondent received a charter of dêmànûs dated 10-12-98 from Madras, Port & Dock îvational Worke-s Union, .Simultanecusiv. the Union alsd addressed a kttef to the Reaional Labour Com- missioner alîcgiu.a; that on 19-11-98, they submitted *ht Charter of demands and immediatdly oh receipt ot t'as demTnds, thç ReSBondent terminated the services bf the workmen. The alleeatlons are not true tvnd they are denièd. The 16 workmen stopped renortîng for dittv ori their own voiition for the reasons best known to them and fbe Resoondent was in no way responsîbïe for tbe plleged non-empioyment. Prior to 1998, the Resnondent was acting as a stevedor'ng a^ent mainlv for Sbirninfr Cntooration of India. After September, 1998. the Respondent hnc n^t been actintr a>î stevedorin? a^ent for anv shîrjpin" compnnv As there was no terminal ion of empiovment bv the Res- nondent. there is no senne to hoid that the termina- tion is illégal and nniiist. Therefore, th'\ Hnn'b'e Court rnnv "be niensed to pass an award Tpipcting the daim nf the Pe+itio^er,

4. When the matter was tak-^n up for enquiry. two witnesses on the side of the Petitioner Union and one witness on the side of the Respondent were examined. Eight documents on the side of the I Party/Union hâve been marked as Ex. Wl to W8 and on ihe side of the RespondentîManapoment Severt document^ were marked as Ex. Ml to M7. The report of the docu- ment expert has been marked a* Fx. CI. Court Exhi- bit. The représentative of the I Partv/Union and the learned counsel for the TI Party/Managemeit hive advanced their arguments.

6. The Point for my considération is —

3. The Respondent ha?, filed a Counter Stàîeiftéftt. The averments in Ihe Counter Statement are briefïy as follows :-— The Respondent has regîstered itseïf aK a stevedoïiog nr;ent. When a shïp berths in the har- bour for the discharge of cargo, the shipping agents are reqnired to unload the cargo from the board of the shio and pis™ *hem on the quay, The woA of smloading the cargo from 1he shtp to the quay is called stevedoring work. The sMôping agents used *o appoint stevedoring aigeni s f >r carrving out the stevedoring work. Thç stevcdo'ing agents wiH hâve to indent labour or" the Dock Labour Board. The ""hippinîr agents \vill hâve to provide "ecessary eqûîp- ments like wire ropes, slings to hein the slevedoring labour in nnloading the carro. Tt is only the steve- doring labour provided by the Dock Labour Board, who will be permitted to enter the ship for lashing and imlashing of the cargo. Th? wirei ropes and slina¹⁵ will be kept in the dock oflce of the Respondent. Gearmen will hâve to collect tbe wire topes and the sh'np" from the dock office and place them near the vessel on the auay. When once the unloading of the cargo is completed. the eearmen will hâve to reraove the equipments to the dock office of the Respondent The workmen concerned in the référence were ail engager! only for doîng the work ^.f Gearmen. The Respondent used to act as a àtevedoring as^nt for Shiopins Corporation of Inrlia for the d;scharse of their carco ;n fhe Madras Harbour. Th", contract used to be for a leriod of fwo years. The Shiooina Corpo- ration of India used to annoint a number of stevedoring agents and th'ev will aSlot shins to be attended bv varions stevedorins agents, jncluding the Respondent. On 6-10-96, fhe Shîno'ng Comoration of India ap- Txi'titfd fhp Resporident ar, a s'evedorirx? contractor for a r?eriod of two vears from 6-0-96. However during the two years period i.e. from 6-9-96 to 5-9-98, the

"Whetber the II PaTtv/Management of Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. (P) Ltd., Chennai 2515 has terminated the services of the concemed 16 workmen listed in Annexure 'A' 10 îhe Schedule

Point :—li is nol disputed that the concerned 16 workrnen were engaged by the Respondent|Manage- ment Alankar Shippmg and Trading Co. (Pj Ltd., Chennai, for doing the work of gearmen i.e. for placing wire ropes and slings near the snip and removing vhem after discharge of the Cargo. lt is admitted that the Respondent as a stevedoring agent when a| ship berths in tne liarbour for discharge oi the cargo, the shippmg agents are required to unload the cargo from the board of the ship and place them on the quay, that wire ropes and siings will be kept in the dock office of the Respondent. Gearmen v ill hâve to collect the wire ropes and the slings from Oie dock office and place them near the vessel on the quay and that when once the unloading of the cargo is complcted, ihe gearmen will hâve to remove the equipmen's to the dock office of the Respondent. lt is also admitted that each ôf the 16 workmen was paid Rs. 750 for their work as gearmen. lt is the contention of the Fetirioner Union iu the Claim Statement that the concerned work- men were denied the statutory minimum wages and statutory benefits like provident fund and ESI facili- ties. So, the Petitioner Union submitted ai charter of demands to the Respondent on 19-11-98 and as soon as the Respondent received the said charter of demands, the 16 workers were terminated from the service by the Respondent with immédiate efifecî without any notice or enquiry. But the Respondent in their counter has denied the same and has alleged tha,t the Shipping Corporation of India appointée the Res- pondent as a stevedoring contractor for a period of two years from 6-9-96 and afeer 5-9-97, the Shippmg Corporation of India; did not allot any stevedoring work to the Respondent and after September, 1997, the concerned workmen were practically rernaining idie and they were paid wages and that after September, 1998, the Shipping Corporation of India did not renew the contract nor wats any new contract given to the Respondent. At this junefure, when once it became clear that Shipping Corporation of India had not renewed the contract of the Respondent, the concerned workmen thought that if they raise an industrial dispute and allège terminai] on of employ- ment, it would provide them an opportunity to demand a fabulous amount by way of compensation and iî was in that fond hope, the concerned workmen stopped reporting for duty and submitted a charter of demands alleging termination of employment. The Respondent had not terminated the services of those 16 workmen. So, it is to be decided whether there was a factuaJ termination of the concerned 16 workmen from ser- vice by the Respondent [Management on 19-11-1998 as alleged by the Petitioner Union.

ot Référence oi this dispute and his évidence v.ill bi the évidence for other v\uïJ£mcn inentioned in this dis- pute, irie nus s:ated m lus proot ot aindavic in para No. 4 tiiat when the iJetitionei Union submiiiecl a charter ot demands to tne Hesponaent on 19-11-98,, the Kesporuienc termmatva tiie services of ail the 16 workmen as alleged in the Claun Statement filed by the iJetitioner Union. In para 7 of his airidavii., he has stated that u is the Respondent, who ref'used lo employ them irorn 19-11-98. He has also deposed so as WW1 in the cross examination. It is in évi- dence that the Respondent is maintainmg a Dock Regsi- ter and il is Ex. Ml. When WW1 was questioned in the cross examination with regard to the entries in that register Ex. Mi he admits that ihe eniries m page lt>0 relates to the date 19-11-1998, while lie has admitted in évidence aboui the entries wr:h regard to sériai numbers 9, ÏO, 5, 16, là, 8 and à about those workmen présent or absent ior the work. He has deposed that whea ihey used to go to the work spot, their présence will be marked in Ex Mi later during sonie occasion, h a his admission that on 12-11-98, he came for work and he had been marked présent at page 101 of Ex. Ml. But he had not put his signature on that day. It is his ïurther évidence that on coming and seeiug him work in îim work spot the Manager marked him présent in the Ex. Ml register on that day. He further deposed that at about 4.00 p.m. on 19-11-98 M.D. Mr. Ramesh told them that they hâve no work and under si. No. 11 Sri J. Ethirajan nad signed on 19-11-98 ior liaving come for work and ne worked in the first shift on that day. It is his further admission that on that day si. No. 15 Mr. Selvam si. No. 2A Mr. Mohan and himself hâve marked présent m the 2nd shift and Ihey were there for the 2nd shitt on that day from 2.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. It is his further évidence that si. No. 14 Sri A Ganesan, si. No. 6 R. Mani, si. No.7 Sri D. Ramesh hâve been marked présent for the 3rd shift on 19-11-98 as it is mentioned in Ex. Ml register. It is his further admission that ou page 117 of Ex. Ml entries hâve besen made for 20-11-98 and ail the names of 16 workmen hâve been mentioned there and that out of those 16 ten people havs been marked as présent whil Mr. Nandagopal has put his signature. It is also his admission that till 27-11-98 ail the names of thèse 16 workmen hâve been mentioned in the register Ex. Ml. When his attention was brought to his notice about the signatures a,vailable there as P. Hari from page 120 and 122 for the dates 23-11-98 and 25-11-98 respectively, aftsr perusing them, he deposed that those are not his signatures. Those dis- puted signatures hâve been marked as Ex. M2 and M3. Since he has disputed bis signature, (he learned counsel for the Respondent| Management requested the Tribunal to defer the cross examination at this stage- ta enable him to refer the aidmitted signature of thte witness wilh that of the disputed signatures marked as Ex. M2 and M3 for sending them for Expert opinion. The witness was asked to put his signature in a white paper and the same has been marked as Ex. M4 i.e. his admiîted signature. As per the request made by the counsel for the Respondent/Manageme/if that the disputed signatures availafcle in Ex. Ml along with the admitted signature M4 may be sent to hand- writing expert for his examination and report. Accoi- dingly, the Hatîdwriting Expert examined thefse signa- tures and submitted his report. It is marked as Ex. Cl. In that report, the Handwriting Expert has 7. One of the 16 workmen Sri Hari has been exa- mined as WW1. He has filed a proof of affidavit and the same has been requested to be treated as his Chief Examination and he was cross examined by ibe learned counsel for the Respondent|Management. WW1 Sri Hari hajs given his évidence stating that he is giving a common évidence and it is applicable to ail the concerned 16 workmen menîioued in the Schedule2510 i HE GAZET1E Uir LND1-V : MAKCH 9, 2002/ F H AU HA iX 1923 LF'AKI I I —SI C f - u j: Gandeepan, ihiagarajan, and Sudliir who were ie- mamed absent couid not hâve been terminated from service on 19-11-98, since they hâve not come for work on that day. When they were not présent for work on 19-11-98, how they could hâve been termi- nated trom service on that day by ihe Respondent| Management. So, on the face of the admissions made by the WW1 in his évidence, it cannot be said that thèse 16 workmen hâve been terminated from service by the Respondent|Management on 19-11-98. Under such circumstanees, on the basis of the available oral and doeumentary évidence, it can be clearly held that the contention of the Petitioner Union that thèse 16 workmen were terminated from service by the Res- pondent|Management on 19-11-98 is incorrect. On the other hand, it is seen from the records that some of thèse workmen were continued to come for work even subséquent to l;9-l 1-98 as it is seen from the entries available in Ex. Ml register. Nothing worth consi- dering has been elicited in ihe ctoss examination of MWl by the learned représentative for the I Paity| Union in support of the stand taken by the I Fartyj Union about the alleged termination of thèse 16 work- men. The représentative for iho I PartyjUnion has stiîted in his wjjitten argument that the concerned wdrkmen hâve not been given an opportunity lo explain the reasons for their absence in cases of alleeed abandonnant and he relted upon ai décision of Calcutta High Court reported as 2000 2 LLN 1051. The Petitioner Union is not accepting the contennon of the Respondent [Management that it is the case ot abandonnant of the concerned workmen and not the termination of their service by the Respondent| Management. Hence, the said authority cited by the représentative of the I Party] Union is not applicable to this case. No doeumentary évidence has been filed into Court to show that 16 v oikm'en were permanent employées of the RespondentlManagement in support of one such contention raised by the I Party/Union in the Claim Statement. It is îhe definite case of the Petitioner Union that 16 workmen were terminated from service. As it is held e3rlier, there was no question of termination of service of thèse 16 work- men, when the Petitioner Union has failed to prove the same with acceptable évidence. It cannot be said under the facts and circumstanees of the case that it is a vicFimisation of the Respondent/Manage- ment against thèse 16 workmen, since they hâve placed a charter of demands. From the évidence of WW1 in the cross examination, it is seen that the concerned 16 workmen hâve decided to raise this industrial dis- pute through the Union only with a view to get in- creased wages and they are not willing to go back for work for Consolidated wages of Rs. 750 per mensum. Under such circumstanees, it 'cannot be said that the RespondentlManagement has terminated the services of thèse 16 workmen.

8. The learned counsel for the RespondentjManage- ment has advanced an argument relying upon a iudeement of the Suprême Court reported as 1990 I LLJ 344 stating when the cas? of termination of emrjloyment has not been made out a direction for re- instatement with full back wages cannot be given.

given his opinion ihat "the yei'aon who urotc the red enciosed signatures siamped and marked S i u> S 34 aiso wrote the red enclosed signatures snnilariy stamped and marked D 1 a.nd D 2.' £x. M 1 registei contains the cnmes from 1-8-^8 to 31-12-98. In this register, the signatures put by trie witness Sri P Han m vanous pages hâve been marked by the Hand- writing Expert aiong with the adinuted signatures sent separateiy wnh that of the dispuied signatures which has been marked as Dl and D2 and given Ex. Nos. M2 and M3. He gave his reasons ior ois conclusions in the reasoning sheet oi his report Ex. C l. l-'rom this report of the Handwriting Expert, it is seen that WW1 had attended work on 23-11-]99b for which he subsenbed his signature Ex. M2 in Ex. Ml register and he has also attended work on 25-.U-9S and subsenbed his signature Ex. M3 m the Rogisiei Ex. M l. This expert opinion given in Ex. Cl hus not been disputed by the 1 Party|Umon. On the basis of the report Ex. Cl given by the Handwriiinj;, Expert, it is seen that WW1 Sri P. Hari has deposed~falsely that Ex. M2 and M3 available in Ex. Ml redster for the days 23-11-98 and 25-11-98 rcspecuvely tliat they are not his signatures. He has deposed so, since it is contrary to his earlier évidence and plea of the Peti- tioner Union that the 16 workraen including himself were terminated from service by the Respondent( Management on 19-11-1998. Further he has ad- mitted in the cross exarnination ihat since they wanted to hâve môre wages than die Consolidated sum of Rs. 750 they received per monih, they hâve joined the union and they are not willing to go baek to work for that Rs. 750 per mensum as wages and they haive filed this industrial dispute only with a vievv to get increased wages. It is the évidence of the General Secretary of that I PartyjUnion as WW2 that the concemed 16 workmen were not allowed by the Respondent/Management to work subséquent to 19-11-98 and the reason for denying employment to îhose 1 fi workmen is a demand made by the Patitioner Union for increasing their wages. This is quite incon- sistent to the admission made by the WW 1 in the cross examination that they are not willing to go back to work for that Rs. 750 per mensum as wages. It is the admission of WW2 in the cross examinution that on 15-6-1998 itself. they conducted a General Body Meeting of the Union in respect of ihesc 16 workmen even before they become members of their Union. It is his évidence in Chief that Ex. W6 is the xerox copy of the charter of demands dated 19-11-98, the Peti- tioner Union gave to the Respondent|Management. He would further say in his évidence that he came to know about the termination of iho services of thèse 16 workmen only when they carne and informed him and he would funher say that he knows personally that thèse 16 workmen were not employée by the RespondentjManagement subséquent to 19-11-98. This évidence of WW2 is quite comracy to the eniries avai!- able in Ex. Ml register, whenîin sienatures of thèse workmen are found for their attenduig work subsé- quent to 19-11-98. But he de¹¹ ed the suggestion that some workmen out of thèse 16 workmen were conti- nued to work under the Respondent/Management for some time after 19-11-98. If ieally, ail thèse 16 workmen hâve been termina;ed from service by the RespondentiManagement on 19-11-98 a-; deposed bv WW1 and WW2 and pleoded by the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statcment, tlie workmen out of ihe 16 woïkmcn namely SISri K. Ganesan, Scthuraman.

9. After considerim; ail thèse aspects, it can be held that there was no action of the management of Alankar Shippin" and Trading Co.

10. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the concerned 16 workmen arc not entitled for any relief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the S'tenograplier, irajiscribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced .by me in ihe open court on this day the 28ih December, 2001.) K. KARTHIKEYAN, Fresiding Officcr Witnesses Examined:

For J Party|Claimant:

WW1—Shri P. Hari. WW2—Shri V. C. Munuswamy.

For II Party| Management :

MW lt—Shri C. Bharathaiaa.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For I Party/Claimant :

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl : 1995—1998—Xerox copy of the list of Ships in which the concerned workmen were engaged.

W2 : 1998—2000—Xerox copy of the list of Ships in which the Respondent/Management was engaged as Stevedoring Agents.

W3 : (Séries) 16. 12-]0-98—Xerox copy oi the Membership forms oi the Concerned workmen.

W4 : 15-06-98—Xerox copy of the Minutes of General Body Meeting of the Petitioner Union.

W5 : 24-10-98—Xerox, copy of the Minutes of General Body Meeting of the Petitioner Union.

W6 : 19-11-98—Xerox copy of the lettcr of Petitioner Union addres;ed to Managing Director of the Respondent raising charter of demands.

W7 : 25-11-98—Xerox copy of the Minutes of General Body Meeting of the .Petitioner Union.

W8 : 24-03-2000—Xerox copy of the Minutes of General Body Meeting of the Pelitioner Union.

For II "Party|Manageemnt :—

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml : 01-08-98 to 31-12-98—Original attendance register for the workmen Dock maintaineù in the Dock Office of the Respondent.

M2 : 23-11,-98—Signature of Sri P. Hari, put in pa^e 120 of the Original attendance résister.

2517 M3 : 25-11-98—Signature of Sri P. Hari, put in page 122 of the Original attendance register.

M4 : 02-03-2001—Spécimen signature of Sri P. Hari drawn in Open Court during cross examination.

M5 : 06-09-96—Xerox copy of the letter of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. is.swmg Stevedoring Contract to Respondent.

M6 ; 15-07-97—Original Attendance Register for staff maintained in Dock Office of the Respondent.

M7 : 23-06-99—Xerox copy of the circular issuçd by the Madras Dock Labour Board regarding non-Submission of Indent and failure of confirmation of Indents by G.P. Employers- Engaging of outsiders for work on board the vessels.

Court Exhibit:—

Cl : 15-06-2001—Original repon of the Document Expert with his Reasoning sheet and annexures.

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2002 S,O. S28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the lodustrial .Dispute-, Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cejîtr^l 'Government bereby publishes the award ([Réf. No. 2!213 ol 99) of the Central Government tedustrial Tribunal, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in reltaion to the management of Polydrill Enjïg. Pvt. LUI. and their v.orkman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-3001'2j42|99-IR(M)J B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI PRESENT :

S. N. Saimdankar.—Presiding Officer.

Référence No. CGTT-9,213 of 19992518 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] Employers in relation to the Management of The Director, M's. Polydriil Engg. Pvt. Ltd.

The Director. Mj?. Polydriil Engg. Pvt. Itd., 124. Damji Shamji Udyog Bhavan, Veera Desat Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400 053.

AND

Their Workmen.

Mr. S. Narayanan, Opp. Mukund Béer Bar, Tal. Panvel, Nhava P.O., Raigadh. APPEARANCES :

For fhc Employer : Mr. L. L, D'Souza, Repré- sentative.

For the Workmen : No Appearance.

Mumbai, dated 4îh Jar.uary, 2002

AWARD

The Government of l'idia, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-30012,42 W|IR(M), dt. 440-1999, in exercise of the powers cenferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947, hâve referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Mjî. Polydriil Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, in terminating the services of Mr. S. Narayayan, Ex-Mukadam, w.e.f. 20-5-96 is légal and jnstified ? If îlot, to what relief the work- rrian is entitled ?"

2. By the Statement of Ciaim (Exhibit-6), the workman contended that inquiry held against bim is as per the charee-sheet on the misconduct dtd. 16-12-94 to 17-12-94" is. improper and that the find- ings recorded by the inquiry officer are perverse. It is contended that due to the union activity to work- man has been dismissed and that his dismissal is illégal. Consequently workman contended to rein- state him in service and to pay back wages. Manage- ment Polydriil Engg. Pvt. Ltd., opposed the claim of workman by filing Written Statement (Exhibit-8), contending that the inquiry was fair and proper, and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not perverse. It is contended that the workman did not attend the work on Ccnveyor No. 3 deliberately while on 3rd Shift duty, en 16-12-92 and that on 17-12-94 he abandoned the work without handing ovsr the charge to the relievet Mukaddam on duty, on lst shift. It is contended that workman had habit of leaving work-place without permission, thereby exposing the plant and machinary to mis- handling and recording excessive quantity of loaded materials dishoneslly thereby causing loss to the company which charge ? hâve been proved and their being major misconduct on the part of the workman, he has been dismissed from service w.e.f. 20-5-96. Consequently action being justified workman's claim be dismissed. By the Rcjoinder (Exhibit-9) work- man rciterated the récitals in the statement of claim denying the contentions in the Written Statement.

3. Record shows thaf en the basis of the pleadings this tribunal framed issues at Exhibit-10 on 16-1-2001, and consequently the matter was fixed for fîling of documents and list' of witnesses, however, none of the parties filed the list of witnesses though sufficient time granted and consequently the matter was fixed for filing i-'ffîdavit of workman on 16-8-2001. However, though sufficient time sought, workman and his advocate remained absent nor put affidavit in support of the claim, which shows, work- man is not interested in prosecuting the référence. Thercfore, tbe following order is passed :—

ORDER

Référence stands disposcd of for non-prosecution.

Dated : 4-1-2002.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer.

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award of thi Industrial Tribunal, GUWAHATI as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betWeen the em- ployers in relation to the management of OIL INDIA LTD. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-2-2002.

[No. L-30012U9|2000-1R(M)J B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : GUWAHATI: ASSAM

Référence No. 15(C) OF 2000

PRESENT :

Shri K. Sarmar, LL.B., Presiding Officer Industrial Tribxmal, Guwahati.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The Management of the Deputy General Manager, Oil India Ltd., Guwahati-26.

-Vs-

Their workmen (a) Sh. Dindayal Rathi, Contracte*, Jalpaiguri (b) The Gen. Secy., Oil India Pipeline Mazdoor (c) Union, Nairangi.

Date of Award : 18-1-2002.

251#

AWARD

This industrial dispute bas been referred to by thc; Govt. of India, Ministry of Labouf vide crdef ND: L*3pÔ12j]9|âopo[JR(M) dat.ed 30-8-iOOO ùndër fceljtlbh it) Bf IliÔ !.D: Àfci; 1947 b âdjiidiciJitq t}îe dispiite arisirig Betweeti thé niaftdg'emerit of Oïl ïndià Lt'd. Guwahàti and their workman being represented r$ ,Gen. Sëcrêtary of OjJ India Ltd. Pipe Line Maz- dbor Union out of termiuatioti of service of Shri,Satva. Narayan Saha, a Security Guard working under con- tracter Dindayal Rathi. . The appropriate Govt. has framed the following issue for adjudication of matter of controversy between the parties :

"Whether the action of the, management of Oil India Ltd. (Pipeline Division) duwï>iiati as Well as , Sh. Dihdayai Rathi, jContractbr engaged,by them in terminatinf the services of, Sh. Satyâ Nâfayàn Sarla covercd utîdef tiripartite settlement dated 23-12-92 is justi- fied? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?".

On receipt of référence, this tfîtMial has registef'ed this casé drid issùed ribtices to both the parties cajliiig UjScn trient to. nie théii: wrïtjUsii statemefitladdi writtert s.taterhen.t ând doctiniêiit, iri support pi whidi both thé parties hâve appeared and filed ,their writteri statement |adq"l, _ written. statement. àrid .documents., SpfK management and workman haye adduced their owri oral évidence in support their pleadings arid submitted some documents. The contractor, Shri Dindayal Rathi, on other hand has submitted his written statement, but has adduced no evidnece nor contested the case after filing written statement After completion of oral évidence, the arguments advanced by the lea'rned advocates for the both the parties are heard.

After hearing argument T hâve carefully perused the entité materiais on record and found as follows.

The workman Satya Narayan Saha has been work- ing as Security Guard at pump station No. 7, Madufihat in the establishment of management Oil India Ltd. Pipeline Division, Guwahati. It is found from the materials on record that said S. N. Saha has been engaged by contractor, Dindayal Rathi and has been continuously working since 1984. As the work- man was a contractnal worker workine on wage basis not being equal with the wages psiô to the regular employée of the management doing similar nature of work with other workman, settlement was arrived at between the management, Oil India Pipeline Division, Noonmati. Guwahati and the union repre- sentine the case of contractuai worker, on the oenciliation preceding in the office of the Régional Labour Cbmmissioner, Guwahati on 23-1T-O2 for nayment of equa? wages to the contractai worker with that of regulaT workman and in nursnance to said settlement ail ccntrnctual workers including présent one bave been paid more waees than earîier. The union raising this industrial dispute on behalf of the wnrkman has filed a Vît of the contm'-tuai wor- ker in this case alonpwith the copv pf aforesaid settlement as annexure 1 which is subsequenfly 'exht- bited bv the management as ext. A ar>d name of the présent workman is figured in sériai No. 221 of thc said list. It is also admitted position of fact in the pleading of the Union that workfflftiî is a contractuel wofkef Wofking in the Pipeline Division of the OU ttvdii Lirriited àùi hé rJ8b been paid through eon" t^aetor¹ , Dindayai RatKj. U k ésê Imrià froni the matêfiaïs on hèofâ tiitft àf ihë ieietafM îîme service of the workman as riignt croj^kldar was ênintsléâ hi the residential complex of the manageffié'^ rndudîng M.W. No. 2, P. Kr. Kaur, Deputy Chief Enginê"f.' h is found •> from materials on record that on the night o| ï[2-S-9* "om# unknown miscreants had committed decoity in the /ÏMS& ûf M-W. 2 due to négligence, of the workman who vfàs #o#Hn* j" night chowkidar as he was found in sleep at me time of occurrance. This being so, M.W. 2 submit- ted. eampiaifl. to the contractor, Dindayal Rathi who b4d âccordirigly terrrtniatgd him from his service whifeh fâéi hàs beéri âdniittëd' iri para 20 of the plead- ihg of itiz jànion. Tffiè affiotl doflterlded that as the management has imtia!tëd the pfovidêift fflrîd aeeoimî of the workman and othei financiaï benefit arfd his termination through the contractor tt'ndâyal Râihi withopt holding any domestic enquiry and withotlt comp'iyin'g with provision of Sec. 2SP of the I.D. Âct is illégal arid fe nêeâs i-n be- reinstated with back fulancial benefit.

The management, on the nther hand, has conten- ded m théir wfitten statement that the workman was never. a employée of tlic ffîafiagement and was contractual worker working undef contractor Dindayal Rathi and as suclh there exists no direct relationship of employer and employée between the management and thc ^orkmen and hence thc présent dispute is non! maintainable in law. It is also contended that the workman is out and out workers of the contractor being engaged by him and paid trdrough him and subsequfently (terminated by him and as such tlhe management has no connection with the workman and there arose no necessity on their part for holding any domestic enquirv nor com- plying the provision of Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act and hence they p^ay for answering the référence in theif favour.

The contractor, Dindayal Rathi foas also submitted written statement wherein in para 6 and 7, he has admitted that he has engaged S. N. Saha as contract labour obtaining contract from Oil India" Ltd. and his wages were paid by him obtaining from the manage- ment by submitting bill to that effect. He has further admitted in his pleading that, he has disenttaged him from his service as he has failed to dischar

In course of argument learned advocate for the management has made his submission in the light of the contention raised in the pleadinc His main con- tention is that the workman is a contract lafoow havine been engaçed by contractor Dindayal Rarthi and as such there is no direct relationship between employer and employée with the management and hence no industrial dispute can be raised by the workman against the management. He has relied his submission thé ext. 'A' conv of settlement bet- ween union and the management and thc Hst of contract labour submittert tberewith wh^re mme of the workman is fîffured in SI. No, 221 of thJ listIS.'.O THE GAZLTTE OF LNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 | F \ RT II—SEC 3 Thèse documents hâve clcarly established that the workman is a contract labour and there is no direct relation&lhip betwcn employer and employée. He has further relied his submission on 1998(2) GLT.P.67. "I he point o[ iaw decided by our ow" High Court is as follows :

"(A) Industriel Disputes Act, (947 (14 of 1947) S. 10(1) (d)-Reference-Validity of- Lsbou- rers employcd by the Contracter in the bottling plant of ÎOC seeking régularisation of their services with the IOC-No reiation- ship of employer and employées between IOC and contract laourers".

"From the référence order as reproduced above, it would appear that the purpose of réfé- rence was to ascertain from the tribunal whether the action of the Oil Corporation in not regularising the services of 17 con- tractual workers is justified. The terms of référence itself shows that relationship of employer and employées does not exist between the Indian Oil Corporation and the contractual labourers. The materials placed on record also show that the cause of the contractual labourers has been es- poused by Minerai Workers Union, Digboî and not by the direct employées of the principal employer. As such, in the ab- sence of a relationship of employers and employées, dispute cannot be brought with- in the fold of définition , of "Induytriol Dispute" as defînedl in Sec!. 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act." |

The principle of Iaw enunciated j by our own. High Court in aforesaid case Iaw has estabh'shed that without direct relationship betweenj employer and employée, no dispute can be raised by employée against an employer. Moreover in thp written state- ment filed by the contractor, he nias categorically admitted' lhat workman has been engaged by him after obtainjng contract from the management and he was dismissed when he was found in négligence of his duty. The union also raising thiis industrial dis- pute on behalf of the workman has also admitted in their pleading tlhat the workman has! been dismissed by the contractor at the advice of the management. If ail thèse materials are taken into ! considération it has become an established position lof fact that the workman is a contract labour engaged by the con- tractor and not by the management !and there exists no direct relaiionship between employer and em- ployée.

The learned axhocate for the vt-'orkman, on the other hand rebutted the aforesaid submission of the management by submitting I that althouph the workman was contract J labour initially but subsequently he become the direct employée of the management by conduct of the (management. By 'conduct' he wants to mean that neither management nor workman has submitted any licence for engagnig and supplying contract labour as require under cec- tion 7 and 12 of the contract labour (Régulation & Abolition Act) 1970. It is true that neither manage- ment nor contractor lias submitted any licence under the aforesaid provision of Iaw emjbow'ering them to supply the contract labour, but when fact has been admitted b> the contractor and also been established by the document ext.' "A" submitted by the i.nion raising the industrial dispute, there is no necessity of ju'oving the fact by produciny licence. It is truc thft without licence nobody can supply or engage con- tract labour and without licence any such contract between the parties is nothing but camoflaugei in order to adopt the unfair labour practice to explain the labour. But as mentioned above, when the fact is admitted by the union ra'is the dispute by producing documents ext. 'A' and also in para 5 of written statement, hâve no hazitation to hold that the workman was engaged by the contractor and not direct employée of management.

Apart from that the learned advocate for the work- man has submitted a lengthy written arguments indi- cating some points of law and fact, but in vtew of aforesaid position of law and admitted fact as stated above, I do not see any reason for discussing thèse points nor it helps the wbrkman's case in any manner.

In view of my aforesaid discussion on materials on record and, the point of law involved therein, management can not bc held respomible for terminat- ing the service of the workman.

But so far as the contracteras liability concerned he can not get rid of liabilities in terminating the service of the workman without giving him propei compensation and without complying with provision of law as laid down in Sec. 25 F of the I..D. Act. The union in the written statement has admitted lhat the workman has been discharged by the contractor from his service at the advice of the management. But so far as the incident leading to termination of service is concerned the management will definatelv direct the contractor to remove him from duty duc to his négligence of duty on the night when decoiry took place in the house of the M.W.2. The manage ment has grven the facility of the provident fund etc. to the workman even though contract labour and under such circumstances he must discharge his duty properly without any négligence on his part or with- out causing any harm to the management. Frorn the évidence on record, it appears that workman has been given ail facilities to take shelter in the secu- rity set in the night duty on the gâte of the residen tial complex of the management officers. But he, instead of, doing, > his duty properly was in utter négligence to its. But whatever may be the cause of removal, the contract under whom workman was doing more than 240 days of work in a year should not remove him without complying with necessity provision of law as indicated above. As the concern contrartor has removed the workman from duty without complying necessary provision of law and hence order of termination is apparentlv illégal and hc needs to be reinstated immediately.

In view of my aforesaid discussion. I hereby ans- wer the référence in favour of management, but against the contractor. The contractor i> directed to re-engage the workman within 3 mpnths from the date of this award in any post where he is found suitable considering his âge. capacity to work etc. With this direction this référence is disposed finally. Prépare an award.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 427/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emp- loyers in relation to the management of Dalmia Magnesite Corpn. and their workman, which was re- reived by the Central Government on 14-2-2002.

[No. L-29012/2/97-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ÎNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 31st December. 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

Industrial Dispute No. 427/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D No. 31/97)

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

BETWEEN

Sri P. Thangaraj. .. I Party/Workman.

AND

The Whole-time Director, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem.

. . II Party/Managemcnt..

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M/s. A. Stephen, K. Gandhi- kamar and N. Pondy Parthasarathy, Advocates.

604 GI/2002—7

2521 For the Management : M/s. M. R. Raghavan and K. Vasu Venkat, Advocates.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exer- cise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred "he concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-29012/2/97-IR(Misc.) dated 14-5-1997.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 31797. When the matter was pend- ing enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India Ministry of Labour was pleascd to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adju- dication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 427/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear be- fore this Tribunal on 26-2-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hear- ing on 28-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim State- ment, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral évidence let in on the side of the I Party/Workman, and documentary évidence let in on either side, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s. Dalmia Magnesite Corporaiton Ltd. Salem, in terminating the services of Shri P. Thanga- raj, Watchs^n, T. No. 395 w.e.f. 1-1-94 is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the claim statement of the I Party/Workman Sri P. Thangaraj are briefly as follows :—

The I Party/Workman (hereinafter refers to as Peti- tioner) was employed in the II Party/Management, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) as a watchman. While emp- loyed as such, he was attending his duties on 16-10-93 between 3.00 pm and 11.00 pm in the New Colony Main Gâte. Since he was unwell on that day, he went to General Hospital for treatment. In spite of his ill-health, he attended the work, since there was nobody to replace him on that day. He was not ablc to stand properly. But some how, he was performing his duties. At about 8.00 pm the Duty Sergeant Sri A. Vijayaraghavan came to the gâte in a jeep. He opened the gâte and his vehicle. came in time. He was standing there severe with fever and the Duty Sergeant asked him why he was not able to stand properly. He told him that he was suffering from fever. The:'5:\! THE GAZETTE OF INPI.\ : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PAIH; II—SE.C. 30M] Duty Sergcamt askcd him why hc hud noi taken leave and go home ? He replied that il' he tâkes leave it will be on loss of pay. Then the Du.y Sergeant asked hiin to sign a blank paper, whcn hc akibd him to what it conîained, thc Duty Sergeant ijiformcd him that it is only leave letter. He also Lold Ijhc Petitioiier that when he was not abîc to do his duties properly, since he was sick. he should go on leave. ÛBut the peti- tioner refused to sign the letter. The Djuty Sergeant left the place and it is not true that the Duty Sergeant -,asked him to accompany him to the Government Hospital as he wanted the Petittoner to be medically checked up. It is also not true that the Petitioner ran away from that place. The Petitioner jwas standing there at his duty place right through till 11.00 pm till his duties are over. On 18th October, \hc petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 18-10-93 asking him to submit his explanations to the alleged charges. He subtnitted his explanation denying ail the allégations contained-in the charge sheet. As usual.jtbe Respon- dent/Management ordered an enquiry. Thc enquiry was not fair and proper. It was conducted against ail the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner was not given documents relied on by the 'Management well in advance. The stafement of witnesses were not given to him before starting of the enquiry. The docu- ments on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Committee was not given to the Petitionçr before thc charge sheet or before the enquiry startéd. The Peti- tioner was not given fair opportunity to jlead his évi- dence and prove his innocence. He was not medically examined for drunkenness. If he had not accom- pmied them ro the Governnienl Hospital, the company Médical Officer shouîd hâve examined him. Since they could not produce any évidence for drunkenness, the plea of the petitioner refusing to go to the hospital was taken upto dismiss the Pefitioner from service, It is nol true that the time keeper was présent at the time of incident. Byci'iiig tbree earlier charges m the charge sheet, the Respondents hâve prejudiced the enquiry committee. The enquiry was conducted by the personnel officer. Personnel Manager was supposed to hâve given a complaint to the Deputy Chargent to initiate action against the Petitioner. The Personnel Ofricer is the subordinate authority to \hn Personnel Manager. As per principles of law, the subordinate officer should not conduct the enquiry into the mis- conduct, when the complainant is a higher grade officer. On this point, the enquiry is vitiated. The charges against the Petitioner are not proved conclu- sively. The dismissal order passed against the Peti- tioner is against ail principles of natural justice and it has to be set aside. Hence, it îs prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order passed against the Petitioner and direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with con- tinuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

3. The II Party/Management, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation, Salem has filed a Counter Statement. Ihe averments of the II Party/Management (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) in their counter statement are briefly as follows :—•

drunken state, while he was on duty on 16-10-93 and he was not able to stand properly. At about 6.35 pm during the duty hours he was brought by duty sergeant from the New Colony gâte to the factory time office and he was found to be in a drunken state by another watchman and the clerk in the time office. Since it was not the first time, that the Petitioner was found to be under the influence of liquor. a charge sheet dated 18-10-93 was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for the said miscon-" duct. The explanation offered by the Petitioner was not satisfactory. So a domestic enquiry was conducted by the Personnel Officer to probe into the charges levelled against the Petitioner. In the domestic enquiry, the Petitioner was assisted by a fitter by name Sri S. Lourdhusamy. Five witnesses were examined in the domestic enquiry and the Petitioner was afïorded op- portunity to cross examine the witnesses. The enquiry was conducted in strict adhérence of natural justice. On the basis of various materials placed before the Enquiry Officer, he subimitted a report on 18-12-93 holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and that the Petitioner has committed a misconduct as enumerated under the certified standing orders. The Management arrived at a conclusion that the Enquiry Officer's findings were just and proper and by accepting his findings, the Management issued a show cause notice dated 21-12-93 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service of the Respondent. In the second show cause notice, the Management has taken into considération the detials of past record of the petitioner which hâve form part of the enquiry pro- ceedings. The Petitioner submitted a reply dated 24th December, 1993. After perusing his reply, and after taking into considération, the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner and the past record of the Petitioner, the Respondent dismissed the Petitioner from services on Ist January, 1994. Subséquent to that the Petitioner raised a dispute before the conciliation officer which ulti- mately failed. On the basis of the failure report, the Government has referred this dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The misconduct committed by the Petitioner was not only grave but also offensive. The past record of the Petitioner has also bad. Taking into considération the totality of the facts. the order of dis- missal passed against the petitioner is just and proper and there has been no extenuating circumstances war- ranting imposition of lesser punishment. The alléga- tion that the Petitioner was not well and was suffering from fever is false. It is also false to state that the Duty Sergeant asked the Petitioner to sian a blank paper. The Duty Sergeant wanted the Petitioner to take the Government Hospital since the company Doc- tor was not available. The Petitioner only refused to accompany the Duty Sergeant on the fear that they will obtain necessary médical évidence to demonstrate that the Petitioner was under the influence of liquor. The Petitioner and his représentative perused ail the documents relied on by the Respondent durina the enquiry. Therefore, no violation causing préjudice to the Petitioner has occurred in the enquiry. No one pre- vented the Petitioner to examine his own witness. The Petitioner did not offer himself for médical examina- tion, though he was asked to do. If the Tribunal arrives The Petitioner who was employed as a watchman in

the Respondent organisation was found to be in a 2523 at a conclusion that the enquriy is not fair and proper, the Respondent may be permitted to prove the charges levelled against the Petitioner. The punishment of dismissal is also just and proper and does lot warrant interférence under Section 11A of the I.D. Act. Hence, this Tribunal may be pleased to Jismiss Jhe claim of the Petitioner.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the Petitioner himself has examined as WW1, the only wit- ness for the Petitioner. Exs. Wl to W5 and Ex. Ml the enquiry proceedings and the reports of the Enquiry Officer hâve been filed. The learned counsel for the II Party represented that the II Party/Management has no oral évidence to let in. The arguments ad- vanced by the learned counsel on either side was heard.

5. The Point for my considération is—

"Whether the action' of the Management of M/s. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Ltd., Salem, in terminating the services oi Shri P. Thanga- raj, Watchman T. No. 395 w.ei. 1-1-94 is justified ? " If ndt, to whàt relief lie is entitled ?"

Point :—

It is also his admission that for ail the day's proceed- ings of the enquiry, himself and his defence représen- tative Mr. Lourdhusamy hâve signed ail the pages, wherein the enquiry proceedings nave been recorded and ail the management witnesses hâve been cross examined by .bis représentative. After he was examined as a defence witness, and me Enquiry Officer told him to produce his witness in the enquiry, he informed him that he had no more wkness. It is also his admission in the cross examination that in the enquiry, a question was put to him stating that the Sergeant has asked him to accornpany the Hospital and he repiied that he refused to go with him and left the place without anybody's permission. After informing him so, he left for home and that he had admitted the misconducts in the Ex. M12 filed in the enquiry as his previous misconducts. It is also his admission that ne gave his reply for the 2nd show cause notice he had not stated that the enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. Ex. Ml clearly shows that in the enquiry the Petitioner, charge sheeted employée was given fair and proper opportunity to put forih his defence elïectively and he had taken part in the satire enquiry along with his defence représentative and had availed the opportunity of cross examining the Man- agement witnesses by cross examining them in détail through defence représentative. Under such circums- tances, it cannot be saici that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner and prin- ciples of natural justice were violated. From Ex. Ml enquiry proceedings, it is seen Mr. Vijayaraghavan has given a written comp] tint about the misbehaviour and misconduct of the P",iitioner, when he was on watch- man duty during cight on 16-10-93. That Vijaya- raghavan was the Duty Sergeant in the Security De- partment. That complaint has been marked as M3 in the domestic enquiry. Ex. W2 is the xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to the Petitioner for the misconduct of the Petitioner on 16-10-93. In that charge sheet, his past recerd of misconduct of beliav- ing under the influence of alcohol iu an objectionable manner has been mentioned and the punishment awarded for the same was also mentioned. Ail thèse things are not disputed by the Petitioner. For this charge sheet, the Petitioner has submitted his written explanation which is marked as Ex. M2 in the enquiry. This explanation was received by the II Party/Man- agement for Ex. W2 charge sheet on 25-10-93. From the perusal of the enquiry proceedings in Ex. Ml it is seen that ail the managerial witnesses deposed before the Enquiry Officer and they were cross examined by the defence représentatives in détail, nothing has been mentioned earlier with regard to the conduct of the domestic enquiry as it was unfair and improper. Only in the Claim Statement para 4, it is alleged by the Fetitioner that the enquiry was not fair and proper and the principles of natural justice were not followed. From the enquiry proceedings, it is seen that the hst of witnesses, list of documents, copies of documents were placed for the perusal of the Petitioner and the defence représentative. In his explanation Ex. M2, marked in the domestic enquiry, the Petitioner has not stated that he was prejudiced for non-furnishing of witness list and the -documents repiied upon by the-Management. He had also not asked for the same. When he was informed at the inceptîon of the enquiry about the procédure to be adoptée! in the enquiry, hs It is .admitted that the I Party/Workman Sri P. Thangaraj was engaged as a Watchman in the Respon- dent Organisation and was attending his shift duty fas Watchman on 16-10i93 between 3.00 pm and 11.00 pm in the New Colony Main Gâte and that at about 8.00 pm the Duty Sergeant Sri A. Vijayaragha- van came to the gâte in a jeep and the Petitioner open- ed the gâte for the vehicle to corne inside. As WW1 the Petitioner has deposed that on that day at abou! 7.30 pm when he was on duty, as Watchman at the ïnain gâte of Executive Quarters of new colony, Per- sonnel Manager with his wife came in a car and he opened the gâte for the vehicle to come inside. Ten or fifteen minutes later, a security from Time Office came and informed him that he had bcen ealled in the Time Office. He went to the time office in the jeep in which the security came and when he met the Timekeeper Mr. Krishnan there in the time office, he was informed that the Personnel Manager had com- plained against him that he was holding the gâte in an intoxicating mood, when he entered the compound in his car and the time keeper had asked him to go home as he has no duty on that day. Then he went lo meet the Secretary of the Union Mr. Lourdhusamy and informed him about the incident. The Secretary in- formed him to go home after informing the Time Office. Accordingly, he went to the Time Otfice and informed the Timekeeper that he had not consumed alcohol and went home. On the next morning, when he went and met the Personnel Manager, he asked him to put his signature in a white paper, which he refused to sign and went away. This évidence is quite contrary to what he has pleaded in the Claim State- ment. In the Claim Statement, he has stated that the Duty Sergeant asked him to sign in a blank paper stating that it is a leave letter, but he refused to sign that letter. In the cross examination, he has stated that if anything stated contra to his évidence.in-his daim statement it niust be a false one and- Ex. W5 O.P. chit does not contain the nature of his ailment.

2524 THE GAZETTE OF INDLA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUÎNA 18 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

has not demand even at that tirne about the list of wit- nesses and copies of documents relied upon by the Management. But he lias given consent for the enquiry to be proceedsd with. In hïs reply to the second show cause notice under Ex. W4 aîso he has not stated so. Hence, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was very much piejudiced l'or non-furnishing of iist of witncsses and copies of documents. In that Ex. W4 also, it is not the contention of the Petitioner that the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper man- ner. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings cleariy shows that ail the management witnesses were cross cxatnined in respect of the documents relied upon by the Management.

6. Ex. YV5 is the O. P. Chit reiied upon by the Peti- tioner for his averment that he was not wcll on 16th October, 1993. Tn the évidence, he has admitted that the name of the Doctor or Doctor's seal and Ihe diag- nosis of ill-health and the ailment for which he was treated as out patient are not mentioned in Ex. W5. The credibility of that document is not established beforo this Tribunal. A perusal of the Enquiry Oinccr's report under E\. Ml cleariy shows that after considering the oral and documentary évidence placed before him, he has giver. the findings by stat- ing ail the witnesscj cogentiy sîated befoie him about the status of the Petiiioner at the tirne of incident, alieged in the charge shect. Hence, it cannot be said that the nndings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. On the other hand, it is supported by materials placed before him in the doraestic enquiry. From ail thèse things, it can be concluded that the action of the Management of Mis. Daîmia Magnesite Corporation Ltd. Salem in terminatin" the services of Sri P. Thangaraj, Wi/tcftinan w.e.f. 1-1-1994 is justified. Thus. the point is an.wered accordmgly.

In the resuh, un uward is passed holding that the action of the Management of M]s, Dalmia Magnesite Corporation Ltd., Salem, in terminating the services of Shri P. Thangaraj, Wutchman w.e.f. 1-1-94 is justined. Hence, the concernée? workman is not en- titlcd for any Kiief. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Sienographer, transcribed and lypcd by h m and coireded and pronounced by me in the open court on îhis dav the 31st December, 2001.)

W3 5-J 1-93—^Xerox copy of the payment slip issued to Petitioner by the Respondent/ Management.

W4 21-12-93—Xerox copy of the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner by Respon- dent Management.

W5 16 10-93—Xerox copy of the O. P. chit.

For the II PartyiManagemem :

Ml Nil—Xero copies of the enquiry report, enquiry Proceedings and its exhibits.

New Delhi, the 15th February, 200?

• t u ai

uy me Central Government on ] 4-2-2002

. ^ -i, -2, ^3, 24, 25, 26, 28|94-IR(M)]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEPORE ™E T v S ^T R™— AT

K KARTHfKF.YAN, Presiding Offiesr Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/Workman.—WW1 Shri P. Thangaraj.

For the II PartyiMauagement.—None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For the I Party/Workman :

Ex. No. Date Description Wî J 3-12-80—Xenv: copy of the appointaient order issued to the Petitioner by Respon- dent ! Managem cit.

W2 18-10-93—Xerox copy of the charge sheèt- ed issued to the Petitioner.

PRESENT :

Sti ATtibuZiathU' M A' LLB' l D d u s t r i al Dated, 23rd day of Sépteraber, 1995 Industrial Dispute Nos. 15 of 1994 to 32 of 1994 and 88 of 1994 Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri Masood Pasha, Ex-workman, MECL H. No. J-16-300, SC/10, Amar Automobile Opp: H. P. Petroleum Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), Distt. Adilabad. Petitioner AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancharial Auto Centre, Ballampalli Road, Mancherial-504-208, ( Distt. AdiJ abad ).

. . Respondcnt The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-29012/7/94-IR(Misc.) dated 4-4-94 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Alilabad in retrenching the services of Sri Masood Pasha in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Disnute No. 15 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri B. Kumar Swamy, Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Indnstrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), Distt. Adilabad

.Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznagar Project) C/o Mancharial Auto Centre, BallampaJli Road, Mancherial-504208.

. .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012/2/94-IR(Misc), dated 4th April. 1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District, Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri B. Kumar Swamy, in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman js entitled ?"

This référence has bcen registered as Industrial Dispute No. 16 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 17 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri K. Srinivasa, Ex-workrnan, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpar Kaghaznagar (PO)- District Adilabad.

2525 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012/8/94-IR(Misc), dated 4th April, 1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri K. Srinivas. Ex-workman, inviolation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified ?"

If not, to what relief the workman is en- titled ?"'

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 17 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 18 of 1994

BETWEEiN

Sri V. Sreeiamulu, Ex-workman, MECL., H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), District Adilabad.

..Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL., (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208, (District Adilabad).

. .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-290l2i9;94-lR(Misc.), dated 4th April, 1994 made this référence for adjudication of tire dispute anneXed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri V. Sriramulu in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is eniitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial .Dispute No. 18 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 19 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri D. Sreevardhan. Ex-Workman, MECL., H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), Distt. Adilabad.

..Petitioner

AND

. , Petitioner

AND

Trie Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznagar Project) C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, BeMampalli Road, Mancherial-504208 (District Adilabad).

..Respondent The Project Manager (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Beîlampalli Road, Mancherial-504208. (District Adilabad).

. .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-29012/10/94-IR(Misc), dt; 4-4-94 made ²⁵²⁶^mEJÎAZEJTEOFJNDÏA : M A R CH ⁹" 2002APHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART H - S H C. 3(iijj 7

this référence for adjudication oï the dispute annexed in the schedule reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Adijabad in retrenching the services of Sri D. Sreevardhan, in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justifiée! ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 15 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Indusrtial Dispute No. 20 of x ?94

BETWEEN

Sri D. Vasanth Rao, Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (A.P.), District Adilabad.

..Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208,

District Adilabad.

. .Respondcnt The Government of Inu^, Ministry vi Labour by its Order No. L-29012/ll/94-IR(Misc), dt. 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri D. Vasanth Rao in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal arçl justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 20 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri B. Bandu, Ex-Workman, MECL. H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10 Amar Automobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), District Adilabad.

.Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL, i (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208, (District Adilabad).

. .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-29012/12/94-IR(Misc), dt. 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., District Adilabad *in retrenching the services of Sri P. Bandu in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 21 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 22 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri R. Shyama Rao, Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300, SC/10, Amar Automobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO), District Adilabad, Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznagar Project), C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208, (District Adilabad).

. .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012/16/94-IR(Misc), dt. 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the Schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., l^strict Adilabad in retrenching the services CÎ Sri R. Shyama Rao in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, to what îclief the workman is entitled?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 22 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 23 of 1994

BETWEEN

Sri K. Mallesh, Ex-Workman, MECL, No. 1-16-300, SC/10, Amar Automobile, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (PO'),

District Adilabad.

• .Petitioner

AND

'ihe Project Manager (Kaghaznagar Project) Cjo Mancherial Auto Centre, Ballampalli Road, Mancherial-504 208 (Distt. Adilabad). • .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012jl7j94-IR(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri K. Mallesh in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is légal and justified? If not, to what relief lie workman is entitled ?" This référence has been registered as Industrial Dis- pute No. 23 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

î:. .„;. Industrial Dispute No. 24 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri M. Po'-ham, Ex- Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300, SCjlO Amar Auto- motives, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar I'P.O.), Distt. Adilabad.

..Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- nagar Project) Cjo Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad), . .Respondent The Government of Jndia, Ministry of Labour, by ils Ordt-r No. L-290.12;)8|94-IR(Misc.), dated 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which read as fol- îows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching. the services of Sri M. Pocham in violation of Section 25-F of the 1. D., Act is légal and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

This référence has becn registered as Industrial Dispute No. 24 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 1994. BETWEEN

Sri T. Lachariah, Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300. SCI 10 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (P.O.), D.strict Adilabad.

. .Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- Nagar Project), Cjo Mancherial Auto. Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad). . .Respondent The Government of India.. Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012Î19J94-IR (Mise), dated 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads is >.* | follows :—

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri T. Lachariah in violation of section 25-F of the I. D. Act is légal and justj- fled ? If not. !o what relief the workman is entitlîd?"

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 25 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Indusfrial Dispute No. 26 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri P. Shankar, Ex-Workman, M.E.C.L., H. No. 1-16-300, SC[10 Amar Auto- mobile Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar ( P.O. ). District Adilabad.

. 2527•

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- nagar Project) Cjo Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad). ..Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012i20j94-IR(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made this refcience for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri P. Shankar in violation of Section 25-F of ths I. D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed?"

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 26 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri T. Narayana, Ex-workman, MECL., H. No. 1-16-300, SCI10 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum. Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (P.O.), District Adilabad. "

. .Petitioner

, AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- nagar Project) C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad). . .Respond"nt.

The Government of India. Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012j21!94-IR(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made this référence for adjudication of fhe dispute annexed in the schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in reUenching the services of Sri T. Narayana in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is légal and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 27 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1994.

BETWEEN

an iv. Srihari, Ex-workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300. SC[10 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (P.O.), District Adilabad. Petitioner AND

. .Petitioner

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- nagar Project) C/o Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road. Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad). ..Respondent25:8 THE GAZETTE OF INDfA : MARCH 9, 200.'.' PHALGUNA 18, 1923 LÎ-AST II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Government of îudia, Ministry of Labour, by it> Orcic- No. 1,-29012 23j944R(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made ihis référence for adjudication of the dispute annexai ;n ihe schedulc which reads as follows :

"Wnether Une action of the management of Sirpur Ku'jhaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri K. Srihari in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is légal and justified ? If not. to what relief the workman is entitl- cd?"

This référence lias bcen registered as Industriel Dispute No. 28 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industriel Dispute No. 29 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri T. Krishna. Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300. SC!10 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Peirolemn. Industrial Area, District Adilabad, Sirpur Kaghaznagar.

. .Pctitioner.

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznag.ir Projectt C'o Mancherial Au o Centie,

Bellampalli Roau",

Mancherial-504208 (Distt. Adilabad). . .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by ils Order No. L-29Û12!24!94-IR, "(Mise), dated 4-4-1994 mnde this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the scheduîe which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retienching the services of Sri T. Krishna in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is lega] and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed?"

This référence has been régittered as Industrial Dispute No 29 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1994.

BETWFEN

Sii P. Ramu. MECL., Ex-Worl;man, H. No. 1-16-300, SC 10 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (P.O.), District Adilabad.

. .Petitioncr

AND

The Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaznagar Project) Cîo Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Manchedial-504208 (Dist. Adilabad). . .Refondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by ils Order No. L-29012|25i94-IR(Misc.), dated 4-4-1994 made this relerence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the schedulc which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri P Ramu in violation of Section 25-F of the 1. D. Act is légal and justified ? If not, ïo wlvt idief the workman is entitl- ed ?"

This reference has bcen registered as Industrial Dispute No. 30 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri Biswa Deb Siricar, Cx-workman, MECL, H. N J. 1-16-300, SCI10, Amar Automobile Opp. H.F. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar !(P.O.), Distt. Adilabad. " . .Petitioner.

AND

Ihe Project Manager, MECL (Kaghaz- nagar Project) Cjo Manchonal Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Manchorial-504208 (Distt. Adil"bad). . .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by it: Order No. L-290!2!26j94-lR(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made th"s référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the Schcdule which reads as <'• )llows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri Biswa Deb Siricar, in violation of Sec- tion 25-F of the 1. D. Act is légal and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 1994 on the file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Sri P. Reddy Raju, Ex-Workman, MECL, H. No. 1-16-300. SC;l0 Amar Auto- mobile Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaznagar (P.O.), District Adilabad.

. .Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, MECL, (Kaghaznagar Project), Cjo Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Poad, Myncherial-504208(Ad''hbad). . .Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Oïder No. L-29012;28;94-lR(Misc), dated 4-4-1994 made this reference for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the chedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the i'etion of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, M.E.C.L., Dis- trict Adilabad in retrenching the services of Sri P. Reddy Raju in violation of Section 25~F of thc 1. D. Act is légal and justi- fied ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

This référence has been registered as Industrial Dispute No. 32 of 1994 on thc file of this Tribunal.

Industrial Dispute No. 88 of 1994.

BETWEEN

Syed Saleem, H. No. 1-16-300, SCjlO, Amar Automobile, Opp. H. P. Petroleum, Industrial Area, Sirpur Kaghaz- nagar (P.O.) Adilabad.

. Petitioner

AND

The Project Manager, Minerai Explo- ration Corporation, Kaghaznagai Project, Co Mancherial Auto Centre, Bellampalli Road, Mancherial, Adilabad.

. . Respondent The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L-29012|22j94-IR (Mise), dated 4-4-1:994 made this référence for adjudication of the dispute annexed in the Schedule which reads as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Sirpur Kaghaznagar Project, Minerai Ex- ploration Corporation Limited, Distt. Adila- bad, in rettenching Sri Syed Saleem in violation of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act is légal and justiiied ? If not, to what relief the v.orkman is entitled?'"

This référence has bcen registered as Industrial Dispute No. 88 of 1994 on thc file of this Tribunal.

APPEARANCES :

Sri P. B. Vijaya Kumar and others for Peti- tioner.—Workmen.

Sri M. P. Chandramouli, Advocate for the Res- pondent.

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour made thèse références under Section 10(1) (d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein- after called as the Act) for adjudication of common industrial dispute i.e. whether the action of the Res- pondent-Management in rctrenching the Petitioners- Workmen in thèse iefcrence is just and légal.

3. As per the order on Joint Mémo filed on behalf of the Petitioners and the Respondent in ail thèse références i.e., Industrial Dispute Nos. 15|94 to 32| 94 and 88|94, thèse matters are tried jointly and the évidence has been recorded in I. D. No. 28 of 1994 and the same has been trcaled as évidence in other cases and ail the cases are being disposed of by a COMMON AWARD

4. The Petitioners in ail thèse références worked ùnder the Respondent-Management. They hâve filed separate claim statements en their behalf with com- mon allégations. The material averments in the claim statements filed on behalf of the Petitioners workman are as follows ; 604 GI/2002—8

2529 The Petitioners were appointed as unskilled casua labour by the Respondent Management w.e.f. 16-1-9 and their names were sponsorea by the Employmen Exchange, Bellampalii, Adilabad District. They con tinuously worked ior a period of 2-1/2 ycars and thei: services were retrenched w.e.f. 30-6-1993 withou following the mandatory provisions prescribed undci Section 25-F of the Act. The appointment of the peti- tioners was on permanent basis. The Respondent Man agement is not a temporary establishment. It has been described as a temporary establishment by the manage ment with a view to avoid the légal obligations. Tht Respondent Management undertakes projects whicl are located in différent parts of the country. When E project work is completed, the workmen may easil) be transferred to another worksite. There are more than 100 workmen working in the Respondent Cor- poration and as such the provisions under Section 25-N of the Act are applicable. Three months notice was not issued to the workmen and permission of the appropriate Government was not obtained before effecting their retrenchment. Even if it is presumed that 25-N of the Act is not applicable, Section 25-F applies. Even then the provisions of Section 25-F ol the act are not complied with. Hence, the retrench- ment is void. The workmen had rendered continuous service of more than 240 days and as such the provi- sions of Section 25-F of the Act are applicable and termination of their services amounts to retrenchment. If there is no work in the présent Unit, the workers as well can be transferred to another unit. Hence, retrenchment is vitiated by malafides and it aiso amounts to unfair labour piactice. Each workmen was getting wages of Rs. 1500 per month on the date of retrenchment. They hâve not secured employment any where subséquent to fheir retrenchmenl inspite of their best efforts, hence the petitioners pray that they may be reinstated with back wages with continuity of ser- vice and other consequential and attendant benefits.

5.The Respondent-Corporation filed separate coun- ters in ail the matters with common grounds. The material averments in ail the counters filed bv the Respondent-Corporation are as follows : —

The Respondent, Minerai Exploration Corporation Limited is a premier public sector undertaking engaged in the exploration of minerai resources in the country. It was established in October, 1972 by the Govern- ment of India to expedite and bridge the gap between the discovery of minerai prospects and its eventual exploitation to speed up the industrial development in the country. The Corporation primarily exécutes work on behalf of the Government of India and assign- ments offered by the sister public sector undertakings of Central and State Governmcnts. The activities of the Corporation are, as such, mainly dépendant upon the work assigned to it by the client organisations. The work carried out by the Corporation is more of re- search and development type and if results are found encouraging the Government takes further steps for the exploitation of minerais. The responsibility of the Corporation ends with the submission of detailed ex- ploration report which is used by the developmental agency for the mine planning, designing and pre-invest- ment décisions. The exploration work is carried out:^50 THE GAZETTE OF tNDL\ : MARCI-1 >), 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART 11—SEC. 3(iï)J for the appointment and reported for duty. The eon- tract of employment of thèse workmen was renewed from time to time by issue of spécifie dtders and the iast of tîie employa*?*, eontract was renewed ûpte 30-6-1993- As no work was left for contingent wcVL- maa, their eontfaet of emplbymeht was not renewed beyortd 3 0-6-1 $"3. ïîence there is no retrenchment ^itfiiti the meaning of Section 2(oo). It is only termi- nation of the services of the workmen as a resuit of non-renewal of eontract of employment betWéeH ihe employer and the workméri concerriéd at its expiry in terme of thé eontract, îâlling withiri the meaning of Sec-Ubii 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Therefore the provi- sions of Section 25-F of the Act need not be contpliéd with. The formality of calling £ob the applicants through Employaient Ëxchange was only to avoid arbitran>€ss in the sélection of candidates gffij also, 2n view of Clause III of 3rd Wage Seulement, From this, it cannot be presumed that it vis a p"t*rraÉmer|t appointment. The contiflttancë bf workmen for 2-1/2 years does not lead to an inference that it is a perma- nent dpftôintmerit when the project work is closed-. în"rè wâs no further work for the contingent work- men. The Hon'ble High Co\xl oï Andhra Pradesh in its judgement dated 23-3-1992 in W.F. No. 10764 of 1988 ûnd W.F. No. 19584 of 1988 upheld the M"ànagements contention that each project is an irt- dependent temporary establishment-, Thë werk of' each project is distinct and t t eé inay be exécution of prd- jects, siîriuJtèrtôWs^y àt vàriôus places-. Thgjé is rt]"* no pàrantee that after edrrifilétibià of igae* 'projtct, îrtêrê will fee àriètfier hf# p*iôject awaiting exectjtion. Heàce iiùre is ûô scôpe for contingent workmen bein': trAÉSferred to other projects wheri thé pfoject is \p one area is completed. Thé allégation that thé retrérich\ meât of the Petitioiters is vitiated by mala fides and that it ôaiounts to unfair labour practice is untenable ârid baseless. During 1993-94 as against the total projected workload of 3,00,000 mètres of drilling the actual work entrusted was reduced to 1,47,000 mètres drilling, and this drastic réduction in the workload has rendered 50 per cent of men and machinery idle and consequently there is depletion of income. The work in the project in which the petitioners-workmen were employed was compîeted and there is no furthôr Wotk to reinstate them. The petitioner's eontract of empldy- ment caeae to an end by 30-6-1993 due to nori-reiiewal of eontract of employment and therefore, they are riOt entitled for reinstatement together with back wages as prayed for.

in différent projects located ia différent parts of the •country incîuding sortie in the reinotest areas where "••vork may be assignée by the Govemment/ciient orga- nisations without any defiiiite periuds. Tîie nature of work of the Corporation entails employment of two différent and district catégories of workmen : ( 1 ) re- gular workmen who are cssentially highly skilleJ tecli- nical starï and form the cora category whose services are cssential for regular opération and main- tenance of différent highly sophisticated mming and drilling machineries. They are .permanent workmen essential for carrying out rainerai exploration work and scientific and technical activities of the Corpora- tion; (2) Tempotary contingent unskilled workmèrt who are engaged for work/job which is ternpoïàry in nature p.nd likely to be completed in a limited period, and such jobs are mostly unskilled in nature for which physical fitness and easy availability in nearby village are required. The Corporation has been engaging "the contingent workman en a spécifie conUwt 'of employ- ment. On completion of work for which the contingent workmen are engaged, their eontract of employment is not renewed and it dues not amount to retrench- ment. The reguîar workmen who hâve an AH lôdiu Service liability and who were on tour to thè tempo- rary industriai establishments are either brought back to their respective Area Head Quarters or are shifted to other places in tihe country. The contingent emp- loyées cannot be, shïfted to other temporruy industriai establishment for the reasons that they were specifically engaged for a particuiar tempérai y industriai establish- ment. At other temporary industriai establishments, The Corporation is obliged to engage local worktïteft for unskilled nature of work. Thus every project is an independenf temporary industriel establishment and the Project Manager is the appointing and discipïïfiary authority for the contingent temporary workmen. The respondent has taken Licence under the Corltract Lubour (K & A) Act, 1970 and starting engaging the unskilled workmen on eontract basis for spécifie period with ontion to renew îhe eontract. Hence the termination of the services of the unskilled workmen does not amount to retrenchment in view of Section 2(ooJ(bb) of the Act. The Sin^areni Collieries Com- panv Limited entrusted the exoloratcry drilling work to the Respondent Corporation in Kaghaznagar Coal Beît Area on promotional basis. For the purpose of carrying out the said assigned work, the Respondent opened a temporary industriai establishment at Kaghaz- nagar on 5-7-1990. The neceesary Licence under Con~ tract. Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 was also obtained by the Respondent. Besides the regular employées who were deployed on tour of the temporary industr"'"' establishment at Kaghaznagar Project from Area Head- quarters, 58 local contingent workmen, including the petitioners were engaged under spécifie contracts of employment for unskilled nature of work. The appoint- ment of thèse petitioners as contingent workmen was very spécifie and it was stipulated in the appointment orders that the eontract of employment will terminate on a spécifie date, and it can be renewed for a further spécifie period as per the exigency of work. ït was ai KO further stipulated that in case the terms and condi- tions of the apoointm^nts are acceptable, the petitioners workman should report along with their aceeptance letters. AU the petitioners hâve duly conveyed their aceeptance to the terms and conditions incorporated

6. On behalf of the Petitioners W.W.l is examined and documents Exs. Wl to W57 are marked. K. Srihari, workman in I.D. No. 28 of 1994 is examined as W.W.l and hc deposed to the everments in the claim satements. On behalf of the Respondent-Man- agement M.W.l is examined and Exs. Ml to M50 are marked. The Project Manager of the Respondent Corporation is examined as M.W.l and he deposed to the everments in the counters. The détails of the documents Exs. Wl to W57 and Ml to M50 marked on behaîf of the Petit ioner and the Respondent are appended to this Award.

2531 7. The points that arise for considération are as

f olloWs- :

( 1 ) Whether the Petitioners-workmen in ail thèse références were retrenched in violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act as elleged by them?

(2) To what relief the petitioners-workmen arc-

entitlèd?

8. POINT (1) :—The admitted facts as revealed

from the évidence on record are as foiïows :—

not dispuied that the Petitioners herein hâve acceptée me aoove saia torms and conditions ol appoinimeni and issued theu aeecpitMice ietisrs bxs. ivii io Mi9. Under JËxs. vvi io vY 1,2, VV'4i, Wto, W'DO and W53 trie coLuraci oi cxapioyujciu W-1993 issued to thèse petitioners staring that their coniract of employment will not be renewed after its expiry on 30-6-1993. Ex. M45 is the notice dated 30-6-1993 issued to thèse petitioners informing that the terminal benefits wnil be paid to them on 1-7-1993 Ex. M46 is the statement showing the payment of "terminal and other benefns to aîl thèse petitioners and other workmen whose services were terminated •ton 30-6-1993. It is also not disputed that thèse petitioners received the said termi- nal and other benefits as shown under Ex. M46. Thiu the peîitioners workmen were terminated from ser- vice w.e.f. 30-6-1993 by the Respondent Corpora- tion.

The learned counsel for the Petitioners submils that the petitioners were retrenched in violation of provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and as such the retrenchment of thèse petitioners is null and void and that they are entitled for reinstatement with back wages and other attendant benefits. The iearned counsel for îhe Respondent Corporation on Ihe other hand, contends that the termination of thèse peti- tioners does not amount to rctienchment and that their services were terminated on account of non- renewal of their contact of employment under Sec- tion 2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act and as such the petitioners herein are not entitled for reinstatement, back wages etc. as claimed by the Petitioners. Hence it has to be seen whether the termination of thèse petitioners from service w.e.f. 30-6-1993 amounfs to retrenchment.

10. Section 2(oo) of the TD. Act defines retrench-

ment as follows :

"Retrenchment means the lermination by the employer of the service cf a workman for aay reason whatsoever, othervnse than as a punïshment inflicted bv way of discipli- nary action, but does not include—

(a) vôluntary retiremens of the workman. or The Respondent-Corporation i.e. Minerai Explora- tion- CoFportion Limited is a public sector undertaking engaged in the- exploration ol minerai resources in the coiMtry aad it- pHmariiy exécutes work on behalf of the Goverament of India and assignments ofïered by the sister puWie sector undertakings of Central and Stete Government, it employées two différent and dis- tinct catégories of workmaa, namely, ( 1 ) reguiar per- manent workmen who are highly skilled technical stafi, (2) temporary contingent uaskiiîed workmen who are being engagée! for unskilled work on spécifie contract of employment. During the year 1990 exploration driliing' work was awarded- to the Respondent-Corpo- ration in Khagaznagar Coal Belt on promotionàl basis by the Singajrenr Colliries Company Limited. For the pu'rpose of carrying eue ihe said assigned work, the respondent' opened a temporary industrial establish- ment at Khagaznagar on 5-7-1990. For carrying out that work, the Respondent-Corporation deployed some of its permanent reguiar employées frora area HCadquarters and also engaged 58 local contingent unskilled workmen at the temporary industrial estab- lishment at Khagaznagar. The workmen under thèse références aire some of those local contingent unskilled workmen engaged by the Respondent Corporation. It is also admitted that after cornpletion of the work at Khagaznagar, the services of ail the 58 contingent kinskilled workmen including the petitioners under thèse références were terminated w.e.f. 30-6-1993 as no work was left ont for them in that establishment. It is also not disputed that the workmen under thèse réfé- rence come within the définition of 'workmen' as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. It is also not disputed that thèse petitioners were engaged on spéci- fie contract of employment. Exs. Wl to W12 are the appointaient orders of the oetitioners in I.D. Nos. 28, 24, 23, 22, 21, 19, 18, 31, 17, 15, 26, 27 of 1994 respectively and Exs. W43, W46, W50 and W53 are the appointment orders oî the V/orkman in I.D. Nos. 20, 25, 29 atnd 30 of 1994 respectively. It is not disputed that the Petitioners in I.D. Nos. 16, 32 and 86 of 1994 were also issued similar appointment orders engaging them as contingent unskilled workmen in the Respondent-Corporation. As seen from thèse documents the petitioners were offered the work on two conditions : firsîly, that the appointment will be purely on contingent îemporary basis and the contract of employment will be terminated on 31-7-1991 or on completion of work whichsver is earlier and the contract of employment will be renewed for furthsr spécifie period if deemed fit as per exigency oî work by issue of a spécifie order. Secondly the appointée will hâve to perform any of the job unskilled categorv which will be assigned to¹ him from time to time. They were also dïrocted- to submit the ajeceptance levers if they agrée for the above said ternis and conditions. Tt ïs

(b) retirement of ihe workman on reaching the âge of superannuatinn if the contract of employment between *he employer and2532 i'HE G A / i i i fE OF IND1A : M A R CH 9,-2002, l'iiALGUJNA 18, 1923 LPARI 11—SEC. 3 ihe workman concemed contains a stipula- tion in that behalf;

uoes not iall in any of those excepted catégories Uie icLiiiiiiauon oi service would oc i eueucnniem wiUini me wtpiession oi oecuoii / ( o oj oi aie Act Vide JD. Js.. îauav v. nviA industries Lia., v i y y j; (j) iùupiune Court cases page /:>9), L. iujoert ubouza v. executive biigineer Southern i\.anway a Anr. (AIR l y s/ b.c. page 9854), Uricn.al isauk ol commerce v. nesiuing uirieer, central uovernmeni inaustnal inbunal Anr.. (iy*4 (.11; L LJ page 770 Rajasthan).

(bbj temnnajion of the service ot trie workman as a resuit ot Uie non-renewal oi the contract ot the employment oetween the employer and the workman concernée! on îts expiry or ot' such contract bemg terminated under a stipulation m that behalf contained therein; or

te) termination of the service of a workman

on the grouod ef continued ill-hcalth."

Section 25-F of the l.D. Act prescrites the condi- tions précèdent to retrenchment of a vorkman and it reads as follows :

"No workman employed in auy industry vvho has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until—

(a) the workman has been given one month"s notice in writing indicatiiig the reasons foi retrenchment and the period; ot notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

{b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation wliich shall be équivalent to fifteen days' averâge pay or every completed year of conti- nuous service or any part thereof m excess of six months; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the approprias Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification is the Officiai Gazette."

i /. ihe leamcd counsel xor ino Respondent submiîs that in me îusiant case tne services ot ihcse petitioners were terminaicu on account ot non-ienewal ot comract ot employaient on us expiry and as such IL does nol amouut to retrenenment unuer Section 2*.oo) (,bb) ol uie i.JD. Act. inere is muen force in Uns contention. bub-Clause (bb) of Section /(.ooj ot ihe l.D. Act has oeen mserted by the Amending Act 4y ot 1984. lis eùect 'S to exciude from the ambit of définition ot leirencnment, (1) termination oi the service of a vvoik- man as a resuit of non-renewal ot contract ot employ- ment between the employer and the wqrkmari con- cerned on ils expiry and ( 2) the termination ot con- tract oi employment m terms of stipulation contained m such contract of employmeiit. The expression "such contract'' in the second part of the clause tefers to "contract ol" employment between the employer ano the workman concerned". In other words it there is a stipulation of contract of emplcyment between the employer and the workman concerned providing the mode and manner of termination of service, such termination of service has now specifically been excep- ted from the ambit of définition of retrenchment by this sub-clause. In the instant case the terminatiou of the petitioners has been ajïected under Clause (i) of Sub-Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the i.D. Aci i.e., the termination of the services lias been affected as a resuit ot non-renewai of contract of employment between the petitioners and ;hs Respondent. As earlier stated under seperate contracîs of employment. Exs. Wl to W12, W43. W46, W50 and W53, thèse petitioners weie engaged for a spécifie period, i.e. upto 31-7-1991. Under Exs. M20 to M30 thèse con- tracts of employment were renewed upto 31-12-1991. . Under Ex. M39 their contracts of employment were renewed upto 31-3-1992. Again under Ex. M40 it was renewed upto 30-6-1992. Under Ex. M41 was re- newed upto 30-9-1992. Under Ex. M42 it was renewed - upto 31-3-1993 and nnally under Ex. M43 the con- tracts of employment were renewed upto 30-6-1993. Under Ex. M44 thèse petitioners workmen were in- formed by the Respondent that their contracts of employment would not be renewed beyond 30-6-1993 and under Ex. M45 the petitioners were asked to collect their terminal and o'her benefits on 1-7-1993 and their terminal benefits were also paid as seen from Ex. M46. It is clear from thèse documents that the contracts of employment of thèse petitioners were renewed from time to time upto 30-6-1993 and there- fore the contracts of employment were not renewed and thus their services were terminated on account of non- renewal of contracîs of employment. Therefore the termination of the services of thèse petitioners on account of non-renewal of contrac's of employment cornes within the exempted catégories under Section 2foo) -of the Act and.as. such the termination of thèse petitioners is not retrenchment under the définition of Section 2(oo1 of the Act.

11. It is not disputée¹ thaï the Peiitioners herein were engaged as contingent unskilieri workmen to work at Khagaznagar Project of the Respondent- Corporaion. They worked for more than 2-l|2years and their services were terminated w.e.f. 30-6-1993. M.W1 the Project Manager of the Respondent Cor- poration also admits the said factura of engagement of thèse petitioners as contingent unskilled workmen till their services were terrninaled w.e.f. 30-6-1993. Tt is well settled that the définition of ' rerenchment' in Section 2(oo) of the l.D. Act is comprehensive one intended to cover any action of the Management to put an end of employment of an employée for any reasons whatsoever except if the case falls withïn any of the excepted catégories under that Section i.e. (1 ) termination by way of punishment inflicted pursu- ant to the disciplinary action (2) voluntary retirement of the workman, (3) retirement of the workman on reaching the âge of superannuntion if the contract of employment between the employer and workman con- cerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. (4) termi- nation of the service of a workman as a resuit of the non-renewal of contract of emplcyment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expjry. (5) the termination of contract a* employment in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of emoloy- ment, or (6) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. Once the case •2533 13. The learned counsel for the Petitiohers relied upon the décision in Gammon India Limited v. N'iranjan Dass, 1983 Lab I.C. page-1865). Hari Mohan Râstogi v. Labour Court and Anr. (1983 Lab. IC page 1906) and also The Management of Karna- taka State Road Transport Corporation, Bungalore v. M. Boraiah and Anr. (1934) (48) FLR page 89). Thèse décisions relate to the law prevailing pdior to the introduction of Sub-Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) by the Amending Act 49 of 1984 which came into force w.e.f. 18-8-1984 and as .^ich they are not relevant for the purpose of thèse cases.

14. The lcarned counsel for the Pctitioners also relied on îhe décision in R. Srinivas Rao v. Labour Court, Hyderabad (1990 (1) A.W.R., page 428). In this case the workers were initially engaged under orders of appointing for some period and after expiry of that period they were contirtucusly engaged as casual labour on daily waees without renewal of con- tract of employment till the date of their termina- tion. Under thèse circumstuncos his Lordship held in para! 25 thus :— - •

"The main part of Section 2(oo) speaks of termination 'for any reason' as amounting to retrenchment in the absence of clear inten- tion, the first part of Sub-Clause (bb) cannot be interpreted to take the termination of the services of the casual labour on daily wages. Tn my view per so termination of casual labour on daily wages is clearly out- side the first part of Sub-Clause (bb) of Sec- tion 2(oo) and was ncver intended to bc included from the définition of 'retrench- ment'."

In the same para his Lordship fuither observed thus:

PuHishers P Ltd. v. Labour Court, Koshikode and Another L1993 (67) FLR page 757 Kerala High rCeurt] and Chief Administrait, Haryana; Urlan Development Authority and Ant. v. Industrial Tribu- nal, Rohtak and Anr. [1994 (16) FLR page 35 Punjab and Haryana High CourtJ, The facts in this case are also différent Ircra the facts in the instant case. In îhose cases, it is no doubt true that the workmen were emptoyed on a contract of employ- ment and their services were terminated on the ex- piry of that contract, but they were re-employed each time after a gap of few days. Under those circum- stances, their Lordships he'd that the job had con- tinued but the periodical appointments were made to avoid regular status to the employées and therefore, it was held that the exception under Sub Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) cannot be extended to such cases. Their Lordships also held thaï Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act lias to be strictly interpieted and it is neces- sary to find ont whether the letter of appointment is a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to JJIOW that the letters of rene- wals under Exs. M20 to M43 are only a camouflage to circumvent the provisions of the 1. D. Act. In fact they are not the re-appointments of thèse peti- tioners. Even before the expiry of the earlier orders of appointment, the services of thèse pjetitioners were renewed from time to time tiil such time when their services were no longer requned as the Project work uadertaken was completed and as there was no work to be attended to by thèse petitioners. It is not dis- puted that the work entruçled to temporary industrial establishment of the Refondent at Khagaznagar was completed by 30-6-1993 and as such there was no work to be entrusted to the petitioners herein after 30-6-1993. Hence their contracts of employment were not renewed any further beyond that date and therefore, their services were terminated. Hence those citations relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners hâve no application to the facts in thèse cases.

"The 'Contract of employment' contemplât ed therein îs, in my view, referable to contracts other than engagement as casual labour on daily wages.'

16. In the light of my above discussion, I hold on Point (1 ) that the termination of thèse petitioners dees not amount to retr^nebment under Section 2(oo)

. 17. Point (2).—This point relates to the relief to be granted to the petitieners under thèse références. In view of my finding on Point (1) that the termi- nation of the petitioners does not ampunt to retrench- ment and fhat provisions of Section 25-F of the I. D. Act need not be complied with before terminating the services of the petitioners. they are not entitled for any relief under thesa références.

The facts in that case can b,e distinguish from the facts in this case. In that case though the workers were engaged under contract of empïoyment for a spécifie peirod, but subsequently it was not renewed or terminated but the said workers were allowed to work as contingent casual labour on daily wages. Therefore, his Lordship held the termination of casual labour on daily wages does not corne within the excepted Sub-Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) as therc was no eontract of employment which could not be renewed. In the instance case the contract of employment is there throughout. As earlier stated in the last order under Ex. M43 the contract of emp- loyment was renewed upto 30-6-1993. Thereafter it was not renewed and therefore, the services of the petitioners were terminated. Hence the décision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners does not applv to the facts in this case. The décisions in Ci) Girish Kumar Jain vs. Union of India and others 1994 (69) FLR 31; (ii) Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others 1994(69) FLR 220, cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners are equally not applicable to the facts in thèse cases for the reason s stated ;ibove.

15.--The learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied on the décision in Jayabharat Printers and

18. In the resuït, Award is passed stating that the action of the Respondent-Corporation in terminating the services of the petitioners under- ail .thèse référen- ces is just and îegal and that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in thèse références. The parties are directed to bear their costs.

2534 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAROî 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l

Dicfated to tihe Stencsraphct, transcribed by him, correct cd by me &aâ giwn under my hand and the seal of this TribwrfaL this the 23rd day of September, Î995.

A. HAlNtJtaANTHll, ludustrial Tribunal Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses Examined for

Petitianers-Workmen :

W. Wl —K. Srihari.

Witnes^cs Examined for

Respondent-Management :

ÎVT. Wl—V. L. Maliikarjuna.

Documents marked for the Petitioners-Workmen :

Ex. Wl 7-1-91 —Appointment order issued to W. Wl.

Ex. W2 to Ex. W12—Appointment orders of the ottier workmen in other industrial disputes.

Ex. W13 to W32—Teimina] beneiîts lettcr given to the workmen.

Ex. W33 to W42—Service Certificate issued to the workmen b}< Ihe Respondent.

Ex. W43 by consent.—Appointment Order dated 7-1-91 of D. Vasantha Rao.

Ex. W44 by consent.—Wage slip of D. Vasan- tha Rao.

Ex. W45 by consent.—Service Certificate of D. Vasantha Rao, dated 30-6-93.

Ex. W46 by consent.—Appointment order- dated 20-1-1991 of T. Lachiah.

Ex. W47 by consent.—Service Certificate of T. Lachaiafr dated 30-6-93.

Ex. W48 by consent.—Termination Notice dated 1-7-93 lo T. Lachiah.

Ex. W49 by consent.—Annexure-IV, dated 1-8-1991 contract of employment of Sri P. Shankar.

Ex. W50 -do- .—Appointaient order dated 20-1-1991 of T. Krishna.

E\. W51 -do- —Service Certificate dated 30-6-93 of T. Kiishna.

Ex. W52 -do- —Termination Notice dated 1-7-93 of T. Krishna

Ex. W53 -do- —Appointment order dated 7-1-1991 of P. Ramu.

Ex. W54 -do- —Service Certificate of P. Ramu dated 30-6-1993.

Ex. W55 -do- —Service Certificate dated 30-6-93 of B. D. Sarkar.

Ex W56 -do- —Termination Notice dated 1-7-03 of B. D. Sarkar.

Ex. W57 1-12-3 990—Interview for the post of Unskilled Labour addïessed to P. Peddi Raju.

Documents marked for the Respondent-Management:

Ex. Ml to M19- -AccopUujce letters of the Petitioners.

Ex. M20 to M3S—Contract of employment re- newed upto 31-12-1991.

Ex. M39 .. —Contract of employment renewed upto 31-3-1992.

Ex. M40 . . —Contract of employment renewed upto 30-6-1992.

Ex. M41 . . —Contract of employment renewed upto 30-9-1992.

Ex. M42 . . —Contract of employment renewed upto 31-3-1993.

Ex. 43 ... —Contra et of employment renewed upto 31-6-1993.

Ex. M44 . . —Office copy of termination notice dated 21-6-1993.

Ex. M45 30-6-93—Notice dated 30-6-1993 issu- ed to petitioners informing that terminal benerîts wïll be paid to them on 1-7-1993.

Ex. M46 —Statement of payment of terminal benefits.

Ex. M47 . . —Judgemenl copy in W.P. No. 10764|88 and 19584)88.

Ex. M48 . . —Xerox copy of Award of Chit Jabalpur case in No. CGI T LC(R) (16)jl974.

Ex. M49 . . —Xerox copy of extract of 3rd Wage Seulement.

Ex. M50 . . —Xerox copy of extract of Staading Orders.

i.$3i

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 832.—4n pursuaûcî of Section J7 of the In- tiUstriâl Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Goverrinieflt Tiereby piiblishës the awàid of the Cerl- tral Government Indiistrial Triburiâl, Nagptir as shown in the Annexure in the Iirdustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Warehousing Cdrpri. and théif wofkfflarl, Miieh was rêceivéd by the Central Governftiertt ori 14-2-2001

[No. L-42011/l/200HR(M)] B: M: tiAVÎD, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRÉSENT ;

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding dfficer

Référence No. CGIT-5 8/2001

Central Warehousing Corporation.

AND

Shri S. È. Shârrrîa.

AWÀRtï

Thë fceritrefl yoverriment, Mirïistry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercjsing the powèrs eonferred by Clause (dj of Sub-sec^ion (1) and Sub-sediofi 2.(À) of Sec- tion 10 of the Iridustrial Disputes Act, 1947" lias refer- rfcd this dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L- 42011/1/2001-ÏRCM) dated, 10-8-2001 on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the Mémo dated 16-3-2000 of Régional Office, Central Warehousing Corporation, Bhopal idireeting Shri S. S. Sharma, Ware- house Assistant Gr. I, Central Warehouse, Raipur-III to apply for earned leave for the beriod ffom 3-12-981o 15-1-99 is jastified ? If ridt, td wliat MM Shânna is entitled ?" This référence has beert made ori this issue in dispute that S. S. Sharma, Assistant Gr, t, Central Warehouse, Raipur did not apply for earned leave and whether the action of management directing him to appiv tôt earn- ed leave from 3-12-98 to 15-1-99 is justifïed ?

The workman S. S. Sharma did not appear in this Court to file Statement of Claim. On 5-11-2001 Kisbati Chourasiya, Maha Sachiv of C. W. C. Workers's Union, Raipur appeared to contest the case for the workman and moved application for granting him time to submit Statement of Claim. He was allowed to SHbmît State- ment of Claim on 18-12-2001 as prayed bv h!m.

But on 18-12-2001 neither the workman S. S Sharma turned up in the Court aor bis union repré- sentative Kishan Chourasiya submitted Statement of Claim for the workman. The case was again adjourned to 8-1-2002 for filing Statement of Claim by the sjvorkman.

Today i.e. 8-1-2002 also workman S. S. Sharma, Assistant Gr. I did not appear in the Court to submit the Statement of Claim. His union représentative Kishan Chotïrâska also did not file any Statement of Claim for ths'wôtkman,

Shri R. K, àîdrrria, Superiritendent of Central Ware- house Corporation is representing the management. He is présent. He was heard On 5-11-2001 the Régional Manager, Central Warehouse Corporation has submit- ted application¹ along with documents regardiflg the facts of this caSe.

Shri R. R. Sharma, the represerltétiW ot the manage- ment represented that the workman Shri $, S, Sharma was trarfsfef rftl Irom Raîpor Central Warehoûse, Uait No. I to Central Warehouse, Balakhat vide tramfer order dated 28-11-98 on adnïitffctrative ground. Shri S. S. Sharma did not join duty at CefJtel Warehouse, Batèghat.

Ori rjfe représentation he was again transferred from' Central WarehoifceV B^laghat to Construction Cell, Raipur vide order dated 3î-12-9$

The Executive Engineer of Constrtielitifi Cêll wa$ not willing to accept Shri S. S. Sharma in his CeÛ and he was then again tiansferred from Construction C<$\\ Unit, Raipur to Central Warehouse, Unit No. III ât Raipaf,

The transfer order froffl Construction Cell Unit to Central Warehouse Unit No. îïî lyâs passed on 6-1-99. Shri S. S. Sharffii* workmari theri joined erffiee at Cen- tral Warehouse, Raipiif tJwit No. M on 15-1-99.

The above facts show that the dëjfârtment was tak- ing an êltrtmely lenient view in accommodating S. S, Shaîma, the woffcfnari and had adjusting him lo the place of his choice at î i s ç *, Profcabk due to sach lenient action the workman hm dared to avoid the c'oWpliance of orders of the management and h"d not jQined difty f"f Central Warehouse, Baîaghat on his transfer.

Management should hâve tàken strong administra^ tive action against such officiai whe had been avoiding to comply with the orders df his supeffers.

The workman has mot turned up in this" Court also to submit Statement of Claim either himself of Ihrough his union représentative.

In the above circumstances the workman is not entitled to any relief claimed by him.

ORDER

In view of the circumstances discussed above, the action of the Régional Office, Central Warehouse Cor- poration, Bhopal directing Shri S. S. Sharma, Ware- houste Assistant Gr. T, Central Warehouse, Raipur-III to apply for earned leave from 3-12-98 to 15-1-99 is justified.

Shri S. S. Sharma is aot ewtitled to any relief claimed by him.

The référence is disposed of accordtagly.

Dated : 8-1 -2002.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officçt1536 THE GAZETTE Oï INDIA : MARCII 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 LFART H—SEC. 3(ii)J New Delhi, the 15tli Februaiy, 2002 S.O. 833.—In puisuancc of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publiées the award (Réf. No. 12|1995) of the Central Government In- dustrial Tribunal Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of H1NDALCO lnd. Ltd. and their workrnan vvhicli was reeeived by the Governmenl en 14-2-2002.

[No. L-43011j5|94-IR(M)l

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. T, DHANBAD In the matter of a référence under Sec. 10(l)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Référence No. 12 of 1995

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management ot Rudnipet Bauxite Mine of HINDALCO Industries Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. Kazmi, Presiding Offlcer.

APPEARANCES :

For ,the Employers : Shri G. Prasad. Advocatc.

For the Workmen : Shri H. S. Haque, PYesidenf, Chotanagpur Bauxite Works Union.

STATE : Jharkhand : INDUSTRY : Bauxite Mine.

Dated, the 21st Januarv. 2002

AWARD

By Order No. L-4301l!5|94-I.R. (Mise.) dated 12-1-95 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of-Section- 10 oï the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, reterred the îoiluwjng dispute for adjudication to (his Tribunai :

"Whether the management of Rudnipet Bauxite Mine of M.s. HINDALCO Industries Ltd., Lohardasa is justified in declaring lay ofï w.e.f. 14"-7-93 vide letter dated 14-7-93 and closing of Rudnipet Bauxite Mine w.e.f. 19-8-93 applying ior permission on 18-8-93 and also terminating the services of 99 workmen (list enclosed) by paying thsm compensation as per the provisions of the I.D. Act instead of full compensation ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?" 2. A mémorandum of settlement has been filed duly signed the représentatives of the sponsoring upion and the management respectively. I hâve gone through the settlement and in my opinion the settlement is f air and proper which has already been accepted by the parties.

3. Accordingly, I render an award on the basis of the settlement pétition which shall form part of the award.

S. H. KAZMT, Presiding Ofiïcer MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFTCER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I DHANBAD

Référence No. 12] 1995

Employers's in relation to the Management of M|s. HINDALCO Industries Limited, Lohardaga.

AND

Their Workmen

The humble joint pétition of compromise on behalf of the Parties most respectfully sheweth:—

That, both the parties hâve amicably resolved the issue out side the Court. The Union is not going ta pursue the intended matter. Therefors, no dispute exist.

It is, therefore prayed that your honour may please pass a no disputé award for which we shall ever pray. For Workmen :

• Sd/-

Shri Shiv Prasad Sahu General Secretarv, C.B.W. Union Sd/-

Shri Mallick Serajul Haque P'resident, C.B.W. Union. For the Employer

Sd/- '

(A. S. Tomar) General Manager (P&A) Witness—

' \Sd/- Shri Rakesh Ranjan Personnel Qfficer

Part of the Award 2537'

24-8-2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hâve referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

"Whefher the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in dismissing Smt. Savitri N. Shenoy is justified and proper ? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to ?" New Delhi, the l l th February, 2002

S.O. 834.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby- publishes the award (Réf. No. 2/81 of 2000) of the Central Government In- dustrail Tribunal-cum-LC No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employcrs in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received bv the Central Government on 8-2-2002.

[No. L-12O12|7O!2OOO-IR(B-1I)1 AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

S. N. Saunrfankar, Presiding Officer

Référence No. CGIT-2|81, of 2000

Employers in lelation to the management of

Syndicate Bank.

The Deputy-Gen. Manager, SB, Zonal Office, Maker Tower, No. E, 2nd Floor, Hot No. 85, Cuffee Parade, Colaba Mumbai-400 005.

AND

Their Workmen

Smt. Savitri N. Shenoy, 10, Hind Nivas, Society Road, Jogeshwari(E), Mumbai-400 060.

APPEARANCES :

2. Workman, Smt. Savitri N. Shenoy, joined the Syndicate Bank in 1965, anj about 21 years she worked as Spécial Assistant. At îhe time of dismissal she was vrorking in Jbgeshwari Branch. Vide State- ment of Claim, Smt. Shenoy conîended that the bank by show cause mémo dtd. 16-10-1996, demanded her explanaition on the transaction of loan, against depo- sits (LD) in respect of FCNR Deposit A|c. i.e. LD 111/94 dtd. 12-3-94 for Rs. 13 Lacs and second regarding LD 143|94 dtd. 12-4-94 for Rs. 15 Lacs which explanation she gave on 28-11-96. However dis-satisfied with that, the management gave charge- sheet dtd. 4-4-97 alleging that the workman failcd to follow the guidelines pertaining to arrangement of LD's while supervising Loan Deposiî Account No. 111 ! 94 dtd. 12-3-94 for Rs. 13 Lacs in the name of Mr. Mandia S. J., and thereby she committed mis- conduct as per clause-19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settle- ment. It is her contention that the said loan wa? sanctioned by the then Branch Manager, Mr. Pai and that there was a mère procédural irregularity on her part and there was no loss to the bank but inspite of that domestic inquiry vas held by the bank nsainst her of which Mr. M. J. Frasad was the inquiry Officer and Mr. B. S. Acharya the Presentins Officer and that workmam was represented by Mr. Karkera as Defence Représentative. It is the contention of work- man that she had prayed to adiourn the inquiry on 23-9-97, however. that Was déclinée', she had re"ques- ted, to examine B. V. Pai fhe then Branch Manager, for mariaeement but he was not examined therebv pre- iudice was caused which vitia*cs the inquiry. It is her furfher contention that she was not siven copies of al( the documents relier! and that inquiry was con- cluded on 11-4-98. It is contended that thoueh in- enquiry officer observed thaï there was no misconduct on her part, went on to state that she was exoected to nerform the duties to ensure the crédit oertainin? io LD 111194. though there was no such aitesaîion •whatsoever in the chareesheet nnd fhaf without anv basis she gave finding that Workman committed gross misconduct, prejudicial to the bank which is entirely perverse. It is contended the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings of the inquirv officer, di?- missed her from service by order dtd. 23-7-98 which was appeared. However the same came to be di*;- missed on 10-3-99. Therefore, it is con'ended the inquiry beinç against the Principles nf Natural Justice and the findings being perverse, needs to be set aside.

For the Employer : Mr. S. R. Kadam Advocate.

3. Management, resisted the clajm of workman by - For the Workmen : Mr. R. D. Bhat Advocate.

Mumbai, Dated 3rd January, 2002

A W A R D — P A R TI

filing Written Statement (Exh'rbit-8) contendina t'pa't the vsorkmen was charged for gross mis-conduct which during the inquiry. inquirv offîcer found proved tliere- fore the order of dismissal, is proper. • It is contended that if workman fel' in particular as a material wilr- • ne"s she. could hâve examined Pai as her witness, but. - failed. It is contended that on vérification of record The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L42012|70|200r>|ÎR(B-II), dated, 604 Gï/2002—92.538 nm GAZETTE OF END1A : MARCH 9, 20C_ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H — S EC 3:.Û)] it ii. found that workman was rcsponsible for avranging LD U l | 94 dt. 12-3-94 for Rs. 13 Lacs in the name of Shri Maradia. thereby she exposée! the bank to the risk of linancial loss by facilitating arrangement of fraudulent LD. It is contendcd inquiry hsing proper and the findings net perverse, camiot be set aside, conssquently prayed to reject the cbini cf worîcnîar.

4. The workman by the Rejoînder (Exhibit-9) reiterated the récitals in the Sîateinent of Claim denying the consentions in the Writîen Stateraent. On the basis of the rival pleadings, issuos were framed at Exhibit-13. Workman Ms. Shenoy filed affidavit by way of Examination-in-Crr.cf (E.dîlbit-18) and closed évidence vide purshis (Exhibit-47). Presentinsr Offi- cer Mr. B. S. Acharya, filed affidavit on bchalf of the management by way of Examination-in-Chief (Exhi- bit-49) and the management closed évidence vfde purfhis (Exhïbit-50).

5. Workman filed written subm'ssions (Exhibit-51) and the management a* (Exhibit-52). On perusinc the record as a whole and the written submissîon. 1 record my findings on the following preliminary issues for the reasons menficned below: —

Tssues

Findings

1. Whether the inquiry conducted

against the workmin was as per the principles of Naîural Justice? No.

2. Whether the findings of the inquiry officer are perverse?

Yes.

REASONS

ment rclied not supplied is clcarly infraction o: the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and thereby the inquiry vitiates, for which a reliance can be bad to CST MumbaiVs. Rajan Kumar Mohalik 2000 III CLR 117. rhe Learnec! Counsel for the workman by written subrnissions (Exhibit-51 ) poinied out that not only inquiry vitiates, but, the iindings recorded by the inquiry officer are loîally perverse, 'Perversity' is that where the findings are such which no reasonable person would hâve arrived at on the basis of the material before him.' In the case on hand, the Presenting Ofricer, Mr. Acharya in his cross- examination admits that workman was not charge- sheeted dtd. 4-4-97 (Exhibit-33) for not ensuring crédit pertaining to the LD 111|94, nor for failing îô discharge judiciously and acted in a manner un- becoming of a bank employée. However, on plain reading of the report (Exhibit-35), it is seen enquiry officer observed the delinquent workman was négligent by keeping quiet about the relevant contra crédit, of a huge amount simpiy initiallmg on the débit slip, whcih was not the charge. It is further to be noted that the inouiry officer in his report, pdra. 5 while assessine the évidence led before him point out the, delinquent workman was kept in dark about the crédit voucher and that the then Branch Manager was responsible and that vorkman was not aware of ihe account to which the crédit was accordée! and despite this he concluded the workman committed a misconduct. This findfn" is not based on the record and even by way of analysis, therefore, can SPAIV suid to be perverse. Therefore Tinsidering îhe record as a whole the inquiry con- ducted against the woriman can be said trt be acainst the Principles of Natural Justice and fair play and thait the flndines of the inquîrv officer, are nrrver^f. Issues are th'erefors, a^sweed accovdincl'" and hence the order:-—

ORDER

The domestic inquiry condudcd aeainst !he work- man was not as per the PVinciples of Natural Justice. The findings of the mouirv officer are perverse. Management to lead évidence to justify i's action.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR. Presiding Officer 6. Admittedly workman Ms. Shenoy was workin" as a Spécial Assistant in the year 1996 atJogeshwari Brandi. According to her, inquiry conducted by ihe management against her, vitiates as she was not given sufficien: t'me, she was not supplied copies of the documents relied by the management during the m- quiry. So far not giving sufficient time is concemed, the inquiry, report cUd. 11-4-98 (Exhibit-35) shows enquiry was held only on 23-9-97 and 21-1-98 and that the findings were recorded by the inquiry officer on 11-4-98. It is seen from the record Ihe workman had requested the inquirv officer !o give time so' as to enable her to take up the matter by the union with the management which point was nnder considération of the management itself, alongwith the case of five officers, two spécial assistants aud twelve clerks, who were chargesheeted includine the then Branch Manager. Since the inquiry was concluded on 11-4-98 the inqivrv officer could hâve "ivcri her finie to move through the union, but failed.

New Delhi, the 1 lîh February, 2002 7. So far supply of copies of the relevant docu- ments is concernée!, Presenfinir Officer, Mr. Acharya admit'ed in his cross-examination. nara-9 that exce.pt document. Débit slio fDG-28") rnarked as Exhibit-4 ''on record with Exhibit-30) no documents relied 1-v the management, were made avail^ble ai the timp of inquirv. thoush demanded bv workman. Accordinc to workman had she given the documents, she conld hâve pointed out as to how the then Brandi Manager. Mr. Pai li?d acted malafit!*. Copies of documents on which the manage-

S.O. 835.—In pi'i-suance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (11 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government herebv publishes the award-, -ïRef. ... No. 16|2000~) of the Central Government Industrial Jïibunal-ctim-Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute hetween the employers in relation to the management of Puujab National Bank and their workman, which was re- ceived by the Central Government on 11-2-2002.

[No. L-12O11|156I99-IR(B-II)] A3AY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNiMENT INDUSTRIAL TRiBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW PRESENT :

RUDRESF1 KUMAR, Presiding Officcr I.D. No. 16|2000 Réf. No. L-1201i/156/99/TR(B-II) dtd. 15-2-2000.

BETWEEN

The Vice Président, Funjab National bank Em- ployées Congress, S-581, Yashoda Nagar, Kanpur.

AND

The Sr. Rcçionnî M>:ir: -er, Punjab National Bank S9.:y. i<^::•:• ,ï Office, Birhana Road Kanpur.

AWARD

By order No. L-12011|156|99-IR(B-II) dated 15-2-2000, the Central Government in the Miniscry of Laibour, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Section 2(A) of I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) rdferred this industrial dispute between the Vice Président, Punjab National Bank Employées Congress, Kanpur espousing cause of A. K. Verma and the Sr. Régional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kanpur for adjudication.

The référence under adjudication is as under :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in imposing the punishment order, dated 6-1-1998 and 6-3-98 upon Shri A. K. Verma, is" légal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The représentative union, the Punjab National Bank Empîo}rees Congress, lias espoused cause of Mr. A. K. Verma, its Vice Président impugning action of its employer the Punjab National Bank, in im- posing punishment orders dated 6-1-98 and 6-3-98. No punishment order was passed on 6-1-98, but a show' cause notice after domestic enqujry was given. Punishment order actually was passed on 6-3-1998.

3. The brief facts of the casu are; that the work- man was sejved with a charge sheet dated 1-2-1994 for withdraiwing on différent dates a sum qf Rs. 80,060 from an account of a deceased person fradutently and further for destroying the relevant rccordsldocumen*s of the bank to hide his fradulent activities, The acis on the paît of the workman consritu- ted "gross misconducf' under para 19.5(j) and (d)

2539 of the Bipartite setîlements. The workman was aise placed under suspension for his aforesaid miscon- duct on 28-4-1993 but latçr, reinstated on 24-7-1995, He submitted reply to the charge r.heet on 9-2-1994 which was not found satisfactory a,tid the Disciplinary Authority by order dated 10-6-1994 ordered départ- mental enquiry to look into the truthfulness of the allégations as contained in the charge sheet dated 1-2-1994.

4. The Enquky Officer conducted the enquiry ai per provision of the Bipartite settlemenîs, during which the workman was afforded reasonable and fair oppor- tunity to défend himself. The Enquiry Oflicer sub- mitted his report dated 31-3-1997 to fhe Discipîinary Authority holding that the charges against the work- man not proved.

5. The Discipîinary Authority did not agrée with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31-3-1997, partly, in respect of charge no. 1 but concurred with findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of charge no. 2. À show cause notice was issued to the woxkman by order dated 6-1-1998 which elaborated in détail the points of disagreement which is quoted hère under :

"1 do not agrée with the findings and reasoning given by Enquiry Officer in respect of the allégations made in Charge No. 1, I find from the chargesheet dated 1-2-1994 that the Charge No. 1 essentiaîly contains fol- lowing three allégations :—

1. that he kept in his personal cusîory with fradalent intention unused chèque leaves no. 165433 to 165450 surrendered by Mjs. Swastik Garments in its Current AjC No. 986.

2. that the entered the aforesaid surreudered chequiîa fcaves in the deceased Current A[c. no. 344 AND.

3. that he managed to withdraw on. différent dates sum of Rs. 80060 from the said deceased A|C by using the surrendered chèque leaves."

I hâve carefully gone through the records of enquiry proceedingb and documents exhibiied during the course of enquTry and I am of the view that the allégations mentioned at Point No. 2 & 3 above of Charge No. 1 can be said to hâve been proved in the departmental enquiry.In respect of allégations that you had entered surrendered chèque leaves in deceased Current A|c. No. 344,1 find that Shri S. C. Shukla, MW-1 at P'age No. 36 of flrst enquiry register has deposed that the concemed Ledgersheet had been prepared and initialled by you. I further find that Sri P. C. Gupta, MW-6 aï Page Nu. 16 of enquiry register no. 2 has deposed that the handwriting in exhibit P-ll is .that of Sri Verma. In view of thèse dépositions of MW-1 and MW-6, I am of the view that this part of the allégations in Charge No. 1 standsi established.

6. By the said show cause-notice the Discipîinary Authority, proposed punishment 'bringing down to lower stage in the scaîe of pay by two stages as per2540 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002, PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPARI I I - S EC 3(ih| para 19.6 (c) of the Bipartite seulement'. The work- man on receipt of this show cause notice dated 6-1-98 appeared betore the Disciplinary Authority along- with his defence représentative Mr. R. B. Tevaii. He was given personal heaxing. However, the Disci- plinary Authority was not satisficd and did not find reasonable grounds to reconsider proposed punishment by his letter dated 6-1-1998. On 6-3-1998 the pro- posed punishment as above, was confirmed by Mr. R. P. Sharma, Sr. Régional Manager exercising power of the Disciplinary Aulhority.

7. In para 4 of the claim siatement the workman also admitted that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and the Enquiry Officer exonerated him of ail charges by its findings dated 31-3-1997. In the claim statement, he extensively quoted from tbc iecorded findings of the Enquiry Officer to prove his bonafides.

8. Since the punishment was inflicted after domes- tic enquiry, this Tribunal by ils order dated 1-2-2001 framed two preliminary issues as follow :

(j) Whether the domestic enquiry was fair and proper ? ; and

(ii) whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and unsustainable in law ?

9. In the présent adjudication, it is proved on admission of the parties that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper. The workman in his claim statement asserted so and the management also has not challenged fajrness and propriety of. the enquiry, as such, issue No. 1 does not need any discussion. As far as issue no. 2 is concerned the Disciplinary Autho- rity disagreed with part of the conclusions. Because the management partly disagree with the findings, it cannot be taken that the findings were perverse. No . verments hâve been made in the written statement oi the management, that the findings are perverse. Hence this issue need not detain us any further.

10. It is submitted by ihe management that the Disciplinary Authority was not bound to accept findings of the Enquiry Office r a ni under law, had every right to disagree fully oc partly. It is settled law that the Disciplinary Authority must specify points of disagreement and afford opportunity to the workman to gxplain such points. In this séquence, the show cause notice dated 6-1-1998 is required to be appreciated. This show cause notice proposing punishment elaborated points of disagreement with grounds which persuaded the Disciplinary Authority not to be satisfied with the findings. The Disciplinary Authority quoted extensively from the évidence of the witnesses recorded during enquiry and drew his own conclusion and disagreed with the findings on charge no. 1. Points of disagreemeat with adéquate reason? hâve been given in the show cause notice dated 6-1-1998, which is not denied by the workman also. As such, the show cause notice dated 6-1-1998 was perfectly légal and within the compétence of the Disciplinary Authority. This show cause notice afforded reasonable opportunity to the workman to explain points of disagreement and the wo'rkman with his defence représentative during personal hearing tried his best'to satisfy the Disciplinary Authority.

So, the workman was given full opportunity and thsre was no violation of the rule of natural justice.

11. The Disciplinary Authoriiy after due considé- ration recorded his views that there was no need to interfère with the proposed punishment and confirmed the punishment by order dated 6-3-1998. A close scrutiny of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as well the point of disagreement and the final conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Aufhority do not cal] for any interférence.

12. Accordingly, award is against the workman. He is not entitled to any relief.

LUCKNOW

6-2-2002

RUDRESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the l l th February, 2002 S.O. 836.—In pursuanec of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 7912000) of the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Go- vernment on 7-2-2002.

[No. L-12011181 j 2000-IR (B-1I)]

AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI Y. P. BHATT, PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSRIAL TRIBUNAL CENTRAL,

AHMEDABAD

Référence (ITC) No. 79 of 2000 ADJUDICATION BETWEEN United Bank of India • First party. AND

The workmen employed under it. . . Second party In the matter of rejecting the reimbursement of médical bill dated 23-1-1998 to Shri S. M. Bhavsar.

APPEARANCES:

None for the Second Party.

AWARD

By an Order No. L-12011 f81 |2000jIR(B-ll) dated 31-7-2000, the Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi lias referred an industrial dispute between the above parties for adjudication as stated in the Schedule of above order u|s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to this Tribunal.

Though the matter was fixed for hearing on various dates, the Second party failed to remain présent before this Tribunal atnd, therefore, this Tribunal had to make several adjournments. How- ever, in order to enablé the Second party to remain présent and file the stateirrent of claim, the matter was fixed for hearing on 8-1-2002, but on this day also, neither the Second party himself nor his Re- présentative remained présent. From this, it is quite clear that the Second party is not interested to proceed with this matter. In the resuit, I pass the following order :—

ORDER

The Référence is dismissed for non prosecution and it is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

Ahmedabad, 8th January, 2002.

Y. P. BHATT, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the llth February, 2002 S.O. 837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 25/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Lucknow as shown in the Anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-2-2002.

fNo. L-12012/141/2000-IR(B-II)l AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2541

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Rudresh Kumar, Presiding Officer.

I. D. No. 25/2001

L.12012/l41/2000/IR(B-II) dateJ 30-1-2001

BETWEEN

Hari Nath Singh, S/o Shri R. C. Singh R/o 525/369/3, Purana Mahanagar, Lucknow, (U.P.)

AND

The Régional Manager, Dena Bank, 28-A, Praveen House, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow (U.P.) '<

AWARD

By Order No. L-12012/14]/2000/ÏR(B-I) dated 30-1-2001, the Central Govrenment in the Ministry of Labour, in exercise of powers enoferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), referred this industrial dis- pute between Hari Nath Singh S/o Shri R. C. Singb and the Régional Manager, Dena Bank, Lucknow for adjudication.

The référence under adjudication is as under :

"Whether the action of Dena Bank in dismissing the services vide order dated 23-4-1997 ol Hari Nath Singh was légal and justified '/ If not, what relief the workman is cntitled to?"

2. Admittedly, the workman, Hari Nath singh was working as Head Cashier at Nadan Mahal Road branch of Dena Bank at Lucknow since the year 1985, He, allegedly, during the period of his posting ,at the said branch, commîtted cçminal breach of trust and was charge sheeted. The Asstt. General Manager of the said bank issued a charge sheet on 11-11-1995, which also contained his suspension order. A charge of misappropriation of Rs. 40,000 was level-< led against the workman. Later, a criminal case under Section 420/408 IPC was got registered on 18-11-95 at P. S. Kotwali, Chowk, Lucknow. The workman was found to hâve further embazzled a huge amount. The workman was rslcased on bail in crime No. 509/95 under Section 420/408 I.P.C. by judicial order dated 24-5-96. Two other charge sheets dated 14-5-96 and 13-8-96 were also issued against him, as during investigation, it came to notice that he had embazzled a sum of Rs. 3,47,800. According to workman, on receipt of the two subséquent. charge sheets, he filed an application on 12-6-96 intimating management aboui his inabiiity to submit reply in absence of révélant docu- ments, and further that his reply to the charges woulci préjudice his case by disclosufe of his deféncei - ".As such, he preferred not to reply the letter.

2542 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MA-RGH 9, 200.2, BH&LGUNA 18. 1923 IPART II--SEC. 3(fl)l

3. Sri Virendra Singh, Manager, Régional of the Dena Bank was appointcd as Enquiry Officer to con- duct disciplinary enquiry against the accused. The workman vide his letter dated 26-11-96 informed the Enquiry Officer showing his inability as any reply would hâve direct bearing on criminal charges against him. Again on 25-1-1997, the workman subrnitted an application before the Enquiry Of&cer inter-alia pray- ing that in the circumstances of the case it would not be appropriate for him to disclose his defence which would adversely efïect criminal proceeding against him on the same subject matter.

4. The domestic enquiry proceeded ignoring request of the workman and was concluded. A copy of the eaquiry report was forwarded to him by letter dated 17-2-97. A show cause notice dated L2-4-97 was served on workman on 14-4-°7, requiring him to show cause as to why hç shouid not be dismissed from the service of the bank. In reply to the aforesaid notice, the workman submitted his reply by registered post on 23-4-97, stating that entire enquiry proceeding against him was conducted in utter violation of the provisions of law and principle of natural justice with- out considering his repty, the management of the bank, ultimately, dismissed him vide order dated 23-4-1997.

5. It is also pleaded by the workman in the claim statement that he had fully participated in the domes- tic enquiry yet he was not given full opportunity to défend hirnself, in as much as, he was given only two weeks time to reply of the show cause notice dated 12-4-97 served on him on 14-4-97. The dismissal order was passed on 23-4-97 i.e. before the expiry cf stipulated time in the said notice. In doing so the management ignored judgement and direction of Hoa'ble High Court in Writ Pétition No. 7546 (S/S) of 199é. It is conceded by the parties that the dismissal order was passed on first charge sheet dated 11-11-95 and later two charge sheets were kept in abeyance due to dismissal order of the workman.

6. The management has refuted facts as to déniai of proper opportunity to the workman and not per- mitting him to défend himself during the domestic enqjairy. It is stated that during the suspension period he was allowed to enter into the branch premises with prior permission of the Branch Manager to facilitate inspeclion of documents eic. It is admitted that on 18-11-95 a F.I.R. was lodged against the workman under Section 420/408 I.P.C. for embazzlement of Rs; 95,000 on différent dates. It is clarified that the second charge sheet dated 14-5-96 had no connection with tfee earlier charge sheet daled 11-11-95. It was further clarified by the management that the dismissal of the workman was on the ba-sis of •proved charges contained in charge sheet-cum-suspension order dated 11-11-95. Domestic enquiry was conducted as per raie in accordance with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 10-12-96. The workman fully parti- cipated in the domsetic enquiry and availed full op- portunity to défend himself on charges levelled against him. He had not demanded any document nor had raised any objection in the course of enquiry as would be évident from the enquiry proceedings. His plea in this regafd, is, an after tliought and fabricaud, and so has no substance. After issuance of the first charge sheet, the workman had. filed a Writ Pétition No. 7547/96 (S/S) against his suspension order before the Hon'ble High Court, Lucknow Bench, Allahabad. The Hon'bie High Court passed order on 10-12-96 direct- ing the bank to complète tfae departmental enquiry and award final punishment within 4-1/2 months. Accord- ingîy, the bank acted upon in compliance of the Hon'- ble High Court order on completion of enquiry and passed punishmem order as per law. The workman was pruvided copies of the enquiry proceedings and find- ings of the Enquiry Officer and personal hearing on pro posed punishment was also given to him asking him to appear before Disciplinai y Authority on 21-4-97 ai Régional Office, Lucknow at 11.30 A.M. vide Mémo No. LRO/PER/454/97 dated 12-4-97. The workman on his own preferred not to appear before the Disci- plinary Authority. The order of dismissal was .passed assuming that the workman had nothing to say on the proposed punis>hment, and dismissal order was passed after considering grave misconduct committed by mis-appropriating bank money deposited by the customers.

7. Two issues were framed on 7-9-2001 to déter- mine fairness of the domestic enquiry and to judge perversity of the findings, which are as follow :

(i) That the domestic enquiry culminating into dismissal of the workman whether was fair and proper ? and

(ii) whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer suffers with vice of perversity ?

8. The management submitted records of domestic enquiry and a copy of the said enquiry record werc made available to the workman. For détermination of above preliminaiy issues, it is not necessary to go deep into the merit of the alleged embazziement as it is primariiy required to judge fairness of the enquiry and to evaluate findings to judge whether same are perverse ?

9. It is admitted case of the parties that the work- man had filed Writ Pétition No. 7547 (S/S) of 1996 which the High Court passed order on 10-12-y6 direc- ting the management to proceej with the enquiry and pass appropriate punishment with in stipulated time in the said order. The workman was fully aware with early processing of the enquiry. He avoided to file reply on merit, as, according to rn'in any disclosure of defence " during domestic enquiry could préjudice his defence in criminal triais. A reply in the domestic enquiry could not hâve prejudiced his defence. In the criminal proceedings his act constituting offence was to be judg- ed ou the basis of prosecution évidence beyond ail reasonable doubt, whereas, in the domestic enquiry he was simply required to satisfied the authorities about his having complied witb rulns and procedvrce in the matter of making entries in the records and depositing cash to disprove alleged misconçhict on his part. In any manuer such explanation could not hâve prejudic- ed defence case in the criminal proceeding. The work- man, by not filing any reply to the charges denied himself an opportunity to prove his bon a fides. Unlike criminal proceedings, not act, but conduct, is relevant in domestic enquiries, and main thrust remains to judge suitability of the oharged emp'oyee to be retained in service.

2543

token of xteposit with bank seal is taken as proof. The account holder could not hâve identified the workman after such a long time. His signature, on the receipt was proved by the management's witness. This signa- ture was not disputed by calling hand writng expert by the workman. MW Sabhajeet Singh a co-worker was familiar with working and also signatures of the workman was rightly relied by the Enquiry Officer. Talcing so, the finding of the Enquiry Officer is not perverse and is based on relailbe évidence.

13. It is pleaded by the workman that domestic enquiry should hâve deferred till disposai of the cri- minal case. This submission is apparently misconceiv- ed. There is no bar of initiating domestic enquiry dur- ing the criminal proceedîng. The purpose of a criminal proceeding and domestic enquiry are quite distinct snd not dépendent on each other. The domestic enquiry judges a employée about his future usefulness where as the -criminal proceedings if proved goes in convic- tion on fhe "basïs of a proved offence. In view of the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the management had no option to complète enquiry with in given time frame. This plea is thus rejected.

10. -The-domcstic enquiry agatnst the workman com- menced on 8-2-97. The workman was présent in per- son. Prior thereto, the first date of enquiry was 25th January, 1997at 1 j .00 A.M. The workman preferred not to appear and sought .adjournment which was allowed by the "Enquiry Officer and next date was iîxed on 8-2-97. On this date the Enquiry Officer enquired from the workman about his having recerved charge sheet. The workman stated in affirmative terms and also" pleaded not guilty. He was asked by the Enquiry Officer whether he would like to seek any assistance on which the workman replied that he would défend his case himself. He also produced list of docu- ments and witnesses which were to be relied by him. Some documents were also produced by him on the said date. Again, a very spécifie querry was put to him whether he xeceived the documents and list of witnesses to ,be relied by the Presenting Officer ? In reply he accepted to hâve received ail documents and list of witnesses. The workman was also satisfied with correetness of the documents and was not eager to seek re-verification from original documents. Thèse records give inference that the workman was in pos- session of the documents to be relied by the manage- ment during the domestic enquiry. His plea of déniai of documents or materials to disentitle him make effec- tive cross examination, is, totally imaginary and an after thought.

14. It is further pleaded that show cause notice dated 12-4-97 was served on him on 14-4-97. The dismissal order was passed on 23-4-97 before stipu- lated lime to reply show cause notice and this fact shows biased approach of the management. Earlier to this show cause notice, a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the workman for submission of his comments/explanations, which was not replied. Fhere was no likelihood of a changed verdict, even after few days, particularly, the workman having shown disin- clination to disclose his defence and also cross exa- mining the maangement's witness.

15. Thus, in the totality of the facts and cireums- tances, the only inference is that the domestic "iqu'try was fair and proper and also that the findings of En- quiry Officer cuiminatmg into punishment oï dismissal, ïs not perverse. The domestic enquiry is held fair and proper. Looking into gravity of misconduct, the punish- ment of dismissal k not disproportionate and needs no mtereference.

11. The domestic enquiry was to be processed and completed within a time frame as per the direction of the High Court. The workman was'alive to this fact. The workman himself cross examined manage- ments witnesses and sought adjournment as and when necessary to prépare the case. The records of Enquiry proceedings were signed by him so, his plea of pré- judice is not real. The management examined Sabhajeet Singh, a co-worker at Dena Bank, Nadan Mahal Road Branch, Lucknow since 9-2-1993. Fe proved that cash of Rs. 40,000 only was received by the workman and he signed counter foil of the receipt. This amount per- tained to SB A/c. 4820, and the cash amount was received on 20-9-95 by the workman himself, func- tioning as head cashier. This amount was not deposited and enïbezzled by the workman.

16. Accordingly, the référence is answered against

the workman. He is not entitled to any relief. Lucknow,

5-2-2002.

RUDRESB KUMAR, Presiding Officer 12. The workman cross examined the witness ar.d_a spécifie question was put as îtow he could say that initial appearing on the counter foil was his. The wit- ness replied of being familiar with his signatures, as they were collègues and he had seen his signatures for a number of years. On request of the woïkman, the case was adjourned and this witness was brought again'for cross examination on 11-2-97. the workman declined to cross examine the witness any further on plea that criminal trial in îhe court was psnding. The workman had filed Writ Pétition. The direction of Hon'ble Hgih Court was law of this case and the man- agement produced évidence to prove charges. MW Sabhajeet 'Singh proved entrustment of money to the workman and also that he did not enter the amount' and misappropriated the same. Tt was best available évidence. A plea was raised that the account holder was not produced. to.prqve..entrustment. In.•tenkinsï, no aceount hnlder can ^tate ms who amqngst -the offi- ciais received money. Reliance on receîpt îssued in2544 1HE GAZETTE OF JM>FA : MARCH 9, 20û2> PHALGUNA 18, 1923 |FART II—SEC. 3(ih] New Delhi, the Hlli Fcbtuury, 2002 i endorseraent, tbat number of chawl was. îrot uicn- tioned. The management Counscl Mr. Pai reported vide (Fxhibit-6) that address mentioned on the schedule order was conejt and therefore again on the samc address, notice was issued (Exhibit-7). However, the cnvclopc îcxviveô back with endorse- ment 'not known'. Management vide affidavit (Ex- hibit-9) confirmed the t-ddress. on which the notices were cent Iwicc.

S.O. 838.—In pursuance of Section J7 of the Industriil Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebv publishes the award (Réf. No. 2 7 of 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cura -LC Nu 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Inùustrial Dispute between the employais in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Govcrnmenl on 6-2-2002.

|No. L-I2O12|132I2OOO-1R(B-U) AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

6EFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA1 NO. II, MUMBAI

3. It is seen from the 'schedule' notice was sent by th; Ministry by Registcrcd post, mentioning therein, te file the Statement of claim in the stipulated time, however despite that, Shri Sonawane did not turn up. This shows that Sonawane having knowledge of the référence, did not pursue the same, which indi- cative to show that, Sonawane does not intend to pro- secute the référence. Tberefore, the référence. deserves to be disposed of and hence the order :—

PRESENT :

ORDER

S. N. Saundankar.—Presiding Officer.

Référence stands disposed of for non-prosecution.

Référence No. CGIT-2|7 of 2001.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer Employers in relation to the Management of

Dena Bank.

The Assît. Gen. Manager(P), DB. 7th Flo->r, Maker Towers, 'F Wing, P.B. No. 6058, Curïe Parade, Mumbai-400 005.

AND

Ttieir Workmen.

Sh. Rajesh D. Sonawane, GRDFL, Gulam Mohd. Chawî, Room No 28. Dhaiavi Cross Rd, Dr. 27]6-17DD Mumbai-400 017.

APPEARANCES :

New¹ Delhi, the 11 th February, 2002 For the Employer.—Mr. R. S. Pai, Advocate.

For the Workmen.—No Appearance.

Mumbai, dated lOîh January, 2002.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, by

S.O. 839.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CGIT-2|57 of 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC No. II, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman, which was received by the Centra] Government on 6-2-2002.

[No. L-12012|122'97-IR (B-ÏI)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer its Order No. L - ^ O ^ ' t ^ ^ O O O ^ B - I I ), dated 10-1-2001, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (J) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Induslria) Disputes Act, 1947, hâve referred the following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. II, MUMBAI '•Whethcr the action of the management of Mis. Dena Bank, Mumbai by terminating the services of Shti Rajesh Dadarao Sona- wane is justified and proper ? If not, thsn what relief the workman is entitled to ?"'

PRESENT :

S. N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer.

Refçrence No, C'GIT-2157 of 1998 2. On receipt of référence, record shows that, this Tribunal issued notices (Exhibit-2) to the work- man. However, the same returned back witb.

2545

3. Management flled Wfittén submissibbs "(Exhibil-

36), and the workman at (Exhibit-37).

Employers in Relation to the Management of Bank of Maharashtra

4. On going through the record as a whole and the wrïtten submissions, 1 record my findings on the following issues for the* reasons mentioned below :

Issues ' Findings The Régional Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Goâ Région? Dattâ Pràsad Bldg:, MO koâtf, Panaji, GOA-403 001.

3. Whether* the action of Barik of Yes.

A N*

Maharashtra in imposing the punishment of réduction in the pay to the next lower stage and withdrawal of Spécial Alîowance perm'ariently of Kuulkarni is légal and justified ?

Their Wbrkmen Bank of Maharashtra Karmachari Sangh, General Secretary, BÔMTKS, Zonal Office, Cjo BMS/-487, B "RaViVa'r Path, Koftapiir.

APPÉARANCES:

4. If not,' to what relief the said As per order workmarn is entitled to ? belôw.

For the Employé^: Mr.¹ A . P. "Na'ya-k;i;Représenta-

REASONS

tive.

:546 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGLNA 18, 1923 [FART 1T-- SEC, 3fii)J

7. Un gcing tlirough ihe record which indicate that 20 charges were proved against the workman who is said to be an active leader of trade union, working in the industry like bank, in the light of the décision referred to above hardly can be said that punishment awarded io him is excessive. The action of the management in view¹ of the position being totaîly légal and justified workman is not entitled to any reliefs. Consequently Issue Nos. 3 & 4' are answered accordingly and hence the order :—

ORDER

The action of the Bank of Maharashtra in im- posing the punishment of réduction in the pay to next iower stage and withdrawal of spécial allowance nermanently of Shri S. C. Kulkarni is légal, proper and iustified, consequently he is not entitled to any reliefs.

S. N. SAUNDANKAR, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the llth February, 2002 S.O. 840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 22/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-2-2002.

[No. L-170011[18|99-IR(B-II)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRTAL TRT- BUNAL AT KOLKATA

Référence No. 22 of 2000

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of LIC of India.

AND

Their vorirmen

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management : Mr. A. K. Sinha, A.A.O. (P & IR).

On behalf of Workmen : Mr. A. K. Saha, General

Secretary of the Union.

State : West Bengal. Industry : Life Insurance.

AWARD

By Order No. L-17011 |18|99jIR(B-II) dated 24-3-2000 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 10(l)(d) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, Calcutta Metropolitan Division-I Calcutta in impos- ing punishment on Shri Shiv Charan Lai Sweeper (SR No. 321031) removing him from service is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" 2. The présent référence has been made on the dispute raised by the Jatiya Jiban Bima Karraachari Samiti, affiliated to I.N.T.U.C. of the L.I.C. of Tndia, Eastern Zone on behalf of the workman Shiv Charan Lai on his dismissal from service by the management of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zonal Office, Calcutta.

3. From the written statement filed on behalf of the union it appears that the said workman, Shiv Charan Lai was permanently employed as Sweeper in its Divisional Office, C.M.D.O.-I, Calcutta-72. It is stated that the office had allotted a staff quarter to the concerned workman in the same place where some employées of the same cadre were allottjd quarters. It is also stated that due to lack of proper minimum living required accommodation, the staff living there had constructed temporary sheds of their own to maintain themselves according to their needs and in the same manner the concerned workman had also constructed a purely temporary shed with the help of tarpaulin and bamboo sticks for cooking space and food etc. It is stated that the workman concerned belongs to down-trodden community of sweeper class and because of his ignorance he did not know the formalities required and he was not obstructed or objected by anybody while the struc- ture was being put up. Thereafter on 2-4-1994 a chargesheet was issued against the workman by the management in this matter. Again, a chargesheet was issued on 1-9-1994 in the said matter. When the workman concerned came to know about the realities in course of tbe departmental enquiry, he demblished the same and informel the Enquiry Officer also though the other persons the staffs who had also made construction, did not do so. The union also wrote s letter dated 21-9-1995 in this regard to the management giving out the facts and détails of the matter, but the management did not pay any atten- tion to it. The aforesaid facts were also brought to 2547 the notice of the Enquiry Officer and the other authorities, including the disciplinary authority from time to time in course of discussions, tout the Enquiry Officer acting as a subordinate of the disci- plinary authority diû not take any notice of the tacts and in an àrbitrary manner submitted a wrong and unjustified enquiry report and on the basis of this enquiry report, the management imposed a severe puunishment on the workman for his removal from service by order dated 10-7-1995. It was in a very arbitrary manner and it indicated the préjudice of the management to remove the workman concerned from his service by hook or by crook. The work- man, thereafter, appealed to the appellate authority, but the appellate authority also turned a deaf year to the submission of the said workman without applying its mind and passed an order on 21-9-1995. There- after the workman concerned submitted a mémorial to the Chairman of the L.I.C. of India on 25-3-1996 which Was disposed of by the Chairman after a long lapse of timq on 27-8-1999 when the Régional Labour Commissioner (Central), Calcutta enquired about it on being moved by the workman. The Chairman also did not apply his mind and tumed down the mémorial in routine manner by his order dated 27-S-1999. It is further stated that the union had been discussing the matter with the management by writing letters from time to time to review the punishment, but inspite of assurance given by the management, the order of dismissal could not be reviewed and so the union raised the dispute and on failure of the conciliation proceeding, failure report was submitted to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and the présent référence was made. It has been prayed on behalf of the union that the pro- per relief be granted and necessary direction be issued to the management in this regard.

30-3-1994. The explanations were found unsatisfac- lory and then tne management was constrained to issue a chargesne-et on 28-4-1994 for breach of Keguiation 21 of the L.I.C. of India (Staff; Régula- tions, 1966. It is stated that for such mistakes or ornmissions the workman could be awarded any of the penalties specined undtr Régulation 39(l)(a) to 39(lJ(g). It is stated that by the said chargesheet the workman concerned was invited to give explana- tion within 15 days from the receipt ot the charge- sheet regarding his axlament behaviour. It is also further stated that while proceeding in respect of the above chargesheet was pending, the said work- man constructed another temporary hutment in un- authorised manner in the same terrace of the Rallis Building and kept the same under his occupation and he also occupieu a sub-stanciarn room on the terrace o£ the building. It is stated that for such repeated acts, he was again issued a chargesheet on 1-9-1994 for breach of Régulation 2i. By the said chargesheet the said workman was again invited to give his state- ment with regard to admission or déniai of charge within 15 days of the receipt of the chargesheet and since the reply given by him were not round satis- factory and he admitted the guilt on his part, the management was constrained to initiate disciplinary proceeding as per the Régulation and in course of the proceeding ail reasonable opportunities in accord- ance with the tenates of natural justice were given to him. The workman concerned was also assisted by some person in his defence and he attended the day- to-day proceeding in respect of both the charges and the copies of the relevant documents were also fur- nished to him. The workman was also given sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the management wit- nesses and also to examine his own witnesses. The workman alongwith his defence assistant participatea in the enquiry and did not raise any kind of objec- tion regarding the manner of enquiry or the biase on the part of the Enquiry Officer. So, after the enquiry proceeding concîuded, the Enquiry Officer suubmitted a report to the disciplinary authority and according to the report the charges levelled against the delin- quent wjorkman were feund to be proved. So, the disciplinary authority on considering the enquiry report with an objective and open mind and concur- ring with the enquiry finding, issued a second show cause notice to the workman c^-r^rned proposing penalty of removal from service in ternis of Régula- tion 39(l)(f). The workman also replied to the said second show cause notice vide his letter dated 1-6-1995, but it did not find favour with the disci- plinary authority and the said disciplinary authority, Senior Divisional Manager inflicted the punishment bf removal of the said workman from service by order dated 10-7-1995 and thus the workman was removed with immedite effect. It is also stated that against the said order of removal the workman also filed appeal to the Zona! Manager the appellate authority a-nd the appellate authority considered the contentions of the workman and after considerinç the relevant records concurred with the order of the disciplinary authority and dismiss the appeaî by order dafed 21-9-1995. It is further stated that after the appeal was dismissed the said workman also filed a mémo- rial before the Chairman on 25-3-1996 and after considering the facts and circumstances and conten- tion of the workman in the mémorial, the Chairman dismissed the same by an order dated 27-8-1999 It 4. A written staetment has been filed on behalf of the management also. The written statement consists of three parts in several paragraphs. In Part-A, the validity of the référence itself has been challenged saying that the workman was dismissed in proper manner after proceeding accordingly to régulations and therefore the question of raising industrial dispute did not arise. In Part-B, it has been stated that the concerned workman was removed by adopting proper procédure and the facts hâve been stated. It is stated that the said workman who was attached to O.S. Department, C.M.D.O.-I of the L.I.C. as per his entitlement was allotted a room for occupation alongwith his family in the Metropolitan Building, but inspite of his being allotted a quarter, he cons- tructed four temporary hutments in unauthorised manner on the terrace of the Rallis Building and continued to stay there with his family in illégal manner on false pretext of inconvenience. It is further stated that the said workman was directed by the Security Officer of the L.I.C. vide his letters dated 20-12-1993, 31-1-19941 and 28-3-1994 to vacate the hutments and to demolish the same, but the workman did not comply with the direction. It is further stated that the said workman was allotted sub-standard staff quarter in the Metropolitan Build- ings vide a letter dated 5-11-1993 by the manage- ment, but he did not occupy the same. Then the management sought explanation from the concerned wbrkman and the explanation was offered by hirn vjde his'letters dated 13-1-1994, 5-2-1994 and2548 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART I I ^ - S E C. 3(ii)l is .also stated that the. union filed application for ré'view ùnder Régulation 48(2) of' the* Stàfï Régula- tions hefore the Zonal Manager at various stages and tried to evoke sirnpathy for the workman, But,in ail thèse rnemôrials and communications the factum of pommissioii of misçonduct was not denied and the ad- mission of .guiit was never disputed. In .this baçkground surprisingly the",union took up the matter in an, indus- tfial dispute. In Part-C of the written sjatement, the statements, made on behalf, of the union in différent paragraphs hâve be,en denied, exeepting for, the matters of "record and the union was askecl to pprve the alle- .gatipns.

5. Later, a rejoinder to this written statement was also filed on behalf of the union in which certain allé- gations inade by the management were denied and it has been finaïly prayed that the workman be ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages by quashing the, order of punishment against the wprkman concerned. <

6. From the averments in the two written statements it appears that the workman chaiienged the correetness of the enquiry proceedings also and the management vehimently challenged it and requested to take up the matter as prelrminary issue. But, when the hearing çommenced the challenge to the correetness and fair- ness of the enquiry proceeding or the report was not seripusly pressed and therefore the évidence was led on behalf of botn the parties for finally considering the matter on rnerit. It is therefore clear that the enquiry report renjains unchallenged and there is no question of cpnsidering the fairness or otherwise of the enquiry report or the enquiry proceeding. So far as the punish- ment awarded to the workman is concerned, the punishment has also been awarded according to the provisions of (lie Staff R e l a t i o n s. But, at the time of final argument it was submitted on behalf of the union that the punishment is not commeasurate with the act of commission on the part of the workman concerned. Therefore, this aspect of the case should be considered.

7. So far as the évidence is concerned, one witness was examined on behalf of the union and he is the concerned workmari, Shib Charan Lai himself. He has stated the facts that he started working in 1977 and worked with the L.I.C. for 18 years and thereafter he was removed from service. Then he represented his case to the Zonal Manager and also appealed to the Chairman and after 2 years lie received informa- tion that his prayer was refused and then hè approach- ed the union which espouscd his case. He has stated that he was residing at Ralïis Building at 16, Hare Street, Calcutta where many perspns were residing. He has also stateci.that he was proyided a small room in the building and becausc.of the shortage of space he had constructed a hut in.the campus for the pur- pose of, using it as a kitchen, because his wife was a heart patient and was not in a position to cook inside the room..He also stated that sortie-other persons such as Sh.yam Lai, Birendar Prasad, Nathu Lai had cons- tructed huts in the similar manner. He also stated that one Deo Muni Yadav was also living in a quarter by the side ci his room and he was a Clerk in thé L'.ÏIC. He also atlmitted ,that enquiry was held against him b,efore,liis r.pnioval.^nd he was qalled;dufing,|;he en- quiry. He furlher stated ^hat (.when., hç,,went to the efnquiryj.he leairnt that the enquiry was in connection with the, hut constructed by him,,^nd then he r©moyed the huf. He has.also s,tated that he was rernoyed,from service, 6ut.no action was taken agaipst the qther per- sons who jiad, s,irnjiarly constructed buts.,In hisjçross- exarnination, he;lhas stated.that he, was asked by the Security Qfliccr to remove the hut.^nd yaçate .the quurter, and then he had removeçî thç hut aad yocated tiie quartêr, .but he says tha|,he had rçmoyed ;thç but and vaçated the. qparter after . the eiiquiry ,was ;|itart- ed and, he had giyen in v/riting in course, of the en- quiry. , He has deniccl th?,i, he contihued to réside in the campus even, after vacaling the quarter.

8. On the other hand, akoge.theç.four.witnesses hâve been exaaiined on behalf of the management. MW-L AmïtavaMukherjee happened to, be the-..B,uilding1Jns- pector in, the L J . C . a t, the relevant time..,Accooiing to.him in Qctober, 1592, he jh.ad inspec^ed.the building alongwith i he Security Oificer and found that JOU. the roof of the Rallis. Building 8 to 9 semi-permanent.hut- H^ents erected. - He then discussed .with the Security Ôiîicer aand. advised.him to submit a report. Aecording to him Shiv Charan Lai was also one.of the persons who had constructed the hutments and had occupied the same. According to him he had -prepared 3/4 rooms .in the hutment. He also further stated that Shiv Charan Lai did not r-emove the hutment in spite of several reminders to him by-the security peEsonnel and actually once he had broken two of the rooms, but after sometime he had reconstructed the same. According to him the hutments were constructed. in unauthorised manner. He had also heard that Shiv Charan Lai was allotted a quarter in the. Metropolitan Building, but he did not go, therc. He further stated that after his removal from service, Shiv Charan Lai removed,the hutment. in his crpss-examinatjon,he, has sjtate'd- that altogether 3/4 persons had çonstrusted Jhe hutments like. Shiv Çharaa Lai and he had. subgiitted report naming ail those perdons, but he is uaable to say as to against hoWj many persons action was ; taken by the management.

MW-2, fihabani Prasad Majumdar happens to be Assistant Administrative Ofncer of the L.I.C. in the Zonal.Office. According to him, it was his duty to con- trol the watch and ward and maintenance of the LIC building. He knewShiv Charan Lai since 1990-1991 and in 1994 he learnt that Shiv Charan Lai had made some unauthorised construction in he Rallis Building. So, he had gine hère and seen the structure, which was in the sôuthern poriton of the roof of the Rallis Build- ing and- there' were more than three roQms. He then reported the matter to the Security OfBcer. He also heard that Sh.iv Charan Lai was allotted a ropmin.the Metropolitan Building, but he did,not go there to.oçjçu- py the saine. In histcross-exarninatiqn, heh'as stated that there was. no varandah, bath room or, kitchen in,the hutments constructed by Shiv Charan Lai and the struc- ture was temporary made of bricks., . bamboos apd straw, tiles and plastice etc. He hâs stafed ,that Ciass- IV ernployees were. stajjing in the Rallis Çuilfjjng, He has denied his. kn,p,wjedge that one Mr. Tewari an Assistant. Enginer w,as also liyingjin .that b.uilding sad that Mr, Tewari. was living i^.the sameHhutmçnts cprtv tïuctëd, there'( Ile also .çjQes-.notj.remember as .ta M?ho was staj{mg in the adjoining hutment pt S.hiv Charan :'i2549 Lîu\,|ie alsQ;4o^,.fl!Ot know as^Q whether t.any açjion \yasij|§keE^gai|î^t ,any (Qfher person for-making unautho- {ised construction- in *he Rallis Building.

MW-3, R. L. Rathore is a -stecurity Officer of- the L.I.C. since 1997 and he has stak\' that at the rele- yantoÇirae..he was^not, présents.- It is obvious that since th£vtijrçident,relies,-tol-9.93r94, this witness had no existence in the L.I.C. then.

MW-4, Susanta Das happens to be a Watchman in the LIC.sMtWed, at-.;R;aUis tBujldjng and.he w,aslalso a watch.raart.injhe saine bwMàng at the relevant Aime. He has stated.ihat hexaftaotsay. ïwhether. Shiv iCharan Lai had. any. altottnent. or-der.in' fois -• faveur, in.* the building and.he h;*" k m ^ ' ^ ï sj ;i1vul the removal of the unauthorised U'!iip""i.!i\ l'oiiMiiictioii by him. He has also stated that..when.hi: dcmnliblicd the .structure, he demolished it in wholc and ihcreuficr lie did not reconstruct it. Therefore, in his statfmfêril>',MW-4i has contradicted the claim of the-;#aana4|ement-.jthat even after démolition: oîtihe .structure,¹ Shiv Charan LalJbiad reconstructed it aftecsomelime.

2550 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H—SEC. 3(ïï)]

He also saw other persons conslructing some tempo- rary structures for releasing pressure of his signle rqom and so he constructed some temporary structures. It has also transpired that several persons had construc- ted such temporary structures, then why it is so ihal this person was only signled out to be punished with such harshest kind of punishment. It shows some bias on the part of the management. Therefore, in my opinion, the punishment of dismissal awarded to this workman cannot be said to be proportionate to his mistake or offence and ihe pupnishment of dis- missal cannot be termed as justified by any means.

11. I, therefore, find that the punishment of dis- missal from service as imposed on this workman is not commensurate with the act of commission or commission committed by this workman for vhich he was charged. Some other lighter punishment could hâve been awarded to him. It appears from his évidence that when he deposed on 12-3-2001 his âge was about 54 years, so he lias not reached ihe âge of superannuation in regular course. Because of his dismissal he has also been deprived of his retire- ment benefits, which appears to be unjustified and improper.

12. In this view of the matter, the punishment of dismissal awarded to Shiv Charan LaJ the concerned workman is quashed and it is hereby ordered that the workman be reinstated in servies forthwith. However, because, he has remained out of job for such a long period, it will not be proper to order pa.yment of back wages to him, which will fall heavyly on the manage- ment and non-payment of back wages shall be treated as punishment awarded to him. Therefore, he shall be reinstaited in service without payment of any back wages, but continuity of his service shall not be affected so far as the retirement benefits at the time of his superannuation is concerned.

Award accordingly .

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata, The 29th January, 2002.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2002 S.O. 841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 174|98) of the Central Government Indus- trial Tribunal-rcum-Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Anncxure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers \n relation to the management of State Bank of lndia and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-2-2002

INo. L-12012!279|97-lR(B.I.)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNFXURE

BEFORE SRI R. P PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 174 of 1998 In the matter of dispute between—

Sri A. N, Pandey, Deputy General Secretary, State Bank of lndia KHnnchari Sangh, B-4|20, Hanuman Ghat Varanasi.

AND

The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of lndia Region-III, Zcnal Office, Varanasi.

AWARD

1. Central Government Mmistry of Labour, vide its notification No. L-12012;279|97-I.R.(B-I) dated nil has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of lndia in withdrawing spécial allowance to Sri Ldllan Misra conséquent upon his transfer is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. Statement of daim on behalf of the workman has been filed with the allégations that the concerned workman was appointed as messenger with combined désignation post in 1981 by the bank at Subodh Muffic Square Branch, Calcutta, and as per existing bank no rule applicable Calcutta Circle the concerned workman was promoted the post of Duftary-cum- messenger with effect from ] 5-4-90 vide branch letter No, Gen|20|73 dated 7-6-90. It has been alleged that the concerned workman was transferred from Calcutta to Zonal Office Varanasi on his request by the management like other employées of the bank Sri Mishri Lai from Calcutta to Varanasi and Sri R. D. Rawat from Bhuneshwar to Varanasi Circle after getting their promotions of Duftary from Calcutta and Bhuneshwar circle. It has further been alleged that the concerned workman is member of the Karamchari Sangh while Sri Mishri Lai and Sri R. D. Rawat are the members of rival union SBISA. It has also been alleged that as per bank's practice înforce an employée willing for his transfer has to give an undertaking before the bank that he will not daim any highër post relief for a period of one year at his requested branch after getting his transfer and as such ail the three employées including the concern- ed woïkman gave their undertaking to their. respective 2551

tion and unrest amongst the senior member of the nussenger cadre and hâve given a few détails of senior messengers of the 2one who haye been pro- moted as Daftari recently. On the basis of above allégations it has been requested that the claim of the workman be rejected..

4. The concerned workman has filed rejoinder but aothing new has been alleged in it except reiterating the facts alleged in the Maternent of claim.

5. After filing the rejoinder the neither the con- cerned workman nor his authorised représentative appeared in the case and case proceeded exparîe against the concerned workman whereas the manage- ment filed documents marked Ext. M-l to M-7. The management also examined Sharad Kumar Mishra as M.W.l.

branches of not claiming efficiating allowances for higher posts like Jamaclar, Record Keeper posts and that will not mean that they will forego their perma- nent promotion of Duftary. It has been alleged that that will not mean that they will forego their perma- nent allowance of Duftary to the concerned workman but continued to pay Daft3ry allowance to Sri Mishri Lai and Sri R. D. Rawat. It has further been alleged that the management paid Sri Mishra his permanent promotional allowance of Dafiary since June, 1991 to January, 1992 but on the pulls and pressure cf rival union the management discontinued his allow- ance of daftary treating his undertaking as refusai from his promotion to the post of daftery while that is not so as Sri Mishra the concerned workman never refuscd his promotion for the post of daftery or jama- dar. On the basis of above allégations it has been prayed that the concerned workman be paid allow- ance of Daftary since JFebruary, 1992 on wards and the concerned workman should further be promoted to the post of Jamadar as other employée of the bank like Sri Mishri Lai and R. D. Rawat.

6. M.W.l in his statement on oath has stated that the posts of messenger, mali, watchman, farrash etc. hâve been categorised in group IV category in the bank and are given cômbined désignation. He has further stated on oath that on the basis of seniority prepared at Zonal level thèse messengers are given promotion at the post of Daftary and are paid daftary allowance The management witness has further stated on oath that the concerned workman was transferred from Calcutta to Varanasi on the basis of his undertaking that he will forego the Daftary ailowance at transferred place. Management witness has further admitted that due to mistake the concern- ed workn.an was paid dafiary allowance from January, 1991 to February, 1992 on the basis of LPC and when this mistake was detected Daftary allowance was dis- continued M.W.l has denied having paid Daftary e'lowance fo any junior employée of the bank in Varanasi Zone. Management witness has further stated on oath that Sri R. D. Rawat and Mishri Lai are senior to the concerned workman and they are being paid Daftary allowance on the basis of their senicrity in Varanasi Zone. Thus from the évidence of M.W.l it is estabJished beyond doubt that the concerned workman was junior to S|Shri Misri Lai and R. D. Rawat and was not entitled to Daftary allowance after his transfer from Calcutta to Vara- nasi Circle.

7. In view of unrebutted évidence of the manage- ment, I am inclined to believe the case of the mana- gement bank and accordingly it is held that the action of the management of State Bank of India in with- drawing spécial allowance to Sri Eallan Misra conséquent upon his transfer is légal and justified, hence the concerned workman is entitled for any relief in puisuànce of the référence made to this tribunal.

8. Référence is answered accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 3. The management of State Bank of India filed written statement with the allégations that the transfer of the con- cerned workman was maU-rialised subject to ihe undertaking and the concerned workman was posted at Rasra Brunch under Région 3 Zonal Office of the bank. The workman has tried to club his case with the case of Sri Misri Lai and R. D. Rawat, which hâve a différent and separate footing. It has been alleged by the management that Sri Misri Lai and R. D. Rawat were appointed on 24-12-74 and the concerned workman was appointed on 1-10-81. It lias been alleged that in Calcutta Circle seniority of subordinate cadre is considered at Branch level where- as in Lucknow Circle seniority of subordinate cadre is considered at Zonal Level. It is further alleged by the management that theic is a long list of much more senior messengers who could not be granted the promotional opportunity in the cadre of Daftari, hence the concerned workman was|is not entitled to get daftari allowance. The management has further alleged that there is no question for the concerned workman to forego his permanent in cadre promotion of Daftari. The concerned workman got the said promotion as per his seniority maintained at Zonal level as per bank policy applicable jn the circle. It has further been alîeged by the management that story of unfair treatment has been set out malaôdely in order to give colour te the case. It is alleged that the concerned workman desires to get in cadre pro- motion out of turn ignoring quite a large number of senior employée of the Zone which is not just équit- able and tenable and if the claim of the concerned workman considered for granting him in cadre pro- motion it would create dissatisfaction amongst the senior messengers and this will create industrial un- rest in the Zone for which the bank is not prepared. It has been alleged that due lo over look the concern- ed workman was paid the daftari allowance for which he was not entitled and la ter on the management realised the mistake and with drew the said daftari allowance. It has been alleged that the claim of the concerned workman is misconceived hence and ten- able. The management by way of additional plea has.pAeaded that the concemed workman cannot be granted promotion at tfie cost of creating dissatisfac- 2552" THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCHE,¹2002/'PïML'GUNÀ 18, J923 IPART H—SEC.' 3'ÏÏ)] New Ddfhï,"the' 12th February, 2002 S.O. 842.—ini'pursuatice of Section- 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cëhtral" Government hereby ' publishes the award (Réf. No. 232 [92') of thé Central GOvërnmënt Indus- triât-Tribunal-cum-LC, Jabalpur as shôwrl in thé Armexure* in the'Industrial Dispute bétween the errfp- loysrs* in relation" to the : management of Union Bank of ïn'dia and~théh"'Woikman, wfiich was received • by the Central Government on 11-2-2002.

ÏNo; L-12012) I"gf92-IR^B-H)] A.IAV KUMARfDesk- Offibôr

ANNEXURE"'

BEFORE TH1: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 'NDUSTRFAL TRLBUNAL^CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR •

Case No. CGIT L.C R|232 92

PRESENT-:

Pre$iding"Qmcër : S h ri K M. Rai-.

Smt • Usha'-Sultan ^Singh Jam, OtrrkCashiëf, ' Urtiort"Bank""f India Ihrtnugb Geneftd Secretary, Madhya Prciesh'

.Applicant

Versus •

Régions} 'Mhriageî, - R"|i"i"li Offlife, Napie" TofW'n-," Jub3)fMlr. .

. . Non-applicant

AWARD

Pa?

4. Copy -of -the nwflrd bc-sent to'the Minîstry of Lab^Ui^as p.'r rulcs.

K.-M. RAI, Presiding Officer Ne\v Dclhii ihe 13th February-, 2002 S.O.^43>—In'i purSuanee of'Section 17 of the Jndustriai Dispute* > Act; 1947 (14 of 1947), thé Centt'ol-^'GOVefntnënt'"' hereby publishfes- the awaTd (Réf. No\ 20/20§l)'of the'Cèrifral Government Indus-- trial Tributtal^uirl'-LC, Na^Uf- as showw in thef Ar.nftiWre fe tfoe^ndustrîal'Dtëpete-befwèeh the emp- loyers in"tdàtiôH to *he!inanageme¥rt -of Dena Bafik andi received by ' the Centtsal G^vnhleîrt ton 1 2-2-2002;

[No. I.-120H|279|2000-IR

ANNEXURË:

BÊFORË THE ' CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSfR'îftL • TRIBUNAL, NAGPÛR • PRESENT :

B. "G.- SaseHvi.—PresiâMig Officer.

Référence-No. CGIT : 20|2001

Défia Bahk.'

AND •

the Bank is légal or valid ? " If not, " tEeh for what relief vihs ccncemed workman is enîitled to and with what détails?" In this référence the notices were issued to both the parties on 3-7-2001 and they were dirccted to appear in the Court and submit the documents con- cerning ihe case on 3-8-2001.

On 3-8-2001 the workman Sohanlal Nishad appeared and moved application for seeking time for submitting Statement of Claim. On behalf of the management of Dena Bank. Vakaîatnama was filed by S. N. Fuladi, advocate. The case was adjourned to 3-9-2U01 and 10-10-2001. On 10-10-2001 the workman Sohanlal Nishad submitted Statement of Claim and the counsel for the management received the copy of Statement of Claim on 12-11-2001.

Afcer that 18-12-2001, 28-12-2001 and 21-1-2002 were fixed for filing Written Statement by the management. On 18-12-2001 nobody appeared from the side of the management of Dena Bank and the order was passed that if no Written Statement is filed in this case, the ;ase shall be decided. Even after the order dated : 18-12-2001, the counsel for the management did not submit Written Sfatement on 28-12-200r and 21-1-2002.

On 21-1-2002 nobody appeared from the side cf management and Written Statement was not filed from the side of the management. The counsel for the Workman moved application that management i3 not submitting the Written Statement knowing the date fixed in this case, hence the case be decided.

In vièw of the above facts it is évident that suffi- dent time was given tb the management to file Written Statemenf from 12-11-2001, to this date but the management has failed to submit the Writîen Statement.

As the management has not subraitted any Written Statement to challenge, the Statement of Claim fiied by the workman, the claiim of tbo workman Shri Sohanlal Nishad is decided exparte.

ORDER

No Written Statement has been filed by the management of Dena Bank, hence the claim of the workman Sohanlal Nishad is decided exparte.

Date : 21-1-2002.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer 604 GI/2002—11

2553 New Delhi, the 13th Fsbruary, 2002 S.O. 844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusjial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 19/2001) of the Central Government Indusîrial TribunaJ-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between ihe em- ployers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Cen- tral Government on 12-2-2002.

[No. L-12011/278/2000-IR (B-II)} AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer.

Référence No. CGIT : 19/2001

DENA BANK

AND

Jeedhan Kumar Yadav.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub Section 2fA) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has rcîerrcd this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-12011|278j20O0|IR (B-Il) dated : 22-3-2001 on the followïng schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of the Dena Bank in not giving the pay scale and post of regular sub-staff to Sh. jeedhan Kr. Yadav in the Gudiyari Branch of the Bank is légal or vaîid ? If not, then for whait relief the concerned workman is en- titled to and with what détails ?" In this référence workman Jeedhan Kumar Yadav has submitted Statement of Claim on 10-10-2001. The workman has claimed that he was in service of the Dena Bank as Full Time Cleaner-cum-Sepoy from 15-7-92. The management hac not given pay scale and the post of sub-staff îo him.

In this référence, from the side of thé management of Dena Bank Vakaîatnama was filed by Shri S. N. Fuîadi Advocate on 3-8-2001. The counsel for the management had received the copy of Statement of Claim on 12-11-2001.

After this date i.c. 18-12-2001, the case was ad- jeuraed to 28-12-2001¹ and 21-1-2002. The counsel for the management did not submit any Written Staîement from the side of tlhc management.

On 18-12-2001 the counsel for the management had not appeared and the order was passed that if1554 THE GAZEÏ13 OF JNDIA : MARCR 9, 2C02/ 2HALGUNA 18, 1925 [PART II—SEC. 3&)2 KO Y/rittcn S!atcr^cni is iilcd, thc case rhall be IIL-C'-IÔL'. Ev?n ; ftet ih's order no Wrilîcn Statement has béer, filed fiom the :;ide of the management of Bena B:-nk.

Today also th^ ccunscl for ilhe management did not afoear to submit Wriiten Statemenî. In thèse circutnstances dlscussed tbove, tbe claim of the v/ovVnian is decided expaite.

ORDER

The \vorkm?.n Jeedhan Kinr>ar Yadav has ffled Etalement of Cîa'irn on 10-,10-2001. The management of Dena B.iP.k did noî submit any Written Statement thoiîgh several dates were given. The claim of the workman is therefore, dtcided exparte. Date : 21-1-2002.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 13th February, 2002 S.O. 845.—în pursuance of Section 17 of the •"dm-îrkil Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- ir::.' GoveTrmcnt hereby publisbes the award (Réf. '•M. 7/2000) of the Central Government Industriel ! ••'!-:,ri il-cu'.r.-LC. Nagpur as shown in the Anne- "...iv "" \h-: Tndustrial Dispute between the employées ' i 'dation to the management of Bank of Maha- .>:ifra and their workmàn, which was reccived by . c Central Government on 12-2-2002.

[No. L-12012/331/94~IR(B-II)|

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANfŒXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOX'ERNMENT TNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Sh:i B. G. Saxcna, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO: CGTT: 7/2000 Bank of Mahnraslhtra AND Shri P. G. Gogte

AWARD

The Central Gcverumuil, Ministry of Labour, New Deihi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Sec*ion 2(A> of Section 10 of the Irdustrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication v'de ordei No. L-12012J331Î94-ÏR (B-II) deted 19-4-95 on the following sclieduîe.

SCBEDULE

"Whetber the artion of the management of Bank of Mah&Tashtra, Amravati Re_gion, in dismissing Shri F. G. Gogte, Cîerk, from service w.e.f. 10-5-93 is lega] and justified ? If not, to what relief is the said warkman entitled ?"

This référence was sent to C.G.I.T., Jabaîpur or5 19-4-95. This file was transferred to this Court on 23-12-99. The workman P. G. Gogte w?.s allcged to hâve misappropriated Rs. 34,000/- while he v/as sen'ing as Clerk in Baak of Maharashtra, Amravati région. He was terminated from service on 10-5-93.

On 30-7-2001 the counsel for thc workman moveà application that the workman Pramod G. Gogîe bas died en 13-6-2001. The counsel represented that the légal heirs of the dsccased P. G. Gogte hâve not turned up and anotber date be given. 29-11-2001 and 16-1-2002 were fixed for further proceeding". Today counsel for the botb the parties were heard. The ccuir,cl fer P. G. Gogte foither moved application for adjournmsnt. Ths counsel for management Dadu Sachdeva argued that the workman has died on 13-6-2001, hence counsel cannot represent the deceased.

It is further argued that no application has bsen moved by any îegaî heir of the deceased that they want to contest the case. The counseî for manage ment also argued that the workman P. G. Gogte was unrnarried and he lias no wife or any son oi daughter. As no îegal heir of deceased has reqoesteri for imple-ading him as a parîy in this, case, the pro- ceeding should be dropped. The argument of thc counsel for tbe management is reasonable and proper.

In view of the above facts, the nroceedî.nçs in this case are dropped.

ORDER

The wcrknan, P. G. Gog^e has died on 13-6-2001, hence no relief can be granted in this cese. The proceedings in this référence are therefore dropped as the case abates.

The référence is disposed. of accordingly.

Date: 16-1-2002.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officei New Delhi, the 13th February, 2002 S.O. 846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 23812000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of United "Western Bank Ltd. and their work- man wbich was received by the Central Government on 12-02-2002.

[No. L-12012|148|2000-lR(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

2555 through it's Dy. General Manager, H.Q. Satara in terminating the ser- vices of Shri Gopal Prabhulal Rathi" Clerk vide order dated 01-02-97 is légal.- proper and jusîified? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled?"

Gopal Prabhulal Rathi has submitted State- menî of Claim that lie was working as Clerk in the United Western Bank Ltd. In July, 96 he v/as postsd in Kurhe Panache Tal, Bhusawal branch ot the bank in Distt. Jalgaon. He was suffering from àpondiiysis and Chrome Ulcer. He couid not go on duty in tlie bank from 12-07-96. He had applied for îeave from 12-07-96 with Médical Certificate. After that he had been informing th? Sranch Manager about his iilness. On 10-12-96 he has informed on Téléphone that he will ré- sume his duties from January, 97.

The Dy. General Manager issue d notice to him on 19-12-96 caiJing upon him to ré- sume his duties within 30 days and he had re- ceived this notice on 27-12-96.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TKE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. Saxena, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT : 238J2OOO United Western Bank

AND

Shri Gopal Prabhulal Rathi

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sut-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred • this dispute for adjudication vide e de No. L-l 2012" 14812000-IRfB-I) dated 28-07-2000 on the following schedule :

On 18-01-97 he went with Fitncss Certifi- cate but he was noî allowed to join duty. His service was terminated from 01-02-97 on ihe ground of his unauthorised absence from 12-07-96 and not joining duty on 27-01-97 inspite of receiving notice dated 19-12-96. He has clajmed relnstatement from 01-02-97 with full backwages. The management of the United Western Bank contested the case and V. D. Taaksale, Assistant Zocai Manager submitted written Statement on 3-1-2001. l'he bank management mentioned in Written Statetnent that workman Gopal P. Rathi was absent from duty from 12-07-96. He did not submit any Médical Cerîiiic.Mte of his ilîness. He aîso did aot move any appli- cation from 12-07-96 for grantfrg him Ieave. Bue to his unauthorised absence for about five nonîhs, notice was issued to hirn by the Dy. General Manager asking him to résume duties af Kurhe (P) Brandi within 30 days of receiving the îetter. If hc failed te do so it will bs presumed that he is not inUrested in conlinuing service and h?.s voluntarily abandoned the service of the bonk. llven after receiving this notice he did not turn up to join duty in the bank and so be was treated as to hâve abandoned bis service. The order to îîîis effect was passed on 01-02-97.

SCHEDULE

"Whefhu? *he actiev of the Ei?.r"?.?ement ci United Western Bank"' Ltd., The workman Gopaî P. R a ^i submitted sflktevit thronrfi lis advoc-2556 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ FIL\LGUNA 18, 1923 LFAÎU II—SEC. 3(ii)] side of bank, the aiïidavit or Shri j ayant, Assît. Zonal Manager, Nagpar Zonal Office was submiited on 7-6-2001 and he was cross examined by the advocate of the work- man Sh. R. N. Sen.

Botii the parties hâve submiltcd documents and Wriîîcn Arguments. The advocate of the workman and the advocaîe of the bank aiso argued the case orally.

I hâve considered tlie entire oral and docuiiientary évidence on record and tîie arguments submitted by the parties.

II ii admitted to both the parties that work- man Gopal P. Rathi was tiie employée of UniteJ Western Bank and he did not attend tiie Qiities in Kurhe Brandi of U'JÎted Wes- tern iSank Ltd. after 12-07-96. It is aiso ad- mitted to both tiie parties thaï the workman Gcpal P. Rathi had receivcd Ictter No. Per- sonal|JZO|AS!P!96|3C7 datcd 19-12-96 on 27-12-96.

In cross examination on 24-4-2001 the workman Gopal P. Rathi admitted that he was unable to niove from 12-07-96 to 17-01-97. He says that he had gone to join duty on 18-01-97. He did not explain any reason as to why he was not allowed to join duty on 18-01-97 by the Branch Manager when lie was having good relations with the Branch Manager and lie had been informing the Branch Manager about his illncss on Phone. He had no enmity with the Branch Manager. He does not say anywhere that the Branch Manager v/as anyway annoyed frem him for any reason. Ke does not say that ior how many days Leave Application was sent by him on 12-07-96. He aiso does not say anywhere that how many Leave Applications were sent by him to the Branch Manager from 12-07-96 to 17-01-97. He does not say that how many tintes he extended Iiis îen\c du ring this period i.e. 12-07-96 to 17-01-97. The workman bas submitted one Leave Application datée! 12-07-96 v,nâ the Médical Certifîcate of Dr. An il J. Kbadke. This ce~titicate shows that he was adviscd 15 d-rys TC'.t by the Orthopédie Surgeon. So this Médical Cerijfîcaîe is from 12-07-96 to 28-07-96 nnd the ilinîss mentioned in B''ckncl"ie. The wcrfco.;?¹! '!o *s vnt say any- where that hc h°d any pain on his back or he >nd îaîren further certifier*te from this doctor iifter 23-07-96. ïf he \v:>s cured from ihc B?cl:nc!:et. vhv h? did uot ioiac'iiîies aller 28-07-96, was not explained by the work- man. He has obtained two certificates fiom Dr. S. G. Chowdhury dated 02-09-96 and 28-1 i -96 for 2 montra each. No application has been submiued by the workman, that he had sent the above Médical Certificates to the Branch Manager.

The workman has therefore not produced any évidence that he was contineovwiy ill from 12-07-96 to 17-01-97.

The workman has admitted that he had re- ceived the notice dated 19-12-96 on 27-12-96 and in this notice he was asked to join duty vvithin 30 days. This notice aiso shows that the workman was advised to join duty by ihe Manager of the Kurhe (P) Branch through leiier dated 21-8-96, 27-9-96 and 11-10-1996. He was aiso informed through this notice that he has not submitted any application or any reason for his absence from duty from 12-07-96. The workman was aiso informed that if he will not join duty after receiving this kltennotice., it will be presumed that he has voiuntarily esbandoned the service of the bank.

The stalement of Shri Jayant, Assistant General Manager of the Bank aiso shows that lie did not receive any application or Médical Certificaîe of the workman Gopal P. Rathi after 12-7-1996. The workman aiso did not corne to Ihe bank to join duty on 18-01-97 or 20-01-97. The workman aiso did not submit any explan ati on for his un- uiilhorised absence from 12-07-96 till the date of his dismissal from service i.e. 01-02-97.

work for a period exceeding the prescnbed lirniî of 90 days-Bank interms oE byperîite seulement, if serves notice upon him by Re- gistered Post requking him to submit his explanation and to join work with in the pres- cribed limit of 30 days-tne notice further stat- ing that otherwise he would be deemed to hâve retired in such circumstanccs the bank, held- rightly treated the employée to hâve volun- tarily retired from service-hence termination of service without holding any departmentaî enquiry was not violative of the principle ol natural justice".

In vicw of the above ruling the notice dated 19-12-96 was served upon the workman on 27-12-96. On this admission of the work- man, it is therefore cîear that the workman did not join the duty upto 27-01-97. The order of the management bepring No. Per- sonal! JZOi 11 (97138 dated 01-02-97 treating the workman to hâve voluntarily abandoned the serfice was. therefore, justified.

In view o£ the above ruling of the Hon'ble Suprême Court it was not necessary to hold any departmentaî enquiry against the work- man before terminating his service froro 01-02-97.

ORDER

The action of the management of United Western Bank Ltd. through ifs Dy. GeneTal Manager, HO, Satara in terminating the ser- vices of Gopal Prabhulal Rathi, Cletk vide order dated 01-02-97 was légal, proper and justified.

The workman Gopal P. Rathi is not entitl- ed to the relief claimed by him.

The référence is answered accordmgly.

Date : 07-01-2002

B. G. SAXENA, Presidinj Officer

2557 New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002 S.O. 847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 73 of 1990) of the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of Patiala and Itieir workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-02-2002.

[No. L-12012|66|9(HR(B-3)|B-I] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CPM-l ABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No, I.D. 73 of 1990

Kumari Simrat Kaur, Djo Sh. Gurbachan Singh. H. No. B-6, 705, Partap Mohalla, Partap Chowk, Rohtak (Haryana).

•. Petitioner.

Vs.

General Manager (Opération), State Bank of Patiala, Head Office, Mail Road, Patiala-Î47001. .. Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

F'or the Workman.—Shri N. K. Nagar.

For the Management.—Shri N. K. Zakhmi

AWARD

(Passed on 8th February, 2002) The Cenral Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L-12012|66|90-Ï.R.(B-3) dated 25th May, 1990 has referred the follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :

"Whether the action of tîie management of State Bank of Patiala m relation to their Sarikhol Br. in treating Mis Simrat Kaur, Cashier-cum- Clerk to hsx? vo'untrmly retired !ÏOK ' . ? n i :: v'de their Icîîer daîed2558 Ï HL GAZEÏTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/ i'HALGILNA 1S, 1923 ÎPART 11—SEC. 3(igj 12-6-87, and not allowing to join auîy subsequently is just, fair and légal? If not, Io whai relief the worJonan is entitled îo and from which date"

receivtcl Ex. Ml letter dated 12-6-1987. She aiso cienied of having received letters ciated 8-12-1986, J-3-1987 and 26-3-1987. The management liled the atfidavit of Shri S. C. Magoo Jàranch Manager Sotte Bank oi Patiala as JLx. M2 and documents Ex. M3 to £x. M.5. il is admitted by the managements witness Uiat no charge sheet was served on the peti- uoner.

2. The applicani in ihe statemeni of daim lias stated that she joined the bank at SankhoJ branch on 27-8-i985 as cashier-cum-clerk. ïi is pieaded îhat on account of her illness the appiicant had to proceed on leave w.e.f. 27-3-1987 to 10-11-1987 and she had sent the intimation to îhe bank alongwith the médi- cal ctrîilicate from lime to tnne. She had gone îo join duty after this date. Her joining report lias been accepted by the manager but he did noi aiiovv her to join ilie duty and informed the appiicant thai she had been treated as voluntary retired from the services oi the bank vide letter dated 30-11-1987. It is pieaded that the appiicant was declared fit to join duty w.e.f. 11-11-1987 therefore, the action of the bank to retire the appiicant is viod and illégal and as no enquiry was conducted against the appîicant, she is entitled to be reinstated in service with full buck wages and continuity of service.

3. In wiïtten steUeinenfc the management lias pieaded that the appiicant applied for 3 days cv.suai leave from 18-6-1986 but she did not résume her duties till 2-10-1986. She again sîarted reinaining unaulhorisedly absent V'.e.f. 6-10-1986 and remained absent till 22-3-1987 without any intimation of leave and médical cerlificate. She did not reply to the Ictters sent îo her to join duty. The manage- ment vvrote a letter dated 3-3-1987 asking her to join duty within 30 days from the receipt oi' the lelser otherwise it wouid be presumed that AQ h not interested in service of ihe bank. She was given final reminder on 12-6-J 987. She did not reply to any letter. Under thèse dïcutmtances the bank had treated her as voluntarily retired from service. She was not interesied in îhe service of the bank and for ihis reason, she had not reported for duty and she wr.s voluntarily retired after foîiow- ing the procédure as bid down in the Bipar- îUe Seulement. Sbe is not entiled to any relief. It wes thus requested that référence be rejected.

A. RejoJnder was fiied on behalf of the apo.Ucr-iïit reiferatins the claim made m the c-;rïn stetement.

6. i hâve heard counsel for both the parties and liave gone through the record oi; ihe case. It is aomiLted case oi the parties that no enquiry was conducted by the bunk ror the unautiiorised absence from duty again&t the appiicant. It is also admitted that the appii- cant was retired from service by the order dated 30-11-1987 by the Brandi Manager. It is not proved by the management that branch manager was the appointing autl;ority of the appiicant and lie was compétent to treat the appiicant voluntarily retired from the Bank service under the provisions of the Bipartite Setîieinent. It is argued on behalf of (he appiicant that automatic termination of her services amounts to retrenchment and procédure as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 lias not baen followed by liie bank in doing so, which ako violâtes the principle of naîural justice. The re- présentative of the vvorkman relied on the judgeïïîcnt of the Hon'ble Suprême CourHn îhe case of Mjs. Scooters India Ltd. Vs. Moham- mad Yaqub and another reported in AIR Sup- rême Court page 227 in which the Honble Sup- rême Court has held that overstaying of leave cannot rcsulf. in automatic termination of servie? and suc'i aT^omatic îcrminat>on with- oist iîîfcrdinc opporînniiy of hearing to em- ployée h bad and principk of natura! justice has to be complied with. On the other hand the eoumd for îhe ma.'iagcment has argued Ihat the service of the appiicant has been ternii^rJed in accordance with the provisions of the Bipartite Setilemcnt and dcspiie many notices the appiicani bnà not foined the ser- vices, so she was rightiy- retired under the •provisions of the Binartiie Sett!cr.ient. He has referred me to the récent indûment of f'ie T^otï'ble Snnrono Cour!, m *h~' --cse of ,ç"nnkv)to Bank Versus General Secretsry, Svnd:cr>tc Bank Striff Association and "rother renotivd in Tndion Factory Journal (Vol. 96) •S.C. Pa?e-661. rn Ihis ca'^. 1b:? Hon'ble Snprcnis Coorî h?s held that the erapinyee liv.d rrfused to rcrei^.T the no*'?." """• v,o rjplv <>"' the ncf"*-p had bf^n s-rt lvv ih- r--i]y?n*:

aliowed only for pensionery benefits. The ré- férence is answered accordin^ly. Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh

Dated 8th February, 2002

S. M. GOEL, Presidins Offieer

New Delhi, the UÛ\ February, 2002 employée under clause 16 of the Bipartite Seulement is légal and employée deserves no relief. But in the case in hand the order for retiring the employée under the provisions of Bipartite Seulement lias been passed by the Brandi Manager who was noc compétent to do so as he was not the appointing authority of the applicant and he was not authorised to do so. Moreover, tlie applicant approach- ed the banlc for joining her services. Her joining report had been taken by the Branch Manager but later on vide order dated 30-11-1987 she was deemed to be retired from the bank" s service by the branch Manager. So the authoiity referred by the counseî for the management is distinguisbabic. In thaï case the deliquent once resigned also and îaîcron on humantarian ground lie was allowed to join the bank. But after lhat also he remained absent from duty and he refusîd to accept the notice also and no reply to the notice was sent by hiin. It showed his intention not to serve the bank. Tn thèse situation the Hon'ble Suprême Court h:u held that he was rightly ret'red under clause 16 of îhe Bipartite Settlement. But in tbis case, the appîicant had ppproached the bank and sub- mitted her joining report which was taken by the Branch Manager and later on vide order dated 30-11-1987. She was retired by 'the order of Iho Branch Manager trader the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. More- over îhe orders were not passed by the com- pétent authority as Branch Manager was not compétent to do so.

S.O. 848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute A ct 1947 (14 o/ J947), the Central Government herebv pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 94j 1990) ôf " tbo Central Government Industrial Trib^nal-cum- Labour Court, Chandigarh uow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dlspvie bcî- ween the einployers in relation to f^": Afarrmc- ment of State Bank of India and their \wor\-:- man. which was rec-ived by th? CKP.V'CJ Government on 12-02-2002.

TNo. L-12012!74!90-IR(B-3) B-I.]

AJAY KUMAR. Des'c Qm.: -

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHFT S. M. GOEL, P R ^ S < r P ;O OFHCER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDU-:- TRTAL TRTPlTNAL-CUM-LABOUP COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 94 of 1990

Sliri Jaswant Singîh, C:o Grneral Secretarv, S.P.L Staff, Congress", 719, Sector 22-À,

CIiandigarh-160017. .. Petifi^-ncr.

Vs.

7. Iv. view of the above, discussion, î *"m of the considered opinion th-it the ccîicn of the management h treatinni the apolicart to hâve vrslantarily retired from senne? vide their k-^er d?îed 12-6-1987 is not Ie"r1. As no charge sheet was served upon the applicant and ro enquiry was hcld. However, takinç inlo cor^iderarjon the conduct of the aopii- cant in sbsen'ing 1ierrelf from the b^nk's duty witbout anv îeave application ?nd with- out médical certificat for such a lonu îiroe ?nd ïateron taking the, sheîter of the maniaement's fault she is not entiti- ed to r>nv backwagos etc. The order dated 12-6-1987 is r-et a-.:dc the r.ppijcant ' is ordered to be reins+ated in the service of the bank lu:! she wilî not be cntitled to any back wages eîc. Cotitinuity of service is however,

Régional Manager. State Bank of India, Régional Office, Pb., Sector 17. Chandigarh-160017. ..

. • Respondeiït.

2560 fHE GAZEÏ1E OF INDÎA : MARCH.9, 2002/ ?HALGL'NA 13, 1923 ;PARI ÏI—6SC. 2(11):

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman.—Sh. J. G. Verma.

For the Management.—Sh. V. K, Sharma.

AWARD

(Passed on 6-2-2002)

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. 1^12012,74|90-l.R.(B-3) dated 30th July 1990 lias reterred ths follow- ing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion :—

authorities had infonned the bank his cor- rect date of birth as 1-7-38 and not 1-7-1940 and his explanation was found to be unsatis- factory so his services were dispensed witli on 22-7-1981. Later on a seulement was arrived at and he was reinstated on the same job as he was holding on 27-7-1981 and later on he was given permanent appointment w.e.f. 23-10-1984. As per the SBI Pension fund rules only permanent employées are enrolled as member of the pension fund and that too from the date of confirmation, if the employée is otherwise not below the âge of 18 years or above the âge of 38 years from the date of confirmation which in the présent case is 23-4 1985 so he cari not be considered for becomin? the member of ihe pension fund.

4. The applicant in évidence filed his affida- vit Ex. W l. The management has filed the affidavit of M. L. Talwar as Ex-Ml and docu- ments Ex. M2 to M i l.

"Whether the action of the S.B.I., Ré- gional Oflîce, (Pb.), Chandigarh, in denying seniority from October, 1979 and admission to pension fund to Shri Jaswant SIngh, Guard at their Mohaîi Branch is légal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date?"

2. The applicant in the claim statement pleaded that he was recruited as armed guard in the bank on 18-1-1974. His services were terminated but he was again allovved duties and paid ail the backwages and other bene- fits but he was not given the benefit of past service and was denied by the management the pension as the applicant was eligible on trie date of his initial appointaient for the enroîment as a member of the pension fund. The bank has arbitrarily iixed 20 ycars ns penrionable service. The management know- hidy did not confirm the workman in the ser- vice despite the fact fhat the vacancy was •:-vai*abîe and the pension benefits hâve been iiuiied by the management on technical r.i'omids as he was ignored for the purpose of pai

5. I hâve heard the parties and gone through the record of the case. The management lias placée! on record the appointment tetter Ex- Ml 1 dated 20-12-1984 vide which the appji- cant was appointed for a probation of six lionth w.e.f. 23-10-1984. The management also placed on record Ex. M5 the letter written from the Army to the management wherein his date of birth has r>ren commun'cated as 1-7-1938. The rep. of 7^ to 1 979. T ater on he was sent fo Mohali Branch on 26-10-1979 to work is temporaty suard. He was not offered permanent anpoin+rrïcnt in the bank for the reasons that fhere were cer- tain material altérations in date of birth in h's military discharge eertifiente. and miUtflrv 2561

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

REFERENCE NO. 5(C) OF 2001

PRESENT :

Shri K. Sarma, LL.B., Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati.

appointée! in the bank vide Ex. M il vide which lie was appointed in the service of the bank w.e.f. 23-10-1984. He was given this appoint- ment in pursuance of the seulement Ex. M2 dated 17-12-1981 wherein it is agreed that he will be reinstated on the same job which he was holding on 27-7-1981. Thus it is clear that he was not a confirmed employée of the bank and he had already crossed the âge of 38 years at the time of his confirmation in the bank's service. Thus the applicant is not entitled to any relief on this count.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute

between;

The Management of N. E. Railway, Guwahati.

The General Secy. Rail Mazdoor Union- Guwahati.

6. In view of the discussions made in the cariier paras, the action of the S.B.I. Régional Office (Pb.) in denying seniority from October, 1979 and admission to pension fund to the applicant is légal and justified. The applicant is not entitled to any relief. The référence is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed.

Date of Award, 22-1-2002 Chandigarh.

AWARD

S. M. GOEL: Presiding Officer

This industrial dispute has been rclerred to by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, vide order No. L-41012) 163)2000 IR(B-I) dt. 29-12-2000 under section 10 of the I.D. Act, to adjudicate the dispute arising between the management of N. E. Railway, Ghy and their workmen representated by Gen. Sccre- tary, Rail Mazdoor Union, Guwahati on the following issue :—

"Whether the action of the N. E. Railway Guwahati in not giving the pay scale to the Watchman under Dy." COS; PNO at par those of the Engineer- ing department as détail atfach alonjz with the same restruetnring benefit is justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled?" New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002

On receipt of référence, this tribunal has registered this case and issued notice to both the parties calling upon them to fiîe their written statcmentladdl. writfcn stafr.ient and documents, if any. in responsc to which both the parties hâve appeared and filed tbeir written statementladdl. written stagnent and documents and ai"o adduced oml i vidence ir" support of their respective claims.

S.O. 849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award fRef. No. 5(C) of 2001) of the Industrial Tribunal Guwahati, Assam no\y as shown in the Annexure in the Tndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of N. E. Railway. Guwahati and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.

[No. L-41012!163'2000-IR(B-I)l AJAY KUMAR- D?sk Officer

The workmen's case, in brief, is that ail the workmen raising tbis industrial dispute through their union are appointed as Khalasi by the N. E. Railwav. Mali.eaon, Guwahati which is pronr 'D' post of the Railwav administra- 604 GT/200J—122552 THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDTA : MARCH 9r 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI I I- S E C. ?(ii)] Dy. Controller of Store equal to that of watchraan under Engineering Deptt., the matter has been referred to Railway Board vide letter No. Ejl70|Legal Sale!80112000 dtd. 30-8-2000 which is still pending before the Railway Board. Of course, in the written statement the Railway Administration, Mali- gaon had not pacifically denied responsibility bore by the watchman under Dy. Controller of Store and that of Engineering' Deptt. but stated that it is well known to the Railway Board which indicates that both the cate- gory of workrnen bears similar responsibility. It is also not stated in the written statement by the Railway authority that watchman under Engineering Deptt. bears any spécial technical qualification which are not required on the part of the watchman and khaîasi under Dy. Controller of Store for which former group of employées are entitled to higher pay scale.

tion in the year 1982 at the scale of pay Rs. 195-232 P.M. subsequently which has been raised to Rs. 2252-4000 with other bene- fît atteched to their service. But workmen's contention isthat they hâve to perform duty of Watchraan under Dy. Controller of Stores, JVteligaon with the same pay scale, but bear- ing higher responsibility. Their furthtr con- tention is that both Khalasi and Watchman are Group 'D' employée under Dy. Controller of Stoie, Maligaon but Watchman are to bear higher responsibility at same pay with that of Khalasi by Watching Railway properties even at nieht like the R.P.F. (Raihvay Protection Force) who are getfing more pay than that of fheip. It is also contended thaf the watch- man under Engineering Department who also perforai similar nature of duty are given higher pay scale. The différence between pay scale of Khalasi and watchman under Dy. Contrôler of Store, Maligaon, Pandu and those are Engineering Deptt. as reflcfed from ex t. 'P' are as follows :—-

Engineering StoreWatchrnan

sca]e.

Store Watehman scale

1986

200-250 210-270

196-232 200-250

1993

750-940 775-1025 800-1150

775-1025 800-1150 825-1200

1996

2750-4400 2650-4000 2610-3540

2650-4000 2610-3540 2550-3200

Above chart shows that the watchman under Engineering Deptt. performing similar duty with that of watchman under store deptt. are given higher pay benefit than that of them. The v"'orkman hâve contended thaf as they hâve performed shnilar type of duty with those of watchman under Engineering Deptt, thev shouid also be paid the same pay scaîe with thaf- of them or they shall be allowed to rcerforrn the dufy of Khalasi which be^r iess resporH.bil'tv than that of watchman or they shouid bc given restructurlng benefit which are given to watchman of other depft.

From the materials on record and argu- ments advanced by the learned advocate for the both the parties, I find that both khalasi and watchman under Dy. Controller of Store are same category having same pay scaie and watchmen under Engineering Deptt. having doing same type of duty with that of them are given higher pay benefit. The workman's grievance is that if they are not given pay scale of watchman under Engineering Deptt. They should be allowed to do the work of khaîasi which bears Iess responsibility in the pay scale prescribed to them and there is promo- tional avenue in the post of khalasi with higher pay in future and in that case they hâve no objection. But as they are to per- form the work of watchman under Dy. Con- trolîer of Store with higher responsibility withouî giving the equal pay benefit to those of watchmen under Engineering Deptt., it antounts to unfair labour practice and also an exploitation on the part of the manage- ment. The représentative of the Railway Boaid has not appeared in this case nor in the issue referred to by the referring authority. has implic?fed the Railway Board as narty. The erievances of the workman hâve rof been denied paci%n]!y by Railway Administration- Malitraon, but expresses their incompetency to fulfill the same which lies on the Railway Board. the Railwav Adnvivs- ''"tfion. MaiisRon has stated picjfiolîv in fheir vritten sûrement that matr^r vs to r^s+njchiring of the. watchman of va nous Deptt. and equal pay benefit claimed bv The managements contention is that the restructuring of nav scale of varions groups of enrplovee is donc os ner Railwav Board Circula;- No. PC. IHtèljCRC dtd. " 27-1-93 and pay scale has niso been t>rescribed bv the Railwav Board. As f ne Railwav Administra- tion, Mali

them hâve been referred to Railway Board and is peuding before Railway Board, under such circumstances, 1 find that the Railway Board is a ultimate authority to meet the grievances of the workmen. It is weil settl- ed principle of law that différence catégories of workmen performing the similar nature of work with similar responsibility shall be clubbed in the same group and sould be paid same pay scale and other benefit entitled to them. The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable to ail.

In view of my aforesaid discussion, I liereby direct the Railway Board to consider the grievanees of the workmen and dispose the référence made by the Railway Administration. Maligaon vide letter No. E|170|Legal Salej 801J2000 dtd. 30-8-2000 within 6 months from the date of this award and workmen shail be given restructuring benefit and be given similar grade with that of watchman under Engineering Deptt. and be paid same pay scale with them or they be allowed to perlorm the duty of khalasi as claimed by them with promotional benefit as per their security. Management of N. F. Railway, Maligaon is also directed to take initiative in the matter with the Railway Board so that it may be dis- posed with the aforesaid period of 6 months.

With this direction this référence is finally disposed. Prépare an award.

K. SARMA, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947"U the Central Government hereby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. I.D. No. 186|99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their

2563 workman- which was received by the Central Government on 17-02-2002.

[No. L-41O12!24|99-1R(B-I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Réf. No. I. D. No. 186)99

Uttar Railway Karamchari Union,

Workman.

VERSUS

Northern Railway. • • Mauagemtnt.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—P. P. Khorana.

AWARD

(Dated : 21-1-2002)

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on the under Section 10(1 )(d) and Sub-section 2-A of Sec- tion 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-41012|24|99-IR(B-I) dated 9-9-1 ^99 referred the following Industrial dis- pute îo this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of Division al Rail- way Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. in denying the follow- ing demands of Uttar Railway Karamchari Union (Regd.) Ambala Cantt is iust and légal?"

2. None appears on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the présent ré- férence. In view of the above, the présent référence is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

-Dated : 21-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presidin2564 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3',ii)j New Delhi, the llth February, 2002

S.O. 851.—la pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 < 1-, of 1947), the Central Govern-ment hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 121/9S) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of National Sugar Institute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-2-2002.

[No. L-42011/47/97-IR(DU)|

KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHI R. P. PANDEY, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRISUNAL- < UM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODYA NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 121/98

In the matter of dispute between,

Sri R. K. Tiwari, Président, Expérimental Sugar Factory Union 106/255 Gandhi Nagar, Kanpur

AND

Director, M [s. Expérimental Sugar Factory, National Sugar Institute G. T. Road Kalyanpur, Kanpur-208001.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its notification No. L-42011/47/97-IR( DU ) dated 3-7-1998, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the Diiector, National Sujrnr Instifute, Kanpur in not paying the salary and other benefits of the post of Centrifugal Operator from 1980 to S|Sri Suresh Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Peetambar Ashok Kumar Mïshra, Ganga Prasad and Sri Raja Ram is le-:al and justiried ? If not to what relief the workmen are entitled for?

; duties of Centrifugal Operator. It has been alleged that î ESF Kanpur cornes within the définition of Industry, nce its employées are governed by the provisions of In- istrial Disputes Act. Their wages are regulated by the commendation of Wage Board constituted from time to ne. About 100 tones of Sugar is produced by this ESF iich is sold in the market. ESF is registered under Factories zt hence the provisions of Factories Act and the misions of ESI Act also apply to thèse employées. le first Wage Board submjtted its report in the :ar 1961 and its recommendations were made appli- ble vide notification dated 27-4-1961. Its recommenda- jns were accepted by Government of India vide notifîca- m dated 23-2-61. Later on Second Wage Board was mstituted and it submitted its recommendation in the vear >70. Its recommendations were accepted by the Govern- ent of India vide resolution dated 7-7-1970 and by the overnment of Uttar Pradesh vide notification dated 27-11-80. hese recommendations were made applicable to the emp- iyees of ESF also in which the présent workmen are work- ig. Subsequently the III W.ige Board submitted its report in îe year 1985 and its recommendations were accepted by the iovernment of India as well as by the State Government, ne State Government accepted the same vide notification ated 31-1-91. The pay and other benefits were given to the mployee of Sugar -Industries including the employées of tie ESF. Accordingly aforesaid Sugar Wage Board placed îe workmen of thèse industries into différent catégories and hey were mainly categorised in unskilled, semi skilled, skilled nd highly skilled. The workmen mentioned above were ischarginc duties of semi skilled centrifugal operators from -1-80 although they were being paid salary of unskilled rfazdoor. They made représentation to the management for ;iving salary of semi skilled post of centrifugal operators nit the management did not pay an y heed to it. In the lecond Wage Board a person holding th"e semi skilled post vas entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 118-2-136-3-151 and vas also entitled to get retaining allowance up to 25 per "nt of his salary. Similarly under the III Wage Board accord- ng to the recommendation of the III Wage Board semi skilled vorkman was entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 900-15-1050- Î0-1250 and was entitled to get 30 per cent a; retaining illowance. It was clarified that during the crushin^ season :hey were getting only pay scale of mazdoor as mentioned ibove and in ofï-season they were entitled to get retaining allowance. The post of Centrifugal Operator corne within the définition of semi skilled workmen and thèse workmen were entitled to get the aforesaid pay scale meant for semi ïkilled workmen but the management has lailed to implement fhe recommendations of Wage Boards in respect of thèse emp- loyées although they were entitled to get the pay scale and rétention allowance of the semi skilled post. The manage- ment takes the plea that National Sugar Tnstitute is not industry ?nd thèse workmen are not entitled to get the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act but that objections is untenable because ESF has been mentioned as Sugar Industry by the Government of India in the list of Sugar Factories which were kept within the purview of différent wage boards for recommendation of pay of their empployees from time to time. Secondly the recommendation of Waae Board made applicable to the employées of the industries and as the recommendations of the Wage Board hâve been made aoplic- able to the employées of the ESF Kanpur, the employées of 1hese ESF corne within the définition of workman and are entitled to set the protection of the Tndustrial Disputes Act also. Oh the basis of thèse allégations the workmen hâve praved that they should be given the pay scale of Rs. 118-151 accordine to the recommendations of 2nd Wage Board and the p:>" sroïc of Rs. 900-1250 pecording to the recommenda- tions of 3rd Wage Board and they may be allowed rétention allowance at the rate of 25 per cent of the pay on the basis of second recommendation?, of second wage board f>nd at the rate of 30 per cent on the basis of recommendations of 3rd Wage Board. They hâve prayed tbaf the management be directed to pay them salary and other consequential benefits accordingly.

The Government of India Ministry of Labour issued corri- gendum-dated 13-11-1998 in the reforence order dated 3-7-1998 to read name "Raja" appearing in the référence order as Raja Ram.

4. The m:inaaement has filed written statement in which 3. On behalf of the concerned workmen the statement of claim has been filed with the allégations that the workmen named above in the schedule of référence order were only workers working in the Expérimental Sugar Factory (here- inafter referred to as ESF for the sake of brevity) under the control of National Sngar Institute, Kanpur. Originally they were appointée! as Haper Mazdoor but they were discharging

they hâve alleged that Naiional Sugar Institute Kanpur is a snbordinate office of Minisfrv of Food and Consumer Affairs, Department of Sugar and Edible Oils. totally owned and controlled by Union Government. NSI provides teachins and trainin? to the différent courses like Sugar Technolos-y, Alcohol Technology, Sugar Boiling, and Sugar Engineering 2565 etc. It is a research oriented institute, which carry Research in Pfiysical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bio Chemistry, Aericulture Chemistry and gives advise to related with. Sugar Industry, Alcohol Industry and other related industries and thus is not a Sugar Industry. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court oi Allahabad dated 11-2-1998 is annexed to the wntten statement, which supports, their contention. It has becn alleged that S/Shri Suresh and iive otners are -easonal workers in ESF. It has aiso been alleged that they iiad been operating centrifuged machine from tirne to time but were not given salary of that post because that post was not created for ESF by the Government of India, however some hono- rarium were paid to tnem for discharging duties of higher responsibilities.

5. On behalf of îhe woikmen reioinder has been filed in which facts alleged in the statement of daim hâve been reiterated.

6. Workmen hâve examined Ashok Kumar Mishra as WW1

and hâve filed documents marked Ext. W. 1 to W. 5. The management examined Sri L. P. Tiwari as M.W. 1 in support ot its case and filed documents marked Hxt. M. 1 and M. 2.

Centrifugal Operator from 1980 or not. The évidence of Sii Ashok Kumar Mishra WW1 that ail thèse workmen named in ihe référence order were appointed as daily wager in the year 1976 and they became regular mazdoor in the year 1978. He iurther stated became regular mazdoor in the year 1978. He fuithcr stnted on oath that ail the workmen Whose claim is belorc this tribunal were discharging the duties of eentrifiHuil operator Irom 1980 during the crushing seasoa but tney are being paid tbe salary of a mazdoor the cruviing season and letaioing allowjmçs atter crushing season on the pay scaie of a nuzduor. The workmen in their statemejit of claim hâve pleaded this fact also. The management has not denied this fact in its written statement/affidavit. The management has rather ad- mitted in its written statement that the work jf operating centri- fugal machine was taken from time to time from thèse work- men. tven Sri L. P. Tiwari M.W. 1 admitted that these workmen hâve been discharging the work of centrifugal operator but they were given salary of mazdoor only. He also admitted that they could not be given salary of Centrifugal Operator because no post of centrifugal operator was created in the ESF by the Government ot India, although several times it was wntten by the Director of National Sugar Institute Kanpur thaï sucli post be created. He admitted that during crushing season when the ESF runs the work of cenfrifugal operaïor i" carried on by the workmen who hâve brought cases before this tribunal. Thus it is established beyond doubt by the évidence on record that these workmen whose case has been referred to this tribunal hâve been discharging the work of centrilugal operator, which is a semi skilled work from 1980, but they hâve been paid only the pay and allowance of ms/doo: and also the rétention allowance of mazdoor only.

9. The workmen who are before this tribunal hâve also filed a copy of order dated 23-2-83 Ext. W. 1 issued by tne Manager of ESF whereby ail the six workmen named in the référence order were directed to operate centrifugal machine under the control of the concerned Chief Cheraist. They hâve also filed one order dated 7-3-84 passed by the manager of the factory whereby thèse workmen were directed to operate centrifugal machine. It is also mentioned in that order that the job of centrifugal opération obviously involved higher responsibility. The workmen hâve filed appendix LXIV of Centra] Wage Board report of 1960, in which at sériai No. 23 Centrifugal Mazdoor is mentioned as a semi skilled person. As these workmen hâve been discharging duty of centiifucal operator, which is a semi skilled post hence, they were entitled to get the pay scales, which was recommended by the wage board for semi skilled post. Admittedly mazdoor is a unskiiled post and these persons who are discharging duty of semi skilled post are getting the salary of un"killed post which is unfair and unjust. I therefore hold that the workmen were entitled to get salary of semi skilJed post of centrifugal operator from 1980 and were also entitled to get ail other consequential benefits including retaining allowance and other allowances admissible under the report of Central Wage Board from time to time.

7. It has been contended by the management in paragraph 4 of its written statement/affidavii that National Sugar Insti- tute is a Research Oriened Institute where research in Phy- sical Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Bio Chemistry, Agri- culture Chemistry is carried on and it is not a sugar industry but an institute and the présent claim before this tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act is not maintuinabie. On the other hand it has been contended by the workmen in their rejoinder that the ESF in which the workmen of this case are working is a sugar industry and the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act fully apply to this industry as well as to the workmen. It has also been contended by them that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Shroff dated 11-2-1998 on which the management has placed reliance in its written statement is not applicable to the présent workmen because that case related to the regular employées •of Naional Sugar Institute whose service conditions were reguluated by Central Government Rules and Régulations made from time to time. After going through the record of the case I find force in the contention of the workmen on this point. There is no dispute about the fact mat the woikmen whose case is pending for décision beiore this court are seasonal employées of ESF. The workmen hâve filed report of Central Wage Board for Sugar Industries 1960 in, which list of ail sugar factories is given in appendix X which are to be governed by the report of Central Wage Board and which came within the définition of Sugar Industry, At sériai No. 40 of the Appenrfix I of the aforesaid report Central Wage Board 1960. ESF situated in National Sugar Institute Kanpur has been mentioned. The Wage Board makes recommendations for the employées of the Industries. The aforesaid report relates to the employées of the sugar industries. H is admitted to both the parties that recommendations of Wage Board apply to the employées of ESF. The workmen hâve filed the copy of the order dated 21-5-92 Ext. W-3 which shows that the Director of the Institute appointed Mahesh Chandra as seasonal Mazdoor in the ESF and also passed an order that be will be entitled to gct wages and allowances according to the report of Sugar Wage Board. It has been admitted by Sri L. P. Tiwari M.W. 1 that seasonal worlcmsn working in ESF get wages and allowances according to ths recommen- dations of the Sugar Wage Board. In view of evidenc; on record discussed above, I find that the ESF situated in National Sugar Institute. Kanpur corne within the définition of Sugar Industry and its workmen and the présent workmen whose cases are pending before this tribunal are workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 3947. I, therefore, hold that the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court Alîahabad in writ pétition No. 15532 of 87 on 11-2-98, which relates to the regular Central Government employée* of National Sugar Institute has no application so tar as the présent workmen are concerned as they are em- ployed in ESF, which is a sugar industry. I therefore hold that the présent workmen are workmen as defined under the TndUstrial Disputes Act and the provisions of Tndustrial Disputes Act apply to them and the claim filed by them before this tribunal is maintainable.

10. The workmen hâve pleaded in their claim statement that under the report of second wage Board a person working as semi skilled was entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 118-2-136-3-151 and retaining allowance at the rate of 25 per cent of the pay. It has also been pleaded that under the report of 3rd Wage Board semi skilled worker was entitled to get pay scale of Rs. 900-15-1050-20-1250 and retaining allowance at the rate 30 per cent of pay. As the présent workmen were discharging duties of post of centrifugal ope- rator from 1980 onwards I hold that they are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 118-151 plus 25 per cent retaining allowance on the basis of Second Wage Board leport and the pay scale of Rs. 900-1250 and retaining allowance at the rate of 30 ner cent of the pay on the basis of 3rd Wage Board Report and otber consequential benefits and allowancss from time to time as recommended by the Wage Boards. As they bave been paid on!v the salary and rétention allowance etc., of the nost of Mazdoor they are entitled to get arrears of pay and allowance according to the above findings recorded by me in this award. The authorised représentative for the management has argued that when the post of centrifugal operator hâve not been created in the factory by the Govern- ment of India although the request was made to the Govern- ment. the"e workmen cannot be given the pay scals prescribed for centrifuçal operator but I do not find any force in this contention. When the management is taking work from these 8. The next and the important question is to be decided in this case is wherher Ihese workmen who hâve brou,°,''f claim before this tribunal and whose case has beeri referred to this tribunal are entitled to get benefit of the post of2566 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART H—SEC. 3(ii)] workmen of the post of centnfugal operator from 1980 on- wards which is a post of semi skill and higher responsibility thèse pcisons are entitled to get the salary of the s,emi skilled post which is of higher responsibility and they cannot be deprived from the sal&ry which they are cntitlsd to get while discharging duties of centrifugal operator. In B. S. Khann"i versus State of Haryana 1992 Lab IC 916 (1"&H) Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held as under—

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2002 So far as the claini of the petitioners who hâve been working against the posts of (>ub divisional officers and hâve been discharging the duties of thèse posts without any extra rémunération or tiie pay attached to the higher post is concerned, there is no difficulty in allowing their claim as the rnaiter is squarely covered by the judgment of this court îeported as Sewa Singh versus Punjab State Minor Irrigation (Tube wells) Corporation (1987) SLR 691 : 1987 Lab IC 1873. Obviously when an employée has been entrusted with the duties of a higher post and is roquired to shoulder the responsibility thereof as if lie i* a regular incumbent of the post. he is also entitled to the salary and other émoluments attached to the higher post, which his other counterparts are drawing only by virtue of being regular incum- bents of the post. This is the précise mandate of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

S.O. 852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. CITR 18/99) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Senior Supdt. of Post Offices and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-2-2002.

[No. L-40012/261/99-IR(DU)l 11. The law laid down in the case cited above fully applies to the facts of the présent case also. As thèse persons were discharging the duties of centrifugal operator as semi skilled worker they are entitled to get the salary and other allowance of that post as recommended by the Wage Boatd from time to time and accepted by the Government of India and Govern- ment of Uttar Pradesh as well from time to time.

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officei 12. The authorised représentative for management has argued that thèse workmen were paid honorarium for dis- charging duties of the post of centrifugal operator hence they are not entitled to get pay of that post. After going through the record of the case I do not find any force in this con- tention. The management has also filed a copy of the order dated 3-8-98 Ext. M-2 which shows that honorarium hâve been paid not only to seasonal employées of ESF but also to the other officiais of the National Sugar lnstitute for doing extra work during the extra hours. In thèse circumstances if honorarium has been paid to thèse employées during the tenure of their service extra work during extra hours, which cannot be considered to be wages in lieu of discharging duties of semi skilled post. In my opinion the nonorarium paid to thèse employées as well as to other employées of National Sugar lnstitute is of no conséquence and has nothing to do with the wages, which thèse workers were entitled to get under the recommendation of the Wage Board constituted from time to time.

13. In view of findings recorded above, I hold that Sri Suresh, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Peetamber, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Ganga Prasad and Raja Ram are entitled to get the pay of the post of centrifugal operator in the pay scale Rs. 118-151 and 25 per cent retaining allowance under the recommendation of 2nd Wage Board and the pay scale of Rs. 900-1250 plus retaining allowance at the rate of 30 per cent of the pay under the recommendation of the 3rd Wage Board and other allowance as admissible from time to time from the year 1980 onwards till the aforesaid pay scale is again revised and if that pay scale is furthar revised they will get the salary according to the revised pay scale. The management is directed to fix their pay and allowance accord- ing to the directions given above and to pay them arrears of salary and allowances within a period of three months from the date of publication of this award in the officiai Gazette. 14. The record¹ shows that Raja Ram died on 16-7-98 after the case was referred to this tribunal for adjudication hence the amount of money payable to Raja Ram shall be paid to his wife Smt. Sushila Devi.

15. Accordingly it is held that the action of the Directoi National Sugar lnstitute in not paying the salary and other beneflts ôf the post of Centrifugal Operator from 1980 to S/Sri Suresh, Rajendra Prasad Shukla, Peetamber, Ashok Kumar Mishra, Ganga Prasad and Raja Ratn is not lawful and justified and the workmen are entitled to the relief as given above.

16. Refeience is decided accordingly.

R. P. PANDEY, Presiding Officei 2567:>"•; THE GAZETTE OF INDJA . MARCtf 9, 2002/. PHALGUNA 18 1923 !P\RT TT New Delhi, the 12th February, ZOOZ

SO 853—in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industtial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 4/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Kolkata now is shnvra in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between. the emplo>ers in relation to the management of C.A.O., P.S.I.. Air Foice Station and their vvorkmon, which was, rcceived by the Central Government on 12-2-2002.

[No. L-14012/29/97-TR(DU)l KULDrP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1NDUSTRTAL TRIBUNAL. AT KOLKATA

Référence No. 04 of 1998

PARTIES :

ï*mployers in relation to the management of C.A.O.,

P.S.T., Air Force Station, Kalaikunda.

AND

Their workman

PRESENT :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma. Presidmg Officer.

APPEARANCE:

On behalf of Management : Mr. K. C hali-jnee, Advocate.

lia duly with lull :dtisfaction of her superinrs. Il r frifhcr stated that the said PSI is a non-public fued insulu..Jn governed by the rules and régulations of the Air Force Head Quarters, New Delhi. It is ;,lso further stated that the PSI runs varioui venturcs likc Dairy Farm. Soda Factory. Bakery ami Gardening etc. and employa about 60 employées. Accord- in;; lo the workman theic are soroe other non-public fnnd mstitute aiso like Air Force Canteen, OfRcers' Mess and Air Force School etc., apart from co-opera'ive store. It i" also further stated that in the month of January. 1997 tue workman had brought to Ihe notice of tiie Admiuistrator some irremilarities in connection with issue of mm/rum card ri> the defence personnel/ex-servicemen, but the management i:iste H! of taking any action or making any enquiry in the matter transferred her by a letter dated 3rd February, 1997 to the Education Section, which is not a non-public fund, but fully a government office. It is further stated that on receipt of the transfer letter the workman communicated to the management bv letter dated 3rd February, 1997 that her transfer to Education Section was not in consonence with the terms of her employment, because her service conditions were différent from that of the Education Section. On receipt of this letter of the workman the management again asked her to loin the Air Force School as a Clerk and ail of a sudden in a very unceremonious manner issued a show cause notice by :i letter dated 06-02-1997 against her alieging that she had refused to report to the Education Section on transfer. It is further stated that by a letter dafed 7th February, 1997 she replied to the said show cause notice clarifyine her stand in the matter and stating that she never refused to go to Education Section for work, but the tiansfer v/as not r'Ccord- ing to norms. Thereafter the management issued a letter dated Klth February. 1997 asking her to report to Education Section at once and without givina any opportnnity to her. termined hrr servie hv a letter delivered to her on 11-02-1997 inspite of tbe fart that she was ready to join the said post as per instruction of the management. It is, thersfore. stated that since the vvorkman wos a permanent staff under the manage- ment with 22 years of c'ean and meritorious service, she was removed from service in most illégal .ind imceiemonious mnnner. Therefore. it ;s stated that the action of the manage- ment in terminntinsT her service amounts (o 'retrenchment' "ithin the rneaninf of Section 2(oo) of the Industriel Disoutes Act. 1947. Tt is staied that this removal hom service or re- trenchment had taken effect without payment of any retrench- ment compensation or retrenchment notice :*s envisager! in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. pnd therefore. the nction of the management in terminating her service is invalid, inoperative and void and she should be deemed to hâve continued in service. It is also stated that after the re- trenchment. the workman by a letter dated 12-02-1997 applied to the authority requesting them to reinstate her in service, but it went in vain. Then the workman by a letter dated 18-02-1997 rised a dispute before the A.L.C.(C), Calcutta and thereafter the conciliation proceedings were held. but it failed and the failure report was sent to the Ministry r.nd this référence was made.

On behalf of Workman : Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate.

STATE : West Bengal.

AWARD

By Order No. L-14012/29/97-IR(DU) dated 28-01-1998 the Central Government in exercise of its powers under section 10(1 )fd) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Wriether the action of the Chief Administrative Officer of Président .Service Institute, Air Force Station, Kalaikunda in terminating the .services of Srimati Usha Aich with effect from 11-02-97 is ji'.stifiod ? If so to what relief the workrnan is entitled to ?'

2. The présent référence arises out of the industrial dispute raised by Mrs. Usha Aich. a Clerk of the establishment within the jurisdiction of SFQ 16'3. Air Field ICol.'ikumU. The workman concerned was dismissed from service with effect from 11 th February, 1997 by the Group Captain-cum-Adminis- trator of tiie Président Service Institute, Air Force Station, Kalaikimda by order dated llth February, 1997.

3. In the written statement filed by the workman it is stated that she was appointed as PSI Clerk under the management with effect from 21-03-1975 and since then.she was discharging

4. A written statement has also been filed on behalf of the management. It has been stated on behalf of the manacement that the référence in question is without iurisdiction and based on missconcieved interprétation and erronious i\nderstandins of the provision of law. It is also nlleged that the dispute is ill-concieved and is not maintainable and is not actually an industrial dispute. It is further stated that tîie PST !s a nor- pubMc fund organisation rromoted by the personnel of the Air Force workine at Kalaiknnda Air Field. Midnapore and is managed by the Chief Administrative Officer, Air Force Station, Kalaikunda and ail Ihe funds for running the said organisation is mnde out of the subscription raised from the personnel working at the said Air Field and no fi'ml is received from the Central Government. Therefore. the organisation is not related to the Central Government. It is also further stated that PSI has been promoted for doing some welfare activities for the Air Force personnel nnd their family members and it has been enaag.-d in supply of dairv nnd bakery products and other différent items on non-profitable basis. Tt is also stated that the organisation is :i!.-o engaged in runninT social and cultural nctivities and also in arranging primary level éducation of the children of the Air Force personnel of t'ie Kalaikunda Air Field. Tt is also stated that the Chief Administrative Officer of Kalaikunda look<; after the functioning of the said PSI vs its head. It is st;itcd that the Air Force School has a small cftice situated within the premise of the Station and Education Section and is a part of the said PSI and is also managed by the Chief Administrative Officer, Air Force Station, Kalaikunda. In 2569

stated that she was appointed as a Cîerk on 21-03-1975 in the PSI at Kalaikunda which is run by non-public fund and caters to the welfare of the Air Force personnel by arranging dairy, bus, bakery and other services, including éducation. She turther stated that PSi is controlled by Air Head Quarters, New Delhi and this organisation has no concern with the Air Force personnel. According to her, her services were terminated on i 1-02-1997 and she had received an order to this effect on that date. Her transfer was made to the Air Force Education Section, whieh is not part and parcel of PSï and was under the control of the Governme.it of India. In this regard she sought clarification by her leîter Uated 03-02-1997 and on 06-02-1997 she received a show cavse notice from the management and then on 07-02-1997 she sent a reply and again on 10-02-1997 she was dïrected to join the Education Section after handingover the charge to enother person and accordingly she made-over charge to him, but on 11-02-19.97 she received the termination order. It is sîated by her that she had never intimated the ma naçement that she was not willing to carry out the orders of transfer pnd she actually ready to work anywhere, if posted. She had also stated that no chargesheet was issued aeainst her, nor any ennuiry was held before termination of her service. She also further stated that neither any retrenchment compensation w?s paid, nor any notice to this effect was given to her. She also stated that after her termination, she was not woïking anywhere. So, she has prayed for her reinstalement with back wages. In her cross-examination. she has gtaicd that she hiid simply souyht for clarification of the transfer order ard she had also not sent any reply to the notice dated 10-02-1997. She a!"i further stated that on 11-02-1997 when she went to join the place of her posting, termination notice was handed over to ber. She stated that the notice dated 10-02-1997 was handfid over to her on the same day at about 11 A.M. and so she could not handover charge and foin her new assignment in time. It was because she was handlins; c:i;h and she had to make-over charge of the cash also and she had informed the management about it.

this context it is sîated that this PSI is neither a branch of like organisation in any other Air Force Station, nor it has any branch in any other station and fonctions purely wilhin the campus of the Kalaikunda Air Force Station. It is stated that the service of the persons working in the saitl PSI or- ganisation can be utilised for any part of fje said FS1 and is inter-transferable for doing similar job in any part of the said • PSI. It is also stated that the person raising the présent dispute was engaged in service of the PSI for doing clérical job and thrpugh a leter dated 3rd February, 1997 of the management she was transfered due to exigîncies to the Air Force School Office for doing clérical job lîicre. But, inspite of repeated reminders, she did not join the Air Force School and for non-compliance of the order of the management she was askêd" to show cause by letter dated 06-021997 and the matter was enquired about and she flatly refusée! to jo;~~nd miss-behaviour. It is, therefore, submitted that ihe présent dispute is not fit to be considered and the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.~~

5. Subsequently. a reioinder is also fiied on behalf of the workman in which sortie of the statements and comments mpd" in the written statement of the management is chailenged and disputed.

6. So far as the évidence is concerned. both the parties hâve 'ed oral évidence and hâve also niaced some (incuments on record which hâve been admitted and marked exhibiîs in t^e ca"e. Ext. W-l is the appointaient letter dated 74-03-1975. Fxt. ¥'-2 is the transfer order dated 01-07-1007. Fxt. W-3 is the letter of the workman dated 03-07.-1997. Fxî. W-4 is the show cau/e notice dated 06-02-1997. Fxt. W-5 is tbe repty to the show cause dated 06-07.-1997. Ext. W-6 is the îetter of the management dited 10-02-1997 diroct'ng Ihe work- man to report to Education Deptt. for clercoJ work bv noon that day, failing which, her service wiU Se terminated. Ext. W-7 is the ordar issued by the management to the workman concerned intimating that her service has been terminated with effect from the same dav. Ext. W-8 is the memor.inddm of armeal filed before the Air Officer Commar>di>ig Off.cer, No. 5 Wîtitt, Air Force Station. Kalaikunda. Ext. W-9 is the letter addressèd to the A.L.C.(C), Calcutta wising the dis- pute in the matter. Ext. W-10 is the letter by which the ternis and conditions of service of non-public fund employées, other than canteen and school, were notified. Ext. W-ll is the pnper containing ternis and conditions of service of non- public fund employées, other than A.F. canteen.

7. On the other hand, so far as the management is con- cerned, Ext. M-l is the transfer order dated 03-0*4997. Ext. M-2 is the letter addressèd to the Air Force Commanding Officer by the workman on receipt of the transfer order seek- ing clarification in the matter and asking for proper court of enquiry. Ext. M-3 is the show cause notice dated 06-02-1997. Ext. M-4 is the letter dated 10-02-1997 intimating the work- man to report on duty as transferred by noon that day. Ext M-5 is the order dated 11-02-1997 terminating the service of thé workman with effect from that date.

9. One Roananki Prakash Rao who happens to be the Administrative Officer of the Air Force Station, Kalaikunda has been examined as M W-l on behalf of the management. Hf has "tfated that he happens to be the Officer incharge of PSI at Kalaikunda and that PSI is a non-public fund organisa- tion and caters to the welfare of the Air Force personnel bv running dairy, bus, bakery and providing other services, including school. He further stated that Government of Indfa does not pay anything for maintenance and uo-keen of this organisation and the capital is provided by the Air Force personnel. This organisation is not a profit making organisa- tion and it has no branch anywhere in India. He also stated that this organisation is not carried on bv or under the authoritv of the Central Goyernment. He further stated that the PST runs a school also which is known as Air Force School. Acmrdms to h"m. the workman concerned was appoînted as a Cîerk of the PSI in 1975 and on 03-02-1997 she was trans- férer! to Education Section of the Air Force Station as a •"lerk. Accordms tn him the Education Section of the Air Force is entïrely différent from the PST and it has neither anv connection, nor anv concern with PST. He also further sfnterf thftt the Fducntinn Section of the Air Forre ïs under the dirert control of the Air Force and so the staff workins" in the Education Section are emolovees of the Government of India. The witness has also further stated that the said Air Force School and the PSI are the same. He further stated that the Chief Administrative Officer looks after the Air Force as well as the Air Force School and Education Section of Air Force is not looked after by PSI as it happens to be part and parcel of Air Force. He also further stated that the Ch'ef Administrative. Officer of the Air Force and the Chief Administrative Office of the PSI is the sam? person. It is also stated that even thouah the workman dW not ioin on transter. she was given further chance to ioin, but even then she did not ioin and therefore, her service was riehtly terminated. He has stated in his cross-examination that tenons arid conditions concerning services of non-public fimd ern- plovees of Kalaikunda Air Force are framed bv Air Commodore. Joint Director of Accounts and Air Officer Tncharge of Administration. He, admitted the notification in this retrard. which is tnarked Ext. W-ll ."™J f.dmitted ihat the services of the concerned workman as àTso Kovemed by thèse service conditions. He has further admitted that th management did not complv with the procédure to'd clown in Fxt. W-ll before terminatin-? the service of the worVrnan, because it was noJÈ necessary. He has. a'so further sfated that there is ho pàper to show that Air Force Sdiool or eny 8. So far as the oral évidence is concerned, the concerned workman, Usha Aich has examined herself as WW-1. She has 2570 THE GAZETTE O.F 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC, 3(iij]

school is managed by PSI and also stated that there is no other school in the Air Force Station at Kaîaikunda, except tbe school mentioned above. In this connection, it is neces- sary to note that this witness, MW-1 has stated that so far as the Education Section is concerned, it is under the direct control of the Air Force and it is quite distinct from PSI with which it has no concern and therefore îhe staff working in the Education Section are employées of the Government of India. On the other hand, it is stated that PSI is a flon- public fund organisation and it is not a concern of the Government of India.

10. In this view of the natter, it has been cnntended on behaîf of the management that PSI is not an indnstrv to be controlîed or guided by the Government of Indi:i and ihere- fore, the Government of India has no control over it and it cannot be treated as apnropriate sovernment in the maiter of makmT the présent référence. In this connection it mav be noted that so far as the définition of ïndustry' is concerner!, it is verv wîde. It is not necessarv that an organisation ot an institution creating or produciniî "orne rnaterial obiect shon'd be treated as industrv; rather, an organisation or institution nrnducint service tn be rmrch"spd bv others is also an industrv. The test of the factor to contfrnl is as to h^w the oreanisat;on is run. It becomes pdTiiKivI from th? évidence on record that thouph the organisation is not dî-prtlv nnder fhp Govemmcîit of Tndia. ns st"-'i. it is con- tmMpcl hv tHp PfiiVf Administrative OfrVer of t¹-e Air F^rri" Station hirpc^'f and it is also for the. benefit nf the personnel of thp Air Forr-i" Station. Therefore. it couid not hive ^n ipdenpndent entitv to be treated ou'side the iuri"r1îctîon of thp Central Oovprnmpnt for the nnrnose of c^ntrol in this rnattfr nf industriel dispute Tt '•on'd not be trent^d r>s wifh'n thp iiirierlictiort of thp Stntp Oovpmmpnt also h^^nn^c it is VinrW fTip mriti-oi of thp Cbief Administrative Offi^er nf the Aîr Porrp 9tpt;r>n whirh hnnnpns Xn be an w'no r,f (be rVn+rni r-nrammcTit. Thprpfnre. it '* Tt""it cnrrpct fn "tv that t^° rîovprprnent of Tndia in this case is not the finnropriPte Government for the purpose of making the référence.

11. So far ?s the terminatîon of the w o r H in is crrir-pmer!. \t ;<; ril^in nnd clear that she was emnioved as a CVrk bv tKe PST and after miftin" in service for 22 vears she wns tr^nsferprl to Fdncition Section. Tt has Ven rVar'v "t#>"H thnt RHiicntinn Section is différent frnm T>ST ppd 't ï" admitt^d bv 1VTW-1 that wh"eps Fductinn Section i" directiv rmder *he control nf the Air Force. pST is a différent rntitv Thpre- fcsrp. when she w?s trnn^ferred al] on a "nrlrVn tn Prin-nt'ori S^ectinn, che rpi^d a nertinpnt oue^tiAn ^heth"r she '•on'ri he tmncfprrpr) to Fdneation Sec-t'on. which was vnc'er the dirpr-t cintrol nf thp Air Force. Tn this content the manaTCir^nt roi'M h?vp c'e"rlv e^niained the circnmstancps to her. but îiothin? of the kind was done; rather, she was insned a show crure. Thereafter she was given a stern warn'nç by letter dafed 10-02-1997, Ext. W-6 directing her to ioin bv noon of 10-02-1997 itself. It is stransîe that when the letter was i'-.ued on 10-02-1997 and according to the workrnan, V/W-l *Ua receWed it at nbo>;t il A.M. that dav, she wns asked to loin on the same day by noon on that. day, because she was dealing with cash a!so and she had to make-over charge of )he cash to her successor. It is also pertinent to note that *he did not give anv reply to this letter Ext. W-6 refusina to ioin and she was also not given any opr.orttmity to explain anythins bv holding enauiry and on the verv next day she IVPS dismissed from service bv order dated 11-02-1997, Ext. W-7. Tt is, therefore, clear that there was no denartmenfa! enauirv of anv kind in this matter and the termination was also withont any notice or compensation as reemired under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. It has been stated on behalf of the management that the workman was bound by the terms and conditions of the rules framed in this regard, Ext. W-ll. A perusal of this document, Ext. W-ll shows that detailed instructions in yarious matters hâve been given in it, but nowhere there is any provision for transfer of the employées. Therefore, there is no material to show that she had not acted as per the terms and conditions of service as laid down by the management. On the other hand, Paragraph-19 of the terms and conditions, Ext. W-ll lays down the procédure before dealing with a case of misconduct, which requires that the employée is to be served with a chargesheet clearly stating Imputation of misconduct against him and calling upon him/her to show cause as to why one or more of the punishmenfs, included m this rules should not be awarded to him 'her and reply to the chargesheet, if any is to be duly considered by the disciplinary authority.

13. It is pertinent to note hère that any action taken by the compétent authority, either in quasi judicial or in ad- ministrative capacity, has to adhère to the rules of the principles of natural justice as held in Union of ïndia v. N. Singb [1970-I-LLMO] that the main aim of the rule of natural justice is to secure justice or, to put in uegotively, to prevent miscarrîage of justice. Thèse rules operate in the areas not covered by law validly made or expressly excluded. It Las been held by the High Courts from lime to time that the principles of natural jiMice wouki anply uniess the em- ployer should justify its exclusion on given spécial and ex- ceplionîil exiçencies. It has been observed >>y îheir Lordships of the Hon'ble Suprême Court in the case of D. K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. [1993-II-LLI-6961 that the cardinal peint îhnt has to be borne in mind in every case is whether the person concerned should hâve reasonable opportuniîy of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly. reasonably and impertially. Tt is further held that it is not so much to act judicially, but is to act fairly, nameîy, the procédure adooted must be iust, fair and reaser.nWe in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words, the ann'icfttion of the princioles of natural justice thst no m;

14. In this connection, it has been stated on behalf of the management that the workman concerned was personallv heard by the management. But, neither there is any nar"e? to show that any chargesheet was issued to her before takina a decis-'on to remove her from service nor there is anv évidence availaWe rel^tine to ?ny enauiry of whatever nature. Therefore it is c'ear that the termination of service of this workman was made in arb'trarv manner and without adheieing to the rules of the management itself as admitted by MW-1 al"o. Such a fermination. therefore, is illégal and it connût be justifled in any manner.

15. ïn this view of the matter. the term'nation order of the mir.n"Rment issued aaainst the workman, Usha Aich. on 11-02-1997 is hereby quasbed. The workrnan is ordered to b^ rf>in-tatPd in service with full back vvages and conse-- qucntial benefit, if any.

6. P. SHARMA, Présidais Officer Datcd, Ko!kata, the 4th February, 2002

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2C02 S.O. 854.—In Tjursuance of Section 11 of Ihe Tndustrial Discutes Act, 1947 i'!4 of 1947), the Central Government ^erebv pub lishes th^ award of îhe Central Gcvernment Industrial Tribunal|Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of ÇPWD and their workman, wnich was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-42012|240!98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

Shri B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT 139 [2000 Central Public Works Department

2571 claimed reinstatement from 26-09-97 with fuil backwages. The CPWD contested the case and mentioned in the Written Statement that the workman Manoj I. Dogore is not the employée of CPWD, Nagpur. His service was therefore not terminated by the départaient. He was given the work of cleaning the chock- ed- S.W. Pipeline and manholes on jobrate basis. He was paid Rs. 2505 for compieting the work. When the work was over he was not called for any further work. He had worked from July, 1997 to Sep. 1997 i.e. for 2 months. He is not entitled to any relief.

The workman has submitted affidavit of Krishnaji Ashtikar but this witness was dis- charged* ' on 21-05-01. The stateraent of Manoj I. Dogore was recorded.

AND

From the side of management the statement of Gagan Prakash Bansal was recorded. The parties hâve also filed their documents and written Arguments.

Shri Manoj Ishwarlal Dogore

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub section (1) and Sub section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide crder No. L-42012l240|98|IR(DU) dated 06-05-99 on the îoiïowing schedule :—

1 hâve considered the entire oral and docu- mentary évidence on record. In cross exami- nation the witness Manoj I. Dogore has stated that he was getting regular salary. The workman Manoj I. Dogore has not submitted any document to show that he was îhe regular employée of CPWD, Nagpur. He has also not submitted any document to show that he was getting regular pay. In the above circum- stances his statement that he was the regular employée of CPWD, is false.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Public Department, Nag- pur through it's Executive Engineer, CPWD Divn. I, Nagpur in terminât-. ing the services of Sh. Manoj Ishwarlal Dogore is légal and justi- fied? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?"

The workman Manoj Ishwarlal Dogore lias submilted Statement of Claim on 23-08-99. Pie has mentioned in the claim that he was vvorkins as Sweeper|Sewerman frem 198S to May, 1992 in CPWD, Nagpur. After 1992 the CPWD engaged contracter and he was working wth the contractor.

In March, 97 Bhimrao Kaosiya, Sewerman h ad retired but CPWD did not appoint hhn in his vacancy.

He was again appoinied on 23-07-99 but his p^rvice has been terminated w.e.f. 26-C9-97. T-Iis termination is illégal. He has The Execuive Engineer, G. P. Bansal of CPWD stated Manoj I. Dogore had worked on contract basis. He was paid when he com- pleted the work. The final biil was paid to him necording to the work done and in ternis and conditions of the contract.

The workman has submitted document W-1 that he worked from Dec. 88 to 6th May, 92. This document shows that Manoj I. Dogore had long gaps. In Dec. 88 he work- ed for 23 days. In 1989 he did not work from 17-08-89 to 30-09-89. He aiso did not work from 24-11-89 to 30-11-89. In the month of Nov. 89 he worked for 7 days.

In 1990 also he did not work regularîy and had gaps in îhe working durarion. From 28-10-90 to 19-11-90 he did not work. In 1991 also he did not work from 15-01-91 to 21-01-91. In Apriî, 91 he worked for 15 days. In Sep., 91 he worked for 6 days. In Oct., 91 he worked for 5 days. In Nov.. 91 he worked for 20 days. In Dec., 9! he work- ed for 14 days. Thus the document submitted2572 THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] by the workman shows that he was not work- ing conîinuously for 240 days in aay year from Dec, 88 to May, 92. The receipt dated 14-09-88 shows that he was paid Rs. 120 for clearing the Sewer. He worked only for 4 days. Recept dated 19-11-90 of Rs. 550 also shows that he was paid for heîping the Sewerman aad another receipt dated : 06-02-91 shows thaï he was paid Rs. 240. Thèse receipts show that he was paid only or the basis ot work done by Mm.

Aaoîher receipt filed by the wcrkraan W-6 daied 05-02-97 shows that hc was paid on the busis of v/ork done for cleaning of man- holes and Sewer lines. He was prûd Rs. 2720 for clearing 47 manholes and 370 mts. Sewer- liae. The receipt dated 01-09-97 aîso shows that Tvîanoj Dogore was paid Rs. 2505 for providmg labour for cleaning of chocked S.W. Pipeline. The work was done by hiin. in one month. This document theretere shows that Manoj I. Dogore was supplying labour for cleaning S.W. Pipelines.

In the above circumstances the workman Manoj I. Dogore was not the regular em- ployée of the CPWD. He was not appointée! as Sweeper by the CPWD départaient. He was therefore not terminated from the service. He worked on contract basis and for each type of work hc settled the terras and conditiers for cleaning îhe manholes and the S.W. pipelines when they were choeked. As M-'.^oi î. Dogore was no^ the employée of the CPWD, he is not en'itled to any relief claim- ed by him.

ORDER

Manoi I. Dogore was not the erno!oyee of Central Public Works Dep^rlrnent. Nagpur. He was neither aonointed as Sweeper Jior his service was terminated.

Ke is not cntitled to any relief clsiimed by him.

The référence is answered accordinglv.

Dated 10-1-2002.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officcr New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002

S.O. 855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Imluuri.il Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereèy publishes the award (Réf. No. 541|2001) of the Cent- ral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court. Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplo>ers in relation to the management of Director ot Supplies and Disposais Departmental Canteen and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 15-2-2002.

fNo. L-42012|87|98-IR(DU)] KULD1P RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CMENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 541|2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 147|98) lin the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri A. Marimuthu and the Management of the Director of Supplies and Disposais, Chennai.]

BETWEEN

Sri A. Marimuthu : I Party|Workman.

AND

The Director of Supolies and Disposais, Shastri Bhawan Staff Canteen, Chennai : II Party] Management.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Sri S. Ayyathurai, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri K. Rajendran, Sr. CGSC.

The Govt. of India, Minisiry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- tection 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-42012/87/98-lR(DU) dated 3O-1O-1998|13-1M998.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 147|98. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased tq order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been take-n on file as I.D. No. 541|2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on eitherside. informing thetn about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal with a direction to appear before this Tri- bunal on 12-3-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

Wh'n the matter came up before me for final hearing on 38-12-2001. upon perus''n<" the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other mateiïal popers on record, oral évidence let in on the side of the I PartyjWorkman aud d.curnc-ntary Un

Tribunal may be pleased to pass an award directing the Res- pondeia|Managernent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with connnuuy of service and back wages and attendant benefits. 3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Party évidence let in on either side, upon perusing the written argu- ments fued by tne iearncd couusel lor tne i Party |Workman and tins matter having siood till this date for considéra- tion, uns iriDunal has passed the toilowmg :—

Management are briefly as foliows :—•

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in th; above order of reterence by the Ccntiai Ciovernmer.t for adjudication by mis iriounal is as rollows :—

'"Whethcr the termination of Shri A. Marimuthu by the Governing Bcdy of Director of Supplies and Dis- posais Oepartmentai Canteen is légal and jusuned? If not vvnat relief ne is entitled to?"

2. The avcrments in the^Claim Statement filed by the I Panyl worknwn Sri A. Manmutnu are buefly as foiiows:—

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the II Party | vvoiking m vanous Central Uovernment olhces located in Snabtn Bhavan. 'ihe Government otiices are workin^ five days a week and the canteen is also working accordmgiy. It is not run on any profit motive. The canteen was incurring ioï>s tiil recenuy. ihe Petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer w.e.t. 12-5-1986 en daily wages at the rate of l^s. a.50 per day and was paid every week. He did not report for duty from 19-6-87 oswaids. Subsequently he was engaged irom 5-10-87 as a casual labourer at Ks. 10.00 per day. It is demed that the Management got engaged on the demand of the Petitioner for the merease of his wages per day to Rs. 15. Ihe Petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis depending upon trie necessity lor the services of a casual labourer. When me Peationer made a demand on 27-1-1989 to be made permanent in service, he was informed that his services can- not be made permanent, as he was engaged as a casul labour- er. At the time of vacancy arises, due to the absence of regular wash boy, h ewas also told that the strnegth of the canieen staff cannot be increased as the canteen was under- going financial loss. The Petitioner did not turn up for three months. On 21-4-1989 the Petitioner OH his own sent a leave application with médical certificate. He approached the Respondent in the end of April, 1989 seeking employaient as casual labourer on daily wage basis. He was informed that since he was absent for three months, another casual labourer was engaged to cater the requirements. Therefore, the Respondent did not terminate the services of the Petitioner. He filed a pétition irr Labour Court in Octobei, 1989. ..The L'abour Court did not issue any stay preventing the manage- ment to engage casual labourers on daily wage basis. The new casual labourer Sri G. Selvaraj was engaged as a regular emp- loyée of the canteen in October, 1991 in the vacancy caused by a résignation of one regular employée from the canteen service. After coming to know this position, the Petitioner stopped coming to the canteen, seeking employment and presumably sought employment elsewhere. The Labour in terms of the Labour Court order dated 25-6-1993 the Petitioner was engaged as a casual labourer from 1-9-1993. The Petitioner did not come to the canteen for long spells on several occasions. Whatever daily rate wage was payable to the casual labourer as per the Govt. rule, it was paid to the petitioner. As per the Award, the Petitioner should be reinstated on daily rated wages. After the award, the Petitioner attended the work from 1-9-1993. On 17-11-1993 he asked for Rs. 300 as advance for his personal expeuses. As there is no provision for grant of any such advance to casual labourers, the same was not granted. Subsequently, he worked till 28-10-1994 with fréquent absents and he did not turn up fteereafter. Nobody from canteen management prevented from coming to work even after the issue of légal notice, the Petitioner failed to cotne to the canteen. seeking emp- loyment as casual labourer on daiîy wage basis. No appoint- ment letter was issued for engaging the casual labourer on daily wage basis. The Respondent hâve not terminated the service of the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself has stopped coming to the Respondent seeking employment on daily wages. Hence, the question of complying with Section 25F of the I.D. Act does not arise. As the petitioner has deserted the nost, he cannot hâve a daim everr to engage PS a casua' labourer on daiîy wage basis. It is prayed that the Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner.

4. When the matfer was taken UD for enquiry, the Peti- tioner was examined hirsself as WW1 and four documents were marked as Ex. Wl to W4. From the side of the Res- pondent|Manapement no one has been examined as a witness. The counse! for the Respondent|Manseement made an en- dorsement on the Counter S'atement stating there is no oral évidence for the II PartyîManagement. The arguments of the îearned counsfi for the *T PartvlManapement was heard. The learned counsel for tbe I Party has fiîed his wirtten argument.

5. The Point for my considération is—

The I Party |Workman Sri A. Marimuthu (hereinafter refer îo as Peuuonerj was appointeû as a casual laoourer from tnc year isiw m ine s^aii cai^een caiicci bnasm Jdnav

"Whether the Government Body of the Canteen under the control of Director of Supplies and Disposais départmprir frï; terminated the "'"rvit.es of Sri A. Marimatliu frura the canteen? If ;o, whctker it is2574. THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART H—SEC. 3(ÎI)] légal and justified? To what relief the concerned workman îs entitled ?"

Point :—

The Petitioner Sri A. Marimuthu was engaged as a casual labourer first in the year 1986 on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 8.50 per day. Later it was increased to Rs. 10 and then to Ks. 15 per day. Eariier the said canteen was run by the management of the Shastri Bhawan Stafï Co-ope- rnve Catering Ltd., subsequently, the canteen was taken over and run as departmental canteen by the department ot Suppiies and Disposais a ShasUi Bhavan, Madras. As the service of the Petitioner was termmated in tne year 19S8 by tne erstwhiie Management, the Petitioner raised an industria] dispute as I.D. No. 1010 of 1988 in the Principal Labour Court, Madras. On 25-6-1993 an Award was passed by the Principal Labour Court, Madras on the basis of the joint endorsement made by the Peationer and the counsels on either side, which was recorded by the Court. As per that endorsement, the Peti- tioner was reinstated with continuicy ot service on daily rate basis without back wages. In the meantime, the canteen management was changed and came under the control of the Direcîor of Supplies and Disposais, Shastri Bhavan as a departmental canteen. The Petitioner as WW1 has deposed so. Xt is not disputed by the Respondent. The Petitioner had made représentions in writing requesting he Chairman and aibo the Director of Supplies and Disposais Department, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai. The carbon copies of those letters dated 15-10-1993 and 28-4-1994 respectively are Ex. Wl and W2. Then the Petitioner has sent another réquisition to the Chairman of the said department through his letter dated 1-6-94 requesting him to consider his case for making him permanent and to fix his seniority above the workman Sri C. Selvaraj, who is junior to him in service. The carbon copy of that letter is Ex. W3. As no reply '-vas received from the authorities, he sent a lawyer notice dated 15-9-1995 to the Director of Supplies and Disposais. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. W4. AH thèse things hâve been deposed by him as WW1. It is his further évidence in Chief that since he was asked for confirmation of service, he was retrenched from service by the Respondent|Management with- out giving any reason notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensation and the action of the Respondent|Management by stop from service on 3-11-1994 ail of a sudden should be set aside and the Respondent may be directed to r"instate him in service with continuity of service and back wages. It is admitted by him in the cross examination that he used ta sign in the attendance register maintained by the canteen for the day s he worked and it is Ex. Ml and that he has signed in Ex. Ml upto the forenoon of 28-10-1994. It is his spécifie évidence in the cross examination that after he was reinstated in service as per the orders of the Labour Court, dated 25-6-1993, he attended the work çontinuously without absence for a day and he worked continuously till 3-11-1994 when he was non-employed by the Respondent. Eariier in the Chief Examination. it is his évidence that he had been to his village for Diwali festival and when ha came back tor duty on 3-11-1994, the canteen manager Mr. Natarajan to.'d him that he should not sign the attendance re.aister and can go home, as he was no more required for the work in the canteen. He has stated so in his claim statement also. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the Counter that the Petitioner was ençaged on daily wage basis as casual labourer only till 27-1-1989 and thereafter he severed his links with the cante"n. It is further contended in the Counter State- ment by the R • "".' ' • "" ' that Labour Court did

never turned up for work subsequently. The entries available in Ex. Ml hâve not been disputed by the Petitioner, when it was put to nis notice, when he was cross examinée. It is the contention of the Petitioner both"*in his Claim Salement as well as in his évidence that he was stopped from service by the canteen Manager Mr. Natarajan without any reason, and he did not stay back from attendrng his work in the canteen. He has admitted in the cross examination that he had not preterred any eomplamt against the Canteen Manager Mr. Natarajan for not allowing him to do the work in tne canteen trom 3-11-1994 onwards. In tne Chiel Examination itseli, it is his évidence th.vt he had been to his village for Deepawali festival and in the cross exami- nation he has admitted that he had signed in Ex. Ml attend- ance register upio the forenoon on 28-10-1994. trom the entries avaiiable in Ex. Ml attendance register, it is seen that prior to the forenoon of 28-10-1994 the Peticioner remain- ed continuously absent in the whole months of August and Sepiember, 1994 and the days as mentioned eariier for the other mon^hs. From this ii: is seen that the contention of the petitioner thaï lie had worked continuously ever since he was reinstated in service as per the orders of the Principal Labour Court till 3-11-1994 is incorect. It is évident from the attendance register that he abstained from duty without any leave letter or prior permission from the Respondent | Management and was a regular absentée. From Ex. Ml attendance register, it is seen that other casual labourer Sri A. Durai engaged by the Respondent|Management as a casual labourer in the canteen was regularly attending the work in the canteen. That was the reason the Respondent| Management to make him permanent in the vacancy caused by the résignation of a permanent employée in the canteen. It is not disputed by the Petitioner. For one such avéraient made in the Counter Statement, no rejoinder has been flled by the petitioner disputing the allégations in the Counter Slatement. Furher it is specifically stated in the counter statement that the Petiiioner asked for Rs. 300 as advance for his personal expenses on 17-11-93 and as there is no provision tor grant of any such advance ts> casual labourers, the same was not granted and that subsequently, after 28-10-1994, he did not turn up for work thereafter and he has chosen not to come to work for his own volition and nobody from the canteen management prevented him from coming to work. It is the fact as pleaded in the Counter Statement of the Respondent|Management as it is evidenced from the entries in Ex. Ml attendance register that the Petitioner had attend- ed the work in the canteen till the fornoon of 28-10-1994. It is the spécifie évidence in the Chief Examination as WW1 of the Petitioner that he had been to his village for Deepa- wali festival and came for duty on 3-11-1994 and he had not preferred any complaint against the Canteen Manager Mr. Natarajan for not allowing him to do the work in the canteen from 3-11-1994 onwards. AH thèse things put together, to enable us to come to a probable conclusion f since the Petitioner has demanded advance of Rs. 300 for his personal expenses at the time of Deepawali festival and the Respondent/Management h;is denied the same as he happened to be a casual labourer, the Petitioner has stopped coming again for duty of his own and he has not been retrenched from service by the Respondent [Manage- ment on 3-11-1994 as pleaded by him. If really, the Peti- tioner was prevented from attending work in the canteen by the Manager Mr. Natarajan for no reason, he would hâve immediately preferred a complaint against the same to the higher authorities, but he has not done so. From ail thèse available évidence, it is possible for come to a conclusion that the Petitioner was not stopped from service by the Res- pondent|Management, but he only abstained from duty of his own. Under such circumsances, there is no question of any termination of service of the Petitioner Sri A. Marimuthu by the Groverning Body of the Department of, Supplies and Disposais for the canteen. In the absence of orie such action by the Respondent|Management against the Petitioner, it can not be said that the Petitioner service by the Resoondent/ Management in an unjustified mariner and it is illégal. Under such circumstances, the question of violation of Secfion 25F of Industrial Disputes Act by not giving reason for termination notice, notice pay and retrenchment compensa- tion does not at ail arise. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed in the présent industrial dispute. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

not issue anj • • Management to engage casual labour, , • , t and hence Sri C. Sel- varai was engaged as a casual labourer who was subsequently made resular "employée in October. 1991 :n the canteen in the vacancy caused by the résignation of the regular emp- lovee from the canteen service. It is further contended in the Counter Statement even after reinstatement in service, subse- anent to the ortîers of the Princirjal Labour Court, Chennai, the Petitioner did not come to the canteen for long spells on several occasions, seeking employment on daily wages basis as casual labourer. A pernsal of Ex. Ml attendance regisfer the Petitioner remained absent îhree days in Septem- b"r. 199?. 5 davs in November. 1993. the whoie of DecemHer, 1993 worked only for 11 dnvs in Tanuarv, 1994, 14 davs in February, 1994, rem^'ued absolit for 4 dnvs in .Tune. 1994, wcl-Pd oiîv for 2 d?vs in Julv, 1994. remained absent for entiVe m^T^h of Aiif*ust snâ RT-^m^T. 199-1 nnd {înnîly worked till the forenoon of 28th October, 1994 and he

In the resuit, an award is passed holding that the relief prayed for by the I PartylPetitkvier cannot be gr:.nted. as he is not entitled for the same. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him and corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this day the 31st December, 2001).

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party|Workman : WW1 Shri A. Marimuthu.

For the II Party|Management : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For the I Party : Workman :—

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 15-10-93 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

W2 28-4-94 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

W3 1-6-1994 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management.

W4 15-9-95 Xerox copy of the letter from M|s. Laksh- mipriya Associates to the Management.

For the II Party|Management :

Ml Sep. 1993 to March, 1995 Original casual labour attendance register.

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indusïrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereb> publishes the award (Réf. No. 145/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Department and their workman. vi'hich was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-40012/40/99-5R(DU">] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ÏNDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001 PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 145/2001 (Tcimii Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 141/99) [In V¹

~~2575 between the Workman Sri K. Palanisamy and the Manage- ment of the Chief General Manager, Telecom Tamil Nadu Circîe, Chennai and the General Manager, Telecom. Erode].~~

BETWEEN

Sri K. Palanisamy. ...... I Party/Workman

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, II Party/ Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle. -Management Chennai.

'2. The General Manager,

Telecom, Erode.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar & C. Prema- vathy, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri S. Thiagarajan, Addl. CGSC.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/40/99-lR(DU) dated 26-07-1999.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Niidu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on file as I.D. No. 141/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of Labobr was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 145/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, informing them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 02-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counseJ on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the oral and documentary évidence let in on either side, the written argu- ments fiîed by the learned counsel for the I Party/Workman and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the îearned counsel for the II Party/Management and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, tiiis Tribun:.' has passed the followtng :—

AWARD

The Industriaî Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as foliows :—

"Whether the action of the Management in tciminatin^ the services of Shri K. Palanisamy, Cas.ua! Aiaziioor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/ Workman Sri K. Palanisamy are briefiy as foliows :—
.25:70 1HE GAZJLTTt OF J>T"ÎA-J MARÇH 9; 1002/ PHALGUNA 13. 1923 [FA?.T n—SEC. 3Ji):
Though the Petitioner was paicl arrears, he was not rcguiarised. Inspite of représentations made by the Petitioner to the General Manager, Telecom Department, Erode, for re-engage- ment of the Petitioner in service, no repiy was given to the Petitioner. So, he approached the Hon'ble Centnl Administra- tive "tribunal and fiied a pétition as O.A. No. 1507/93 ûnd the Petitioner was not re-engaged by the R;spondent/Depait- ment as per the direction oï the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Respondent/Department was directed to re- engage the Petitioner in préférence to the freshers from Ibe open raarket in the unit from v/hich they werc retrenched la st. Inspite of the direction, the Resj-onde-it Depailmcnt engaged workers on contract basis, which is highly illégal and arb'trary. ï hc services rendered by the fetitioner were as casual mazdoor. He was paid under ACG-17. lt is also to be taken into account for régularisation of services, as held by the Central Adminiitratiye Tribunal, Chennai Bench-I in the case of C. Murugesan Vs, Union of India. Therefore, the Respondent ought to hâve re-engaged the Petitioner in service. He ha:> not deserted from the work. Eve^i assuming without admittin; that the Petitioner has deserted from service, the Re.spondents are bound to put the Petitioner on notice even before terminating him from services. The Respondent ought to hâve called the Petitioner to join the duty. He lias put in moie than a décade in continuons service and the termi- nation of his service is in violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner was not given aiiy notice or repîy for représentation. His termi nation from service is in violation of natural justice. The Petitioner is entitled to be re-instated with ail other service benefits inclucfiug arrears of back wages. The Respondent. ought to hâve conferred tom- pnrary status as per the temporary status scherne and further absorbed hira against regular Group D yiost, not doing so. is illégal and arbitrary. As no seulement could be reached before the conciliating authcirity, which endecl in dated 21-3-89 is illégal and arbitrary and couseq"ently direct the Respondent/Management to reinstate the Peritioner in service w.e.f. 21-3-89 and to pay ail arrears of back wajes with attendant benefits.

3. The avements in the Counter Statement of the ]I Partv/ Management ( here'nafter refers to as Revendent) are briefly \K follows :—

The Petitioner was engaged by the staff of the department tt;:d not by the dervitment ter tue said Works. He h;.d womed l'ir a fev/ d?.>s only under the line staff of the départaient nom 11-05-37 to 21-03-89 for 320 days. île had not worked c^nnnuoiHy which is varying with the ttatement of days tv'eri In para 2 of his Claim Statement. The Hon'ble Central Admmi.'trutive Tribunal has given direction thpt the applicant '.'•oujd be re-engaged, ;-* there is work, in préférence to fresh mrcdichtes from the op&n market in Ihe same unit from where ihey were retrenched last and that if the applicants are going lo b,s re-engaged in pursuanec of this order, none of the C"_sua! Labourers, who are in service will be retrenched. As per hi-; OWÏI statement, he worked from 11-05-87 to 21-03-89 lor a tcla! number of 687 days. Number of days given as 320 i;: his Claim Statement differs from a number of days given in his break up statement. The Petitioner could not be granted with temporary status for which he should hâve been îe- m-itated after absence. The reinstatement could not be issued,
4. Wben the matter was taken up for enquiry, the Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and five documents hâve been marked as Ex. Wl to W5. On the side of the Respondent/ Management, an officiai workine in the Sub Divisional Engineer Office of General Manager, Telecom, Ercde was examined n., Management witness. three documents hâve been marked a- Ex. Ml and M3. The learned counsel for the I Partv' Petitioner lias submitted this written arguments and the learned counsel for the II Party/I.fanagement advanced his arguments.

5. The Point for my considération is—

"Whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri K. Palanisamv, Casual Mazdoor i-i légal and justified ? If not, to v i nt relief ihe workman is entitled ?"

Point :—

Thon "h it :s alieged in the Claim Statement of the Peti- tioner tbat he worked for 320 days from 11-05-87 to 21-03-S9 ns casual mazdo^r. while giving évidence as WW1. he has dvwed that nn 20-02-85 he was engaged as Casual Labour in the Sub Divisional Office, Telecom, Erode. In support of hk évidence, he filed Ex. Wl séries, certificates said to hâve hr-n issued bv the Telecom Department as service certificats. Tn the C'aïm Stp.lfment th<" Petitioner has rot whisne._ed f-nvthînc about the issuance of service certificates bv the officiai ii the Telecom derartment for the period he worked in the riînnrtmpnt No ?uch oflîcial has been examined as a witness f->r the Petitionc- to speak about the cwHents of those certi- rv-ites Tn fr*. Cnuntpr Statement, the Resnondout/Department i-ns "titpderit Manasement as a casua! m;i7do'>r thro-i^h'tbc Tc"i:i.-r "taff of t^e dep<"1;menf fnd tbe denan- ,-"„! h-,s r;ot en-ar-d the Pet!tion"r direct. Thnt hn" not heen ^ir-nted bv wiv of [>nv reniv state^ent bv th<> Pctitionpr. i"t.;i" nH-ini! ev'âencr n? W\V1 in the Chief Exnminptîon itse¹f. ,•• „ i>pt:tiopo- Hmee'f bas pdmitted tbat he wns p=sist;i" onh- i-", crd &•'* h" was rnt etïrioved bv the Telecom Department directiv p'nd he usçd to work under a departmental employée as and 2577

seen that fliie Petitioner hds not fulfilled the conditions rçciuired to grant him temporary status. Further, he came with the request only in 1993 for grant of temporary status. From this, it can be concluded that it is a clear case of abandon- ment. So on the basis of thèse available facts, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 25F of Indu striai Disputes Act, 1947 is attracted for this case enabling the Petitioner to claim relief under that provision of law. Such provision is applicable to an employée, who has been icgi'larly appointed by the department and any retrenchment has been taken place without giving any notice or notice pay or compensation. From the facts available in this case, it is clear that the Petitioner was engaged as a Casual Labourer and \*as engaged by the department through the permanent employées of the department as and when there was work available in the department as casual nature and the Petitioner was never employed as permanent employée of the department. It is évident from the materials available in this case that the Petitioner was engaged for certain period ior particular work and the employment automatisai!/ came to an end as soon as the work was over. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner's services were retrenched by the Respondent/Management or the Respondent/Management has terminated him from service so as to claim reinstatement in service. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the question of termination of service by the Respondent/' Management of the Petitioner as casual mazdoor does not at ail arise. So, the relief of reinstatement of the Peîitioner in service by the II Party/Management in the Oep^rtment of Télécommunication will not at ail arise. Tïius, I answeied the point accordingly.

6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the relief prayed for by the I Party/Workman Sri K. Palanisamy aaainst the Respondent/Telecom Department cannot be franted. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/Workman : WW1 Sri K. Pnlpnisamy

For the TI Party/Management : MW1 Sri T. R. Arumugam DOCUMENTS MARKED : For the I Party'Workman :—

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl Nil Xerox copy of the Service particulars of the Petitioner for various periods issued by the Management.

W2 19-05-89 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management for issuance of certificrite for the period he worked as Casual Labour.

W3 02-05-91 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Respondent requesting to issue casual mazdoor card.

W4 08-08-92 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management with regard to issuance of mazdoor card.

W5 Nil Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management intimatinç the number of days he worked as casual Iabou^ on mu=fer roîls.

For the TI Party/Management :—

Fx. No. Date Description

Ml Nil Xerox copy of the service particulars of the Petitioner for îhe period from 20-4-87 to 30-4-87 issued by the Management.

M2 17/23-11-89 Xerox copy of the circuinr issued bv the Manaeement with regard to Casual Labour ( Grant of temporary status and reculnriTition) Scheme.

M3 11-04-85 Xerox copv of the circular issued by the Mnnîice'-fient with regard to recruitment and rppoint- ment of Casual Labourers.

Sd/- when lie allots work for him. He lias also admitted th;tt the days on which there is no work, he has to go back. MW1 has also deposed that as and when the Casual Labour cornes for work, if any work is available, he will be engaged and there is no certainty for job. It is also admkted that wages used to be fi.xed by the District Collecter and it used to vary and the wages for thèse Casual Labourers are not fixcd bv cable jointer who engage them for work or by the department. Jt is also not disputed that or différent work, différent rnîes of wages used to be given. From this, it is seen that the Casual Labourers like the Petitioners were engaged by the Respondent/Telecom department as and when the work was available and those people we e not engaged directly by the department on such occasions, and they were engaged only through the permanent employées of the Respondeut/Depart- ment. Admittedly no appointment order is given for the Casual Labourers, when their services were engaged by the Respondent/Telecom Department. Further, it is not disputed thut the Department of Télécommunication of the Respondent/ Department has issued a circular dated 30-3-85 stating there should be no fresh recruitment/employment as Casual Labourers. So, there was a ban for recruiting Casual Labourers by the Respondent/Department subséquent to 30-3-85. The xerox copy of the circular is marked as Ex. M3. If there is any employment has been made ?s Casual Labour subséquent to this date, it is nothing but an irregular engage- ment opposed to the instructions given by the Department of Télécommunication under Ex. M3. It is clearly averred in the Counter Statement of the Respondent that the Petitioner has enaaged only in April, 1987 and not priof to 30-03-1985 and henee the engagement itself is irregular. Further, it is alleged that the Petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions which are required for conferring on him temporary status as per the scheme and hence, he was not considered for îe- instatement and since he was a casual mazdoor, there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent Department and the department has no control over the Petitioner. It is the stand of the Respondent/Department that at présent the work is being continued and done by the labourers engaged by the contracter. This is nlso not disputed. As per the Claim Statement of the Petitioner himself, he was engaged from 11-5-87 only. So. the Petitioner's engagement as a Casual Labourer after 30-03-1985 is an irregular one. Only in oral évidence he says that he joined the department on 20-02-1985. He is relying upon the service particulars given to him as service certificates under Ex. Wl. In that statement, the Petitioner is shown to hâve worked as casual mazdoor for 395 days interrnittently till 28-04-1989. As per that Ex. Wl service certificates, he had worked for only 395 days and got the wages under vouchers of J.E. accounts. From this, it is seen that he was not employed as a départ- mental employée. It is his admission in évidence that from Februarv. 1985 to April, 1989 continuously, he had not worked in the department and that he had not worked even on a single day from July, 1986 to January, 1987 and that in the vear 1988 for the months June, July and August. In April, 1989 he had worked only for 6 days in the Telecom Depart- ment. It is also his admission that he was not issued any casual mazdoor card and that when he came to know about the Casual Labourer scheme dated 23-11-89, he was not work- intr as Casuni Labourer in the department. It y the cateeorical évidence of WW1 that what he stated in the Claim Stiitement that he had worked as a Casual Labour from 11-05-87 to 21-03-89 for a period of 320 days is incorrect. Tt is his admission that he was not given anv written order of termi- nation. It is his further évidence that on hearing from the Union people that there is a departmental circular in respect of conférons; temporary status to casual mazdoors, they hâve written to the department requesting them to furnish service particulars and only after that he aave pétitions to department seeking re-employment. He denied the su-îgesî'on that he abandoned the work as casual mazdoor and hence he has no basis for the claim he now made in this industriel dispute. The Petitioner has clearly stated that he v/.is "topped from work on 30-4^89 as he was not havine card. He bas not mnde any représentation to the Re^nondent/Mana.semcnt leauestina for work as casuM mazdoo- It is the évidence of MW1 that the Petitioner .Sri K. PnlanNamy had abandoned work from 28-84-89 and subseauentlv he has not turned np for vm-t- in the déportaient. From n'1 thèse oral and documentais évidence. it is seen that the Petitioner has not been cmnloved bv the Respondent/Telecom Department directlv and the emplnvment of the Petitioner as Pastni Labourer subsecuient to 3O-OV85 is onîv irresular and he lias not approached the départaient for work subséquent to 30-04-89. From the évidence, it is

Presiding OffiVer 604 ÇII2002—14,-578 THE GAZETTE OF INDfA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SFC. 3fii)] New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 857.—In pursuance of Section 17 ol the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of J947), the Central Government hcroby pub- lishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal!Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in tlie Indusirlal Dis- pute belween the employers in relation to the rranagement of C.G.H.S. and their workman, which was rcceived by the Central Govcrn- ment on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-4201130i96-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA. Desk Oftîcer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT :

" ) SHRI B. G. SAXENA, Présidai.? Officer Référence No. CGIT : 229|2000 The Dy. Director, C.G.H.S.

AND

The Gen. Secy. C.G.H.S. Employées Assn.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub Section (1) and Sub Section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Indxîstrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-42011l3p!96-IR(DU) dated 07I21-10-97 on the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of C.G.H.S., Nagpur in not givine seniority w.e.f. 27-05-67 as Staff Nurse Gr. I to Sint. S. P. Ghodke, a Staff Nurse, Gr-I and in not promot- ing her as Sélection Grade Sîaff. Nurse Gr-I w.e.f. 01-08-86 is justi- fied, légal and proper? If not, to what relief she is entitled to gel?" This dispute has been raised by Smt. S. P. Ghodke, Staff Nurse Gr-I through General Secretary of her union. The workman has claimed that she was working in P&T dis- pensary, at Nagpur since 27-05-65 as Statï Nurse, Central Government Health Scheme started in 1973 in Nagpur and from 19-10-73 she ioined C.G.H.S., Nagpur. Two other nurses, were there one of them V. V. Masih had ioined C.G.H.S. on 16-10-73. She wns not placed properly in the Senioritv List and she was. not promoted in Sélection Grad^ Staff Nurse Gr-I w.e.f. 01-08-86. Necessarv order be passed concerning her Sélection Grade I he management of C.G.H.S. through Dr. Mrs. S. Devi contested the case. In Written Statement the management has sîated that Mrs. V. V. Masih had joined service of C.G.H.S. from 16-10-73. Mrs. S. P. Ghodlœ joined service on 10-10-73 afternoon. So she was placed at third place. V. V. Masih was schedule caste and she was granted Sélection Grade as the Sélection Grade post was reserv- ed for schedule caste candidate. S. P. Ghodke, workman was not schedule caste. She could not get the Sélection Grade as the post was not deseserved for other candidate. She is therefore not entitled to any relief.

From the side of workman the affidavit of workman Mrs. S. P. Ghodke was filed on 12-02-01. She was not cross examhied by the management.

The affidavit of Dr. Surendra Kumar was fiied on 28-03-2001. This witness of the r:;anagement was also not cross examined by the workman.

Both the parties hâve submitted their writ- ten Arguments.

I hâve considered the oral and documentary évidence on record and the arguments of ihe parties.

It is admitted to both the parties that Mrs. S. G. Dhosewan and Mrs. V. V. Masih, Staff. Nurses joined duty in C.G.H.S., Nagpur on ¹6-10-73. The workman S. P. Ghodke joined duty on 19-10-73.

It is also admitted that S. P. Ghodke, work- man has retired from service. She did not raise the issue of seniority in 1973. She also did not raise the dispute in 1986 when V. V. Masih was granted Sélection Grade. The order dated 30-10-86 letter No. 2|120-CGHS| NAJ1721 shows that the seniority of S. P. Ghodke was determined as oer order contained in C.G.H.S. Letter No. 18O13|6|83-CGHS-1 dated 16-11-84. The seniority was deter- rained from 19-10-73 from the date of lier joining service. In the seniority list prepared on 01-08-85, S. P. Ghodke was placed at Sériai No-2 and V. V. Masih was placed at Sériai No-1. V. V. Masih had joined the ser- vice earlier than S. P. Ghodke. V. V. Masih was promoted in Sélection Grade from 01-08-86.

In vîew of the above documents, it is clear that V. V. Masih was schedule caste candi- date and she therefore got Sélection Grade post. S. P. Ghodke could get Sélection Grade only when this post was dereserved from schedule caste category by the department. In thèse circumstances there is no illegalitv in the action of management. I may furthcr point out that the matter of seniority and promo- tion could be raised in the CGIT Court soon after 1986. There is nothing on record as to why S. P. Ghodke did not raise this dispute in J986 or soon thereafter. Generally such dispute should be settled atleast five years before the date of retirement. so that the Tribunal may look into the matter before the retirement of the workman. The parties hâve not submitted the rules which are framed concerning the seniority of C.G.H.S. em- ployées. In view of the above facts, no relief can be granted to the workman.

ORDER

The action of the management of C.G.H.S., Nagpur in not giving seniority to workman Smt. S. P. Ghodke from 27-05-67 and not granting her promotion in Sélection Grade w.e.f. 01-08-86 is justified.

No other directions are required at this stage.

The référence is disposed of accordingly.

Dated : 04-1-2002

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

2579 New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), thé Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 141/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industriel Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which wa? '"eceived by the Central Government on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-40012/44/99-IR(DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2001

PRESENT : K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 141/2001 (Tamil Nadu Statë Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 136/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri D. Kannan and the Manage- ment of the Chief General Manager, Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai and the General Manager, Telecom, Erode.)

BETWEEN

Sri D. Kannan.

I Party/Workman

AND

1. The Chief General Manager, II Party/ Telecom Tamil Nadu Circle, Manaeement Chennai.

2. The General Manager,

Telecom, Erode.

APPEARANCE:

For the Workman : M/s. M. Gnanasekar & C. Prema- vathy, Advocates.

For the Management : Sri S. Thiagarajan, Addl. CGSC.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-40012/44/99-ÎR (DU) dated 26-07-1999.
2580 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FARI II—SEC. 3(ii)J
This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it wap taken on file as I.O. No. 136/99. When the malter was pending enquiry in tbat Tribunal, the Government of India, Ministry of l.auour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that .tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records fiom that Tribunal, the case has been taken on fiie as I.D. No. 141/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side, infoiming thein about the transfer of tins case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before tnis Tribunal on 02-02-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tri- bunal, counsel on either side présent with their îespeclive parties and pro^ecuted this case further.

of natural justice. The Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with ail other service beneflts including arreaïs 01 back wages. ï he Respondent ought to hâve conlerred temporary status as per the temporary status scheme and turther absoroed him against regular Group D post, not doing so, is illégal and arbitrary. As no settlement could be reached belore the conoliuung authority, which ended in a tailure, on the basis ot the icport ot tailure of conciliation this dispute has beeii referred by the Government for adjudication by the Hon'ble lnDunal. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an award holding that the order of termination dated 21-3-89 is illégal and arbitrary and conseqtiently direct me Respondent/Management to reinstate the Petitioner in service w.e.f. 21-3-89 and to pay ail arrears of back wages with attendant benefits.

3. The averments in the Counter Statement of the U Party/ Management (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) are briefly as loilOws :—

When the matter came up before nie for final iieaiing on 26-12-200i, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on rccoid, the oral and documenta^ évidence let in on either side, the written argu- ments filed by (!ie learned couusel for trie 1 Party/Workman, upon hearing the arguments odv.uiccd by tiie learned counsel for the ]I Party/Management and this matter having stood over till tnis date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the following :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows :—

"Whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri D. Kannan, Casual Mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the work- man is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/

Workman Sri D. Kannan are briefly as follows :—

The Petitioner was engaged by the staff of the department and not by the department loi the said works. He had worked lor a few days only under the line staif of the department as 42 days m M.R. in 1987, then again for 195 days in 1987, 209 days in 1988 and 104 days in 1989. He had not worked continuously as mentioned in his Claim Statement. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal has given direction that the applicant should be re-engaged, if there is work, in préférence to fresh candidates from the open market in the same unit from where they were retrenched last aud that if the applicants are going to be re-engaged in pursuance of this ot'de , none of the Casual Labourers, who are in service will be retrenched. As per his own statement, he worked from 5-4-87 to 29-4-89 for a total number of 550 days including muster roil during 4/89, which is contrary to tiie period of work, he mentioned in his Claim Statement as nom 11-5-87 to 21-3-89. The number of days given as 320 differs from number of 550 given in break up statement. In his letter dated 5-2-97, he has stated that he had worked for 860 days. The Petitioner could not be granted with tem- porary status for which he should hâve been reinstated after absence. The reinstatement could not be issued, since he was not on roll of the department, prior to 30-3-1985, he had not worked for 240 days in a year prior to 30-3-1985. Ihe engagement itself is irregular since it is after 30-3-1985. The reinstatement is applicable only for those who hâve been engaged prior to 30-03-85 and satisfying other conditions. The Petnioner had been given daily wages only except for the M.R. days of 42. The department has framed a scheme known as Régularisation Scheme, which stipulâtes that temporary status would be conferred on ail the Casual Laboufers cur- rently employed and who hâve rendered the conlinuous service of atleast one year, out of which,, they must hâve been engaged on work for the period of 240 days, such casual mazdoors will be designated as temporary mazdoors. The Petitioner had not worked îcf one year continuously out of which he should hâve worked for at least 240 days in a year. He was not on roll of the department for a minimum of 240 days in the preceding year for considering the reinstatement. He was not on roll of the department on or prior to 30-3-1985. As per CGMT, Chennai letter dated 12-3-1996, he is inéligible for considération of reinstatement. It is clearly scated in that "as per the orders of Départaient of Télécommunication, the employment of Casual Labourers from open market, is banned after 30-03-1985". As per the statement made by the Petitioner he had worked in WR for 42 days in 1987. After the Suprême Court judgement, the Department of Telecom, New Delhi has issued instructions dated 30-3-1985 regarding imposition of ban on engagement for fresh Casual Labourers. However, the casua! ma>doors in the department ought to be determined under tbe direction of Department of Telecom, New Deihi on the basis of rules and instructions. The payment of arrears is done for the days he had worked. This will not in any way ensure for Ihe reinstatement. The Petitioner had not appeared afler March, 1989. He had approached the depart- ment in the fag end of 1992 for reinstatement. Thus, the absence is more than three years upto 1992. He is not a candidate sponsored by the employment exchange. As per Department of Télécommunication, New Delhi letter dafed 21-10-92. the break-in-service upto six months can be con- doned by the Divisional Engineer concerned on merit of the individuel cases. Any break-in-service upto one year arising due to the department's inability to engage them for want of work. the Chk-f General Manager, Telecom Tamil Nadu Cirele. Madras can condone the break-in-service. The case ni the Petitioner do not qualify, since his break-in-service 7 lie I Party/Workman Sri D. Kannan ( hereinafter refers to as Petitioner) worked as casual mazdoor in the Erode Sub Division of II Pany/Telecom Department from 11-05-87 to 21-03-59. Tliough he worked for 320 days during this period, his services hâve not been regularised. There is a scheme known as 'Grant of Temporary Status and Régularisation Scheme' for casual mazdoors 'Ihe Petitioner was not gianted temporary status in accordance with the scheme. He was employed in the Office of the General Manager, Telecom Department, Erode, at the time of tçrmination on 21-03-89. The Suprême Court gave a direction to the Telecom Department to prépare a Scheme fev ïib*orhin<: the Cn paid under ACG-17. It is also to be taken into account for régularisation of services, as he)d by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench-I in the case of C. Muru^esnn Vs. Union of India. Therefore, the Respondent ought to hp.ve re-engaged the Petitioner in service. He lias not de:erted from the work. Eveil assuming without admittina that the Petitioner has deserted from service, the Respon- dents are bound to put the Petitioner on nofjce even before terminating hjm from services. The Respondent oi.aht to hâve called the Petitioner to join the duty. He has put in more than a décade in continuous service ;;nd the termination of his service is in violation of Section 2MJ of IndJi-.tri.il Dispules Act, 1947. The Petitioner was not given any notice or reply for représentation. His termination from service is in violation 2581 is more than a year and cause not due to depaitmer.tal reusons but purely due to his reasons. He has entered only in 4,'87, as per his statement and the engagement itself is irregular. since it is after 30-03-1985. The Petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated for reinstatement. Hfence, his ie- instatement in service will not arise. The Petitioner is a casual mazdoor engagea try the staff of the department on daily wages and not by the department. Hence, the question of issue of notice, wages etc. does not arjse. Issue of notice/ pay of one month wages, applies only to candidates who ha\c worted continuously in a year for more than 240 day'j in that year. The Petitioner left the department on his own and he approached on a later date in 1992 after coming lo know the department's policy to grant temporary status for existing Casuafl Lafbour-ers, those who had entered on or before 30-03-1985 and continuously working in the department so as to gain back door entry. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal >may be pleased to dismiss the claim of the Pëtiticmer.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, the Petitioner has examined himself as VVW1 and seven documents hâve been marked as Ex- Wl to W7. On the side oï the Respon- dentAfanagement, an officiai working in the Sub Divisional Engineer Office of General Manager, Telecom, Erode was examined as Management witncss. Two documents hâve been marked as -Ex. Ml and M2. The learned counsel for the I Party/Petitioner has submitted his written arguments and thfe Hearned counsel for the II Party/Management advanced his arguments.

5. The Point for my considération is—•

"Whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of Shri D. Kannan, Casual Mazdoor is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Point :—

Though it is alleged in the Claim Statement of ihe Petitioner that he worked for 320 days from 11-05-87 to 21-03-89 as ca&uàl mazdoor, while giving évidence as WW1, he has deposed that on 20-02-85 he was engagea as Casual labour in the Sub Divisional Office, Telecom, Erode. In support of his évidence, he filed Ex. Wl séries, four certificates saiu to hâve been issued by the Telecom Department as service certificates. In the Claim Statement the Petitioner has not wbispered anything about the issuance of service certificates by the officiai in the Telecom department for the period he worked in the department. No such officiai has been examined as a witness for the Petitioner to speak about the contents of those certificates. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent/ Department lias given particulars with regard to the date on which the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent/Dcpart- ment the total number of 550 days. It is also stated in para 11 Of the Counter Statement that the Petitioner was engaged by the II Party/Respondent Management as a casual mazdoor through the regular staff of the department and the department has not engaged the Petitioner direct. That has not neen disputed by way of any reply statement by the Petitioner. While giving évidence as WW1 in the Chief Examination itself, the Petitioner himself has admitted that he was assisting only trfe cable jointer, the permanent employée of the Telecom Department. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he was not employed by tbe Télécom Department directly and he used to work under a departmental employée as and when he allots work for ftim, He bas also admitted that the days on which there is no work, he has to go back. In Ihe re-examination also, WW1 has admitted that cable iointer used to allocate work for us. MW1 has also deposed that as and when the Casual Labour cornes for work, if any work is available. he will be engaged and there is no certainty for job. It is also admitted that wages used to be fixed by the District Collector and it used to vary and the wages for thèse Oasual Labourers are not fixed by cable jointer who engage them for work or by the department. It is also not disputed that .for différent work, différent rates of wages used to be given. .From this, it is seen that the Casual Labourers Kke the "Petitioners were engaged by the Respondent/Teleeom department as and when the w©rk was avaîlable and those people were not engaged directly by the department on such occasions, and they i\cn ençnged onl> thiouah the permanent employées of the KV-.ponilrnf TVparlment Admittedly no appointaient order fs given for fhe Casual Labourers, when

their services were engaged by the Resiwndent/Tetecom Department. Further, it is not disputed that the Department of Tetecommunication of the Respondenl|Departmem has issued a circular dated 30-3-85 stating there should be no fresh recruitment employaient as Casual Labourer. So, there was a bari for recruiting Casual Labourers by the Respondent/ Department subséquent to 30-3-85. The xerox copy of the circular is marked as Ex. M2. If there is any employment has been made as Casual Labour subséquent to this date it is nothing but an irregular engagement opposed to the instruc- tions given by the Department of Télécommunication under Ex. M 2. It is clearly averred in the Counîer Statement of the Respondent that the Petitioner has engaged only in April, 1987 and not prior to 30-03-1985 and hence the engagement itself is irregular. Further, it is alleged that the Petitioner hus not fulfilled tbe conditions which are required for conferring on him temporary status as per the scheme and hence, he was not considered for reinstatement and since he was a casual mazdoor, there is no privity of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent Department and the department has no control over the _Petitioner. It is the stand of the Respondent/Department that at présent the work is being continued and done by the labourers engaged by the con- tracter. This is also not disputed. As per the Claim Statement of the Petitioner himself, he was engaged from 11-5-87 only. So, the Petitioner's engagement as a Casual Labourer after 30-03-1985 is an irregular one. Only in oral évidence he says that he joined the department on 20-02-1985. for that he is relying upon the service particulars given to him as service certificates Ex. Wl (1). In that statement the Petitioner is shown to hâve worked as casual mazdoor for 16 days intermittently till 8-6-85. As per that Ex. W l ( l) he had worked for only 37 days an# got the wages under vauchers of J.E. accounts. From this, it is seen that he was not em- ployed as a departmental employée. Even as per the Ex. W l ( l ), for a period of three and half months, he has worked only for 60 days. It is his admission in évidence that from August, 1985 to June, 1986 he had not worked in the depart- ment and he worked in July, 1986 only for 8 days and his wages used to vary according to his work as Casual Labourer. it is also his admission that he was not issued any c.isual mazdoor card and that when he came to know about the Casual Labourer scheme dated 23-11-89, he was not working as Casual Labourer in the department. It is also his admission that he was not in continuous service from 1985 to 1989. On the other hnnd, it is the évidence of MW1 that the Petitioner had worked for a total number of 42 days i.e. 11 days in April and 31 days in May, 1987 under nuistei roll as it is mentioned in Ex. Wl séries O) and the total number of days he worked on ACG 17 is 508. It is his categorical évidence that the Petitioner had worked only from 5-4-87 onwards and he was not working continuously till 29-4-89 and subséquent to 29-4-89 he has not at ail corne to work in the department and he sent Ex. W7 pétition only on 1-9-92 requesting for work. In Ex. W7, the Petitioner has clearly stated that he was stopped from work on 30-4-89 as he was not having card and he made that représentation under Bx. W7 requesting for work only on 1-9-92. That is why, MW1 has given évidence stating that the Petitioner Sri D. JCannan had abandoned work from 30-04-89 to 01-09-92. From ail thèse oral and documentary évidence, it is seen that the Petitioner has not been employed by the Respondent/ Telecom Department directly and the employment of the Petitioner as Casual Labourer subséquent to 30-03-85 is only irregular and he has approached the department for work subséquent to 30-04-89 only on 1-9-92 under Ex. W7. From the évidence, it is seen thnt the Petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions required to grant him temporary status. Further, he came with the request only in 1993 for grant of temporary status. From this. it can be concluded that it is a clear crise of abandonrnenî. So on the basis of thèse available facts. it rannot be said that the provisions of Section 25F of Tndustrial Disriutes Act. 1947 is attracted for this case enablinp the Petitioner to claim relief urder that provision of law. Such provision is applicable to an employée, who has been regularly appointed by the department and any retrenchment has been taken place without giving any notice or notice pay or com- nensation. From the facts available in this case, it is clear that the Petitioner was engaeed as a Casual Labourer, and was engaged bv the department through the permanent emnlovees of the department as and when there was work available in the department as casual nature and tbe Petitioner was never emnloved as permanent employée of the depart- ment. It is ^vident from the materials avaîlable in this case that the Pefitioner was engaged for certain period for particular work and the employment automatically came to an end as2582 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SJEC. 3(ii)] soon as the work was over. Under Mich circuuistances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner's services were retrenched by the Respondent'Management or the Respondent/Management has terminated him from service so as to claim reinstatement in service. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the question of termination o£ service by the Respondent/" Management of the Petitioner as casual mazdoor does not at ail arise. So. the relief of reinstatement of the Petitioner in service by "fpe II Party/Management in the Department of Télécommunication will not at ail arise. Thus, 1 answered the point accordingly.

6. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the relief prayed for by the I Party/Workman Sri D. Kannan against the Respondent/Telecom Department cannot be granted. No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer Witnesse;. Examined :

For the I Party/Workman :

WW1 Sri D. Kannan

For the II Party/Management :

MW1 Sri T. R. Arumugam

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For the I Party/Workman :

Ex. No. Date Description Wl séries (1 to 4) Nil Xerox copy of the Service paiti- culars of the Petitioner for various peiiods issued by the Management.

W2 26-12-87 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management for îssuance of mazdoor Card and request for re-employment.

W3 séries (1 to 3) 11-03-97 Xerox copy of the letter from the Management to the Petitioner regarding his reinstatement. 06-06-97 Xerox copy of the letter from the Manage- ment to the Petitioner regarding his reinstatement. 22-05-98 Xerox copy of the letter from the Manage- ment to the Petitioner regarding issuance of Mazdoor card and re-employment.

W4 13-03-90 Xerox copy of the letter from the Manage- ment to the Petitioner with regard to issuance of Mazdoor card.

\V5 19-03-90 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management intimatmg the number of days he worked as casual labour on muster rolls.

W6 22-11-95 Xerox copy of the order of the CAT in O.A. No. 834/93 to 837/93.

W7 01-09-92 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to the Management for re-employment as Casual Labour.

For the II Party/Management :

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 17/23-11-89 Xerox copy of the circular issued by the Management with regard to Casual Labour (Grant of temporary status and régularisation) Scheme.

M2 11-04-85 Xerox copy of the circular issued by the Management with regard to recruitment and appoint- New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 859.—In pmrsuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- Jishes Ihe award (Réf. No. 314J2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal! Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to the m a nage- aient of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-40012|75)98-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN AL-CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHANDIGARH

Réf. No. I.D. No. 314i2K

Sh. Shambhu Nath Tiwari S|o Bhagwant Tiwari. • • Workman.

VERSUS

General Manager Telecom, Chandigarh. Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Management.—Sh. G. C. Babbar.

Dated 21-1-2002

AWARD

The Central Govt., Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10(l)(d) and Sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), vide their letter No. L-40012|75|98|IR(DU) dated 30-8-2000 referred the following Industriel dispute to this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager Telecom Chandigarh in terminating the ser- vices of Sh. Shambhu Nath Tiwari is just and légal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

2. None appeared on behalf of the workman despite notice. It appears that workman is not înterested to pursue with the présent réfé- rence. In view of the above, the présent réfé- rence is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be infomied.

Datcd : 21-1-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002 S.O. 860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hercby pub- lishes the award (Réf. No. 65|96) of the Cen- tral Government Industrial Tribunal j Labour Court, No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Postal Deptt. and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-40012|109l95-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT

DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

în the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.

Référence No. 65 of 1996

2583 PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Post Office, Hazipur.

AND

Their Workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman.—None.

On behalf of the Management.—Shri C. P. Dwivedi, authorised représen- tative.

STATE : Jharkhand. INDUSTRY : Post & Teiegraph.

Dated, Dhanbad- the 31st January, 2002

AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-40012! 1O9Î95-1R(DU), dated; the 30th May, 1996.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Post Office, Hazipur in terminat- ing the services of Shri Ravindra Kumar Singh is légal and justifled? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. Rule 10-B of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1967 speaks as follows :—

"While referring an industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, the Central Govt. shall direct the party raising the dispute to file a statement of claim complète with relevant documents, list of reliance and witnesses with the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal within fifteen days of the rece'pt of the order of référence and also forward a copy of such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dispute."

It is seen from the record that in spite of such direction of the Central Govt. in ac- cordance with the statutory provision of law the concerned workman did not consider2584 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18. 1923 [PART JJ -Sec. 3(ii)] the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute bet- ween the employers in relation to tht manage- ment of Telecom Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2002.

[No. L-40012J191 |2000-IR(DU)l

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Dcsk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH. S. M. GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRI BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Réf. No. I.D. No. 303|2000

Sh. Manoj Mahajan S!o Madan Mohan,

Workman.

VERSUS

General Manager Telecom Chandigarh.

Management.

PRESENT :

For the Workkman.—None.

For the Management.—Sh. G. C. Babbar.

Dated : 21-1-2002

AWARD

rïee'ess&ty to submit any W.S. in support of his ciaim. On the contrary he by fiJing a péti- tion dt. 8-4-97 submitted his prayer for with- drawal of the instant référence case. It is seen tïom the record that the management after filing WJS. has chalknged the claini ot tbe concerned workman and submitted that tiie instant référence case is not tenablc ia the eye of law. In view of the décision passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta. From the record it further appears that notice was sent to the concerned work- man by Regd. Post with direction to appear before this Tribunal and to submit his W.S. but insplte of giving notice the concerned workman did not consider necessary to take uny sîep. The question of withdrawal of ré- férence in question does not arise at ail without the W.S. submitted by the corcerned workman. As such the pétition filed by the concerned workman- is a prématuré one for whtch canrtot be entertaincd at ail. The con- ce'rted workman has failed to submit any W.S. irïspïte of giving ample opportunities to him. Fïis attitude and also the pétition which he has fiied if looked into will clearly show !hat he is not interested to proceed with the hear- ing of the instant référence. Accordingly I find no reason to drag on the cace for an indéfini te period. In the resuit, a 'No dispute" Award is passed presoming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presenfly.

B. BISWAS. Presiding Officer

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) ( d) and Sub-section 2-A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) vide their letter No. L-40012il9l|200O-ÏR
"Whether the action of the management '

of General Manager Telecom Chandigarh in terminating the ser- of Sh. Manoj Mahajan S!o Madan Mohan Lai is just and Légal? If not, to what relief the workman is entitl- ed and from which date¹?" New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002

2. None appeared on behalf of tbe work- man despite notice. It appears that work- man is not interested to pursue with the pré- sent référence. In view of the .above-, the pré- sent referertee is returned to tfae Central -Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed.

Dated : 21-1-2002.

S.O. 861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby pub- lishcs the award (Réf. No. 303I2C00) of the Central Oovenrrtient Industrial Tribunall Lafcoxir Court, Chandigarh now as shown -in

S. M. GOEL. Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th February" 2002 S.O. 862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14_of 1947), the Central Government herebv pub- lishcs the award (Réf. 67195) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1 Labour Caurt, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the eni- ployers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 15-2-2002

[No. L-40012|22794-IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDtNG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 67 of 1995

Sh. Puran Dayal S'o Sh. Satya Parkash. Village Majyat. P.O. Totu, Distt. Shimla, (H.P.V171011 •• Petit^oner.

Vs.

Divisional Engineer,

Telecamraunic^Uon (Miserowave).

Maintenance, Bhoomla Estate,

Shimla-171002.

. Respondent.

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Workman.—None.

For the Manageemnt,—Shri I.S. Sidhu- 604 GII20O2—15,

2585

AWARD

(Passed on 5th February, 2002) The Central Govt. Ministry of Labom vide Notification No. L-40012!227|94-IR CDU) dated 4th August 1995 1ns referrec the following dispute to this Tribunal foi adjudication :—

"Whether the retrenchment of Shri Puran Dayal S|o Shri Satya Prakash a daily rated mazdoor by his employer Divisional Engineer Télécommuni- cations (Microwave) Maintenance, Shimla w.e.f. 24-6-94 is leo:al and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. None has put up appearance on behaif of the workman despite notices. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the présent référence. In view of the ahove since workman is not interested to pursue with the référence, the same is returned according to the Central Government be infor- med.

Chandigarh. 5-2-2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 12th February. 2002

S.O. 863.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award fRef. No. 532(2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the manage- ment of Air India Ltd. and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 11-2-2002.

fNo. L-11O12|37|97-IR(C-1)1

S. S. GUPTA, Uftder Secy2586 Trlfcl GAZETTE OF INDÎA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

service with effect from 20-7-1993 is justifted? If noi, to what relief the workman is entitled?" BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party- TRÏBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Workman Sri S. Ravi are briefly as follows :—

Friday, the 28th Dccember, 2001

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Ptesiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 532|20Ql

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 136(98) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (H of 1947), between the Workman Sri S. Ravi and the Management of Air India

Ltd., Chennai).

BETWEEN

Sri S. Ravi : I Party|Workman,

AND

The Régional Manager,

Air India Ltd., Chennai. : II PartylManagement.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Mis. G. Justin and V. Stephenraj,

Advocates.

For the Management : M:s. Ramasubramaniam and

Associates, Advocates.

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-section (1) and Sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), hâve referred the concernée! Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Order No. L-11012]37|97-IR(C-I) dated 9-11-1998.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was takert on file as I.D. No. 136'98. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as I.D. No. 532(2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on other side, in-forming them about the transfer of this case to this Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 9-3-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and prosecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearinq on 24-12-2001. upon pemsing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, upon perusini the written arguments filed by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for con- sidération, this Tribunal has passed the following :

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence by the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows : .

The I PartylWorkman Sri S. Ravi (hereinatfcr refers to as Petitioner) has joined the II Party]Management Air Icdia Ltd., Chennai (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) as labourer on 3-7-1981 in the Commercial Department at Madras. The Respondent framed a Scheme for régularisation of servies of the Casual Labourers on permanent basis with effect from July, 1991 onwards. For the said purpose, the Respondent! Management requested the Petitioner to fumish particulais regarding qualification, âge, etc. In the application for régu- larisation, the Petitioner noted bis date of birth as 10-7-62. In the other relevant forms like attestation form, the date of birth was mentioned as 10-7-1962. His correct date of birth is 10-7-1962. In support of his date of birth, he pro- duced school certificate dated 22-6-1986 to the Respondent| Management showing that his date of birth is 10-7-1962. The said certificate produced by him was given by school authorities erroneously. Since the certificate had the same erroï, the Respondent|Management wanted to verify the genuineness of the said certificate, hence a letter was addres- sed to the School authorities as to whether the certificate was issued by them or not. The School authorities informed the Respondent]Management that the certificate was not issued by them. The Petitioner took légal advice and there- after made an application to compétent court for registration of his date of birth as per law. After compliance of ail formalities, the date of birth of the Petitioner was registered in accordance with the statutory provisions. Thereafter, a certi- ficate of birth extract was produced before the Respondent | Managerment by the Petitioner in support of his date of birth as 10-7-1962. In both the School records as well as in the birth extract, the date of birth was shown as 10-7-1962 and there was no infirmity nor discrepancy with regard to the date of birth, nor the Petitioner wanted to gain any undue advantage regarding his date of birth. Inspite of it, the Respondent [Management issued a charge sheet dated 17-12-91 alleging that commission of an act is subversive of discipline. For the said charge, the Petitioner gave a reply denying the charges on the ground that it is vague and invalid. The Respondent|Management having not satisfied with the reply given by the Petitioner, appointed an Enquiry Officer and conducted domestic enquiry. In the domestic enquiry, the Petitioner participated. but the domestic enquiry was conducted in a biased and prejudiced manner and also against principles of natural justice and the rule for conducting domestic enquiry was violated by the Enquiry Officer. There was no fairness on the part of the Enquiry Officer and he was biased and acted as a prosecutor. The Respondent|Management failed to prove the charges under the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer gave a finding that the Petitioner was guilty of charges, though there was no adéquate évidence to establish the charges under enquiry. The fmdings of the Enquiry Officer are preverse and not supported by évidence on record. Based on the Enquiry Officer's findings, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 15-2-1994 dismissing the Petitioner from service. Since the Respondent|Management failed to conduct the enquiry properly and also failed to establish the charge in the domestic enquiry, the Petitioner seeks for a finding that the Respondent|Management failed to prove the charge in the domestic enquiry and the enquiry was not conducted properly. If snch a finding is given, then the RespondentjManagemem will be given an opportunity to prove the charge before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Peti%rter "Wbether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd., Madras in dismissing Shri S. Ravi from 2587 will also get an opportunitv to cstablish his innocence. His dismissal from service on 1S-2-1994 is based on the enquiry, which was conducted in a biased and prejudiced manner and against the rules and principles of natural justice. Hence, the order dated 15-2-1994 is illégal and liable to be set aside. The very charge itself is not maintainable on the facts and circumstances of the case, hence the dismissal order based on the domestic enquiry has to be declared as illégal. The Respondent|Management ought not to hâve dismissed the Petitioner from service because the Petitioner did not gain any advantage of his date of birth, which was found in the Transfer Certificate. Subsequently, the Petitioner also gave a correct birth certificate issued by the compétent autho- rity. Therefore, the Respondent| Management ought to hâve accepted the said document in proof of the date of birth. The statement recorded behind the back of tbe Petitioner cannot be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to corne to the conclusion that the Transfer Certificate dated 22-6-1986 was not issued by the School authorities. He has been denied opportunity of cross exarninatron of the School authorities who were not cited as wttnesses nor examined in the domestic enquiry. The entire enquiry was conducted in a biased and prejudiced manner and the priuciples of natural justice were violated, hence the same cannot be acted upon the Disciplinary Authority to punish the Petitioner. The ordei of dismissal from service is too severe punishment taking into considération the alleged nature of misconduct. If the Petitioner had really taken advantage of his date of birth by producing a false certificate, then he would hâve been taken to task and the extrême penalty of dismissal from service ought to hâve been awarded. But in his case, the Petitioner had not taken any advantage with regard to his date of birth and he has also produced correct date of birth issued by the compétent authority as per rules. When such is the case, the Respondent|Management is not justified in imposing an extrême penalty of dismissal from service. Therefore, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to invoke its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and impose a lesser punish- ment. The Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award settiig aside the order of dis- missal dated 15-2-1994 and consequently direct the Respon- dent| Management ta reinstate the Petitioner in service with ail benefits including continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3. The Respondent|Management Air India Ltd. Chennai (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) had filed the Counter Statement. The averments in the Counter Statement of the Respondent are briefly as follows :—

before the National Industria] Tribunal in the approval pro- ceedings not in the appeal filed by the Petitioner in Feb- ruary 1997, belatedly on advice by the Conciliation Officer, did the Petitioner raise any of the grievances which he î? putting forth in the Claim Statement dated 12-3-1999 in the above industrial dispute and as such the allégations now put forward in the Claim Statement are without any basis and by way of an afterthought. Charge sheet dated 17-12-1991 was issued to the Petitioner for commission of an act sub- versive of discipline. In view of the fact that the Petitioncr had furnished a transfer certificate purported to hâve been issued on 22-6-1986 by the Hindu Union Committee High School, Choolai, Chennai bearirrg SI. No. 521, T. C. No. 329 [86 and admission No. 4731 containing wrong particulars about the period of study and supplementing it by anothcr letter purportedly dated 22-6-1975 addressed to the Peti- tioner by the School authority but on a point pièce of paper offering to issue the Petitioner with fresh transfer certificate. The above two documents prima-facie, were considered to be forged and the Petitioner also on being questioned con- fessed to the same and it was in those circumstances th.-it the charge sheet was issued. In the enquiry proceedings, offence to issue the Petitioner with fresh transfer certificate, which were properly constituted and properly conducted, the enquiry committee took into considération the infoima- tion given by Mr. Partbasarathy, the Personnel Officer, who had investigated and obtained information from Mr. Govir.d- an the Headmaster of the School and also the évidence of Mr. Sambandamurthy, Senior Assistant of the School, who deposed as management witness. Placing reliance upon the évidence of Mr. Sambandamurthy to the effect that the transfer certificate dated 22-6-1986 contained the signature of one Mr. Ramachandran, who was not the then Headmaster and that one Mr. C. Rrishnaswamy was the Headmaster of the School on the relevant date and also that the admission No.4731 appearing on the transfer certificate had not been given to the Petitioner but to another student by name, Sri S. Deenadayalan and further that the leiter dated 22-6-1975 also suffcred from apparent irregularities, not being on the letter head and not having been sigr>ed by the person who was functioning as Headmaster on the particular date and taking into considération of the totality of the évidence, the Enquiry Committee found the Petitioner guilty of the charge and held that the charge against him to be proved. The Manager-Southern India, Air India as Disciplinary Authority passed the order dated 15-2-1994 aftsr issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner observing due procédure and concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Committee. The penalty of dismissal was awarded in view of the serious nature of the misconduct and on account of the absence of any extenuating or mitigating circumstances. The gist of the charge is not falsity of date of birth as projected by the Petitioner in his Claim State- ment. but furnishing of forged documentation which would reflect on the Petitioner's character and would hence be subversive of discipline. The repeated claims made by the Petitioner that he did not gain any advantage with regard to his date of birth is not relevant. The vague pleas raised for the first lime in the Claim Statement dated 12-3-1999 that the enquiry was conducted in a biased and prejudiced manner and that the Petitioner was denied opportunity of cross-examining the School authorities are without substance. At no stage of the enquiry was any protest made with regard to the enquiry proceedings and the record would show that the defence counsel Mr. D. Thirugnanavel, Traffic Assistant, S. T. No. 44983 who was nominated to help the Petitioner as employée counsel, expressed specifically that he had no There are no merits in the industrial dispute raised by the Petitioner pertaining to the order of dismissal issued to the Petitioner dated 15-2-1994 by the Manager, Southern, India, Air India, Chennai, pursuant to disciplinary proceed- ings which stands conflrmed by the order dated 3Oth May, 1997 passed by the Régional Director-India, Air India, Mumbai in appeal filed by the Petitioner in February, 1997. The order of dismissal dated 15-2-1994 passed as above was placed before the National Industrial Tribunal under Section 33(2f)(b) of Industria] Disputes Act, for approval orders which were granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 30-6-94 after observing due procédure. The Petitioner, thus had recourse to ail the procédural formalities and safeguards as are available in law wherein the Petitioner could hâve raised any grievances that he had with référence to any error in procédure followed in the disciplinary proceedings. Neither2588 THE GAZETTE OF JNDfA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PJHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PAR-' II—SEC. 3;ii)] questions to ask Mr. Sambandamurthy. Even in the pétition under Section 2 H A) of the [ndustria] Disputes Act flled in October, 1994 by the Petitioner, the allégation of Mas is not levelled. There is also no complaint regarding absence of opportunity to cross-examïne as is not forwarded now. The condoct of the Petitioner was taken into due considération during the dKciplimiry proceedings and the findings of his being guilty was arrived at and penalty awarded in properly constituied and conducted disciplinary proceedings observing the necessary and due formalities. The conduct of the Peti- tioner in putting forth frivolous allégations at this stage also would merit due considération. In the circumstances, the Claim Statement of the Petitioner is totally bereft of merits. The facts and circumstances fhat the appeal filed belatedly in 1997 gainst the orders of the Disciplinry Authority dated 15-2-1994 was also duly considered and order dated 30-5-97 was passed would show that the disciplinary proceedings were in no way biased or vitiated. The punishment awarded for producing false documentation, which has a bearing on the integrjty of the employée concemed is also reasonable and appropriate and the grievance that the punishment is excessive, is also without substance. Therefore, there are no merits whatsoever, in the industrial dispute raised as well as in the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner dated 12-3-99. Tt is, prayed that appropriate orders may be passed confirming the order of dismissal dated 15-2-1994 which stands confirm- ed by order dated 30th May, 1997 by the Appellate Autho- rity in the interest of justice.

4. It is the common, plea of the I Party|Petitioner and the JI Party|Respondent in their respective Claim Statement as well as Counter Statement that the I Party|Workman Sri S. Ravi was dismissed from service by the II Party|Respondent Management on 15-2-1994 and not as mentioned in the Schedule of Référence as 20-7-1993. So, in the above men- tioned Schedule of Référence, the date mentioned as 20-7-1993 has to be read as 15-2-1994.

5. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, by the consent of the counsel on either side, documents on either side hâve been marked as Ex. Wl to W5 and Ex. Ml to M24. No one has been examined as witness on either side. The learned counsel on either side hâve filed their respective written arguments.

6. The Point for my considération is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India Ltd., Madras in dismissing Shri S. Ravi from service with effect from 15-2-1994 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Point :—

perrod of stutly was wrongly mentioned as 1985-86 instead of 1975-76 and he had also assured that he would get it corrected by the school authorities. Subsequently, the Peti- tioner|Workman produced a letter dated 22-6-1975, xerox copy of the letter is marked as Ex. M3, purported to hâve been issued by the Hindu Union Committee Higher Second- ary School, Choolai to that effect that the Head Clerk of the said School wrongly rioted his study period as Junt, 1985 instead of June, 1975. Since the transfer certificate number and admission number in Ex. M2 does not correlate with the particulars in letter dated 22-6-1975 (Ex. M3), the Personnel Offlcer of the Respondent|Management cal|ed upon the Pctitioner|Workman to explain thèse discrepancies. There- upon, the Petitioner admitted that both the transfer certifi- cate Ex. M2 and the letter dated 22-6-1975 Ex. M3 are forged documents. The Personnel Officer of the II Party| Management had also written a letter dated 16-11-1991, the xerox copy of that letter is marked as Ex. Ml, enclosing the Ex. M 2 and M 3 to the Headmaster of the Hindu Union Committee Higher Secondary School, Choolai, requesting him to verify their records and advise about the bona fidness of the said certificates. The Headmaster sent a reply dated 20-11-1991, the xerox copy of the same is marked as Ex. M4, stating that the transfer certificate submitted by the I PartylWorkman is. a bogtis one. In view of the above, the II Party|Management issued a charge sheet dated 17-12-1991 Ex. W3, to the I Party|Wbrkman for a commission of an act subversive of discipline and calling upon him to submit his explanation. Upon request made by the I PartylWorkman vide letters dated 27-12-1991 and 23-1-1992, in order to give an opportunity to him, twice the time was extended by the II PartyjManagemcnt for submitting his explanation. The xerox copies of those letters are Ex. M6 and M8 respectively. The Petitioner intend of submitting his explanation to the charge sheet issued to him, sent a letter dated 10-5-1992 along with a certificate of birth issued by the Corporation of Madras, requesting the Management to treat the said certificate as proof of his âge. The xerox copy of the letter dated 10-3-92 sent by the PetitionerjWorkman is Ex. M9 and the xerox copy of the birth certificate issued by the Corporation ot Madras is Ex. M10. Hence, the RespondentlManagement passed an order dated 2-6-1992, the xerox copy of the same is Ex. M i l, constitutif:; an enquiry committed to enquire into the charges levelled against the Petitioner|Workman. The Petitioner was informed about the same vide letter dated 4-6-1992. The xerox copy of the letter is Ex. M12. The Enquiry Committee vide letter dated 3^8-1992 informed the Petitioner about the date, time and venue of enquiry which was also acknowledged by the Petitioner. The xerox copy of that intimation to the Petitioner is Ex. M13. The Res- pondentlManagement has filed the Xerox copies of the entire enquiry proceedings as Ex. M18. AH thèse exhibits hâve not been disputed by the Petitioner)Workman Sri S. Ravi. AU Ihe management documents hâve been marked as ex+iibits with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner| Workman. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings clearly shows that the I PartylWorkman was furnished with the copies of ail the documents and proceedings were ex- plained to him and ample opportunities were given to him to défend his case effectively and he has also taken part in the dome^tic enquiry ably assisted by defence représenta- tive and the defence représentative has given full opportunity toi cross-examine the mangement wit- tt is admitted that the 1 Party|Workman Sri S. Ravi was appointed as a loader for a period of six months on proba- tionary basis vide an order of appointaient dated 1-7-1991, the xerox copy of the same is Ex. Wl. Tt is also admitted that the Petitioner Sri S. Ravi produced a copy of the transfer certificate dated 22-6-1986, xerox copy of the samc is Ex. M2. in proof of his âge and educational qualification. As per the transfer certificate, his date of birth was 10-7-1962 and date of hearing the School at VIEl Standard was 16-4-1986 i.e., as his âge of 24 years and 8 months. Hence, the Person- nel OfRcer, Southern India of the II Party|Management ques- tioned him regarding his period of sludy and genuineness of the transfer certificate. The Petitioner explained him that his

nesses and he had also done so.4 Further, it is seen that the Enquiry Committee conducted the enquiry in ac- cordance with the principles of naturel justice. The personnel Officer of the RespoudentlManagement Mr. Parthasarathy was examined as MWl and the management exhibits were marked through him. lt is also seen from the enquiry pro- 25S9

Lawyer and got a correct certificate with the help of the Court and hns enclosed the same for ready référence. Since the explanalion given by the Petitioner was not satisfactoiy and considering the graveness of the misconduct, the Res- pondent I Management passed an order of dismissal dated 15-12-1994 under Ex. W2 dismissing the Petitioner from the fsivice of the Respondent. The Petitioner had filcd an appeal before the Régional Direetor (India). Commercial Department, Air India Ltd., Mumbai. stating that the punish- ment given was too severe and he requested the Appdlate Authority to cocsider his case sympathe'icalty. The xerox copy of that appeal is Ex. M21. The Appellate Authority passed an order dated 30-5-1997 continuing the dismissal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority against the Peti- tioner finding that the misconduct commilted by the Petitioner was grave in nature. Ex. M23 is a xerox copy of the appli- cation under Section 33(2)(B) of the Industriel Disputes Act. 1947 filed by the RespondcntlManagement before the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. secking approval of the order of dismissal. The National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai has accorded the approval as sought for by the Respondent (Management in that pétition against the Petitioncri Workman Sri S. Ravi. The Respondent|Management has filed a, xerox copy of that judgement also into Court. A perusal of the same shows that for the Peti- tioner|Workman one advocate Sri G. Justin has taken paît in the enquiry before tbe National Industrial Tribunal. Bombay, in that .approval application. It is seen from that order passed by the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai. in that approval application that the counsel for the Petitioner] Workman had raised ail the defence he has raised before this Tribunl in the Industrial Dispute stating that the Peti- tioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the management and hence. the enquiry is vitiated. AU thèse contentions were not accepted by the N/ationall. Jndustrial Tribunal, Mumbai. From a perusal cf the enqrjiry proceedings, it is seen that the said stand taken by the Petitioner that he was not given proper opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses and the Enquiry Committee has aiven a finding without any évidence that the charges levelied against the Petitioner is proved are incorrect. It is also incorrect to state that the enquiry was conducted - by the Respondent (Management not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. From the materials available in this case, it is seen that the Petitioner has submitted a bogus transfer eertificate and in support of the same, a bogus cover- ing letter knowing fully well that they are bogus documents he has pressed them into service to make the Management to believe and act upon that document. Jt is proved in the enquiry with reliable évidence that those documents are bogus and were not issued by tbe School concerned and what that the Petitioner has submitted to the Respondent|Management as a proof of his educational qualification is also false. From ail thèse proved facts, it is seen that the Petitioner had committed an act of misconduct subversive of discipline under the provisions of model standing orders as stated in the charge sheet. Under such circumstances, it is seen that it is ineorect to state that the domestic enquiry was conducted in a biased and prejudicial manner and also against the principles of natura] justice and the rule ' for conducting domestic enquiry was violated by the Enquiry Officer and there was no fairness on the part of the Enquiry Officer and that the Petitioner was nol given sufficient opportunity to establish his innocence.

ceedings that those exhibits were explained to the Petitioner in Tamil and he has also accepted that he had seen ail the documents and understood the same. Dupring his évidence, Mr. Parthasarathy explained to the Enquiry Committee abcut thé charges levfflled against Vie PetitionerjWorkman, his initial suspicion regarding the forged documents, vérification with the Headmaster of the school ar.d subséquent admission made by the Petitioner regarding the forgery. He had also explained that the Petitioner had deliveratly submitted the forged documents, even after the warning given in the application (Ex. M24). Ex. M24 is the xerox copy of the application given by the Petitioner Sri S. Ravi to the Res- pondentjManagement giving particulars about him mentioning his date of birth, educational qualification. It is also seen from tbe enquiry proceedings Ex. Ml8 that MW1 Mr. Par- athasarathy was not cross examined either by the Petitioner or by his defence représentative. They hâve statd before !he Enquiry Committee that they do not hâve any questions to cross examine him. The RespondentjManagement sent a letter dated 14-10-1992, summo:iing the Headmaster of the Hindu Union Committee Higher Secondary School to give évidence in the enquiiy. The xcrox copy of that letter is Ex. M16. Ex. W4 is a reply dated 15-12-1992 sent by the Head- master of the Hindu Union Committee Higher Secondary School. expressing his inability to attend the enquiry, inform- ing the Respondent|Man3gement that he will députe one Mr. Sambandamurthy, the Senior Assistant of the School to the enquiiy. The said Mr. Sambandamurthy, Senior Assistant of the School was examined as MW2 in the enquiry. lt is seen from his évidence that he had categorically deposed that admission No. 4731 in the transfer certificate dated 22-6-1986 does not pertain to Mr. S. Ravi and it is actually betonged to Sri S. Deenadayalan. It is seen from his évidence available in the enquiry proceedings that he had further deposed that a letter dated 22-6-1975 was not signed by the then Headmaster of the School and it is also not in the letter- head ofthe School. When an apportunity was given !:o the Petitioner, the charge sheeted employée and also his defence représentative to cross examine MW2. they hâve chosen not to cross examine him. It is also available in the enquiry pro- ceedings that the Petitioner had admitted before the Enquiry Committee that he had not studied in the Hindu Union Com- mittee Higher Secondary School and the transfer certificate was produced by a person known to him. Ex. M17 is the xerox copy of the statement dated 6-11-1992 submitted by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Committee, wherein he had categorilly admitted that he had studied only upto II Standard in the Corporation School at Perambur and he was unable to continue beyond that levé! due to his family back- ground. After considering the évidence available on record and also the oral évidence tet in, in the enquiry, the Enquiry Committee submitted a report dated 18-1-1993 holding that the charge sheeted employée, the Petitioner herein Sri S. Ravi had produced bogus certificates in support of his proof of âge. Xerox copy of the report is Ex. W5. Based on the fmdings of the Enquiry Committee, the RespondentjManag^- ment issued a show cause notice dated 20-7-1993 to the Petitioner aloig with the xerox copy of the report submitted by the Enquiry Committee calling for his explanation. Xerox copy of the show cause notice dated 2O--1993 is Ex. M19. The Petitioner submitted his detaiJed explanation dated 13-8-1993, wherein he had once again admitted that the transfer certificate an-J the letter dated 22-6-1975 are bogus. The xerox copy of that letter is Ex. M20. In that letter, he has given explanation that due to his illiteracy, he was not aware of the same and that certificate was given to him by- one of his known person and only in the errquiry, he was informed that the said-sehool certificate was bogus. He has further stated that at the advice of his friends, he met one

7. As it is contended by the Petitioner in his Claim State- ment the learned counsel for the Petitioner has raised an2590 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th December, 2001.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

On either side : None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED :

For the I Party|Workman :—

Ex. No. Date Description

Wl 1-7-91 Original appointaient order of the Petitioner.

W2 15-2-94 Original order of termination issued to the

Petitioner.

W3 17-12-91 Original charge sheet issued to Petitioner.

W4 15-10-92 Xerox copy of the letter from the Head- master of Hindu Union Committee School to the Respondent | Management.

W5 18-1-1993 Original enquiry findings.

For the II Party|Management :—

Ex. No. Date Description

Ml 16-11-91 Xerox copy of the letter from the Respon- dent to the Headmaster of HM HUC Hr. Second- ary School.

M2 22-6-86 Xerox copy of the transfer certificate of the

Petitioner.

M3 22-6-75 Xerox copy of the letter from Headmaster

to the Petitioner.

M4 20-11-91 Xerox copy of the letter sent by Head-

master of the School to the Management.

M5 2-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from the Personnel Officer to Manager SI of the Respondent|Manage- ment.

M6 27-12-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner

to the Respondent|Management.

M7 7-1-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Management

to Petitioner|Workman.

M8 23-1-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to

RespondentlManagement.

M9 10-3-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to

Respondent Management.

M10 6-3-92 Xerox copy of the birth certificate of

Petitioner.

M il 2-6-92 Xerox copy of the order of Respondent to argument in his written arguments stating that the punish- meirt awarded to the Petitioner as dismissal front service is too severe and the Petitioner having put in ten years of service and he is about to be regularised as a permanent employée, the dismissal from service at this juncture put him untold sufferings, because he cannot seek employment anywhere and hence the Tribunal can invoke its powers under Section 11À •of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and reduce the punish- ment from dismissal to any other lesser punishment. It is stated in the written argument filed by the lcarned counsel for the Rcspondent| Management that the request of the I Party,Workman regarding quantum of punishment is con- cerned, if any leniency is shown in this case, it would amount to putting premium on an act of cheating, dishonesty and fraud. In view of the established fact of the I Party has committed fraud and forgery by submitting forged transfer certifkate, no leniency shall be shown in awarding punish- ment for a commission of such grave offence. He has also cited a judgement of Suprême Court as well as the judgement of Gujarat High Court for his contention that such mis- conducts of employées has to be condemned. In a case reported as AIR 1996 SC 686 Union of India Vs. M. Baskar, the Hon'ble Suprême Court has held that "if by rommitting fraud any employment is obtained, such fraudulent practise cannot be permitted to be countenanced by any Court of Law- No Court should be a party to the perpétuation of the fraud- ulent practice." In a case reported as 2000 33 LIC 2433, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that "a person who got employment on the baàs of forged document, if allowed in the employment, what he will do in future is a matter of réali- sation. It was a just and reasonable approach of the appoint- ing authority to teiminate the services" of the petitioner, a probationer." From thèse décisions of the Courts, it can be held that the décision taken by the Respondent|Management in dismissing the petitioner from service justified and it cannot be said that it is a severe punishment and it is disproportion- ate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petition- er|Workman. From the facts available in this case, it is seen that the Petitioner has committed fraud and forgery by submitting a forged transfer certificate and in order to subs- tantiate the same, he has also submitted an another letter dated 22-6-1975 to that eft'ect that the Head Clerk has wrongly noted the study period as June, 1985 instead of June, 1975, which is aîso a forged one. On the other hand, he himself has admitted in évidence that he has not studied in that School at ail and his educational qualification is not VIII standard but only II standard. AU thèse things hâve been done by the Petitioner only to cheat the Respondent|Manage- ment to continue in the employment which is proved to be misconduct committed by the Petitioner|Workman as an act subversive of discipline under the provisions of Model Stand- ing Orders. So, the Disciplinary Authority has properly passed an order dismissing the Petitioner from service. It cannot be said that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner|Workman. The punishment awarded for production of false documentation, which has a bearing on the integrity of the employée con- cerned is reasonable and appropriate. The grievance that the punishment is excessive cannot be accepted. The point is answered accordingly.

Petitioner.

M12 4-6-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Management

to Petitioner.

8. In the resuit, an Award is passed holding that the action

of the Management of Air India Ltd. in dismissing the services

M13 3-8-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice to the of Sri S. Ravi from service with effect from 15-2-1994 is

Petitioner from RespondentIManagement. justified. Hence, the concerned workman is not entitled to

M11 21-8-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice to the any relief. No Cost.

Petitioner from Respondent| Management.

M15 14-10-92 Xerox copy of the enquiry notice to the Petitioner from Respondent|Management.

M16 14-10-92 Xerox copy of the letter from manage- ment to the Headmaster of the Hindu Union School.

M17 6-11-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent[Management.

M18 8-8-92 Xerox copy pf the enquiry proceedings.

M19 20-7-93 Xerox copy of the show cause notice.

M20 13-8-93 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitionef to the Respondent|Management.

M21 Feb. 97 Xerox copy of the leHer from Petitioner to the Respondent|Management.

M22 30-5-97 Xerox copy of the order from Respondent to the Petitioner.

M23 29-3-94 Xerox copy of the application under Sec- tion 33(2)(b) filed by the Réspondent|Management before the National Tnduttrial Tribunal at Mumbai.

M24 6-7-90 Xerox copy of the application filed by Petitioner to the management.

New Delhi, the 12th February, 2002 S.O. 864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby t>ub- lishes the award (Réf. No, Comp. No. NTB 1199) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal I, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the CTI- ployers in relation to the management of Indian Air Lines Ltd. and their workman. which was received by the Central Govcrnnient on 11-02-2002.

[No. L-20025j2;2002-IR(C-I)]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

2591

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Shri Justice S.-C. PANDEY. Presiding Officer COMPLAINT NO. NTB-1 OF 1999 (Arising Out of Réf. No. NTB-1 of 1990) PARTIES :

Captain Prince Dandons.—Complainant.

Vis.

Indian Airlines Ltd.—Opp. Pariy.

Appearances :

For the Complainant.—Shri Umesh Nabar, Advocate.

For the Opp. Party.—Mrs. Pooja Ktil- karni, Advocate.

STATE : : MAHARASHTRA.

Mumbai, dated the 31st day of January, 2001

AWARD

A complaint was filed by Captain Prince Dandons against the Indian Airlines Ltd. Under Section 3 3-A of the Industrial Disputes, Act 1947 read with items No. 5 ( 9 ) ( 4 ) ( d) and (f) schedule V thereof.

The case was taken up today at installée of the complainant who has filed an application today for withdrawal of this complaint as the dispute between the paries is fully and finally settled. The complainant was présent in per- son and he was identified by his counsel Shri. Umesh Nabar, Advocate. He stated that he does not want to persue the complaint. Tn view of the statement made by the com- plainant the complaint NTB No. 1 of 1999 is dismissed as withdrawan.

JUSTICE S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer25?: THfc G A Z E UX Ol iNDIA : MARCH 9, 2 0 0 2 / P H A L G U NA 18, L"J23 [FART JT—SEC. 5(ii)J New Delhi, the 14tli Februaiy, 2002

S.O. 8t>5.-—In pursuance of Section 17 of thc Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 99|96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandi- garh as shown in the annexure in the Tndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-2-2002.

fNo. L-12012|l68|95-IR(B-II)]

C. CHANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI S. M. GOEL, PRESIDIXG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT. CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID99|96

Smt. Adarsh Kumari. Home No. 2243 Sector 22, Chan- digarh. Applicant.

Versus

Régional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector-17, .. Respondent.

Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri M. C, Arora.

For the Management : Shri Rajesh Gupta.

AWARD

(Passed on 7th Febrtrary. 2002)

The Central Government vide gazette notification No. L- ]2012/168/95-IR(B.Il) dated 16th of October 1996 has refer- red the following dispute to rhis Tribunal for adjudication :—

"Whether the action of the managemenl of Punjab National Bank represented through Régional Mana ger, Régional Office, Chandigarh Bank Square, Sector-17, Chandigarh in teiminating the services of Smt. Adarsh Kumari Sobti, Cashier-cum-Clerk in their Sector-22, Chandigarh Bianch w.e.f. 16-11-88 is just and fair? If not to what relief Smt. Adarsh Kumari- Sobti is entitled to and from which date 7" The applicant in the claim statement has plcaded t!i:.t applicant procceded on médical - leave w.e.f. 12-8-87 to 26-8-1987 for 15 days but due to ill luck she could not icin diity jfter expiry of 15 days and sent further médical certi- ficale. Thc bninch manager asked her to submit médical certificate issued hy (he Chief Médical Officer, Amritsar bul she had not sent that certificate. She sent further certificates upto 30-11-1988. She for the first time submitted her joining report on 7-12-1988 but she was not allowed to join thc duly on the pretext that she had been retired voluntarily from service of the bank w.e.f. 16-11-1988. It is alleged that tfle action of thc management in treating her voluntarily retired from the service is illégal and violative of the pro- visions of Bipartite Seulement dated 10-4-1989 and at tio stage there was any intention of the applicant not to join the bank. Thus the order dated 16-11-1988 is arbitrary, illégal and vfolative of the service conditions of the applicant and the applicant deserves to be reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefit'î.

3. In written statement the preliminary objection has been taken that the applicant wa
~~4. The applicant filed rejoinder reiterating the claim mode in the claim statement.~~

5. The applicant in évidence filed her own r.ffidavit Ex. Wl and also documents Ex. W2 fb Ex. W26. The applicant admitted in cross-examination of having rsceived ail the letters of the management sent to the applicant advising her again and again to submit médical certificate from the Chief Médical Officer Amritsar. It is also admitted that she was employed in private undertaking for one year after h"r retirement by the bank and after that her parents are maintainina her as her father is getting pension. In rebuttal the management filed the affldavit of P. N. Soi Ex. M10 and documents Ex. M il to M17. In cioss-examination it ia admitted by tbe witncss of the management that no enquiry was conducted ngainst the applicant by the management.

6. I hâve heard both the parties and gone through the recoid of the case and aho the written arguments submitted by them.

7. It is admitted by both the parties that-the applicant had sent the applications for excusing her absence on the ground of illness. It is admitted by the applicant that she was advised by the bank to get herself eaxmined from the CMO Amritsar and submit the Médical Certificate. It is also ad- mitted by the applicant that she never swbmitted the médical certificat* irom the-LCMiO. Amritsar about her illness. She was vohintaraly retieed from the service of the hank under the
8. On the other hand the arguments on behalf of management is that the applicaut was 4eeraed to be volunta- rily retired under uara 17 of the Bipartite Seulement and her services were net reteencbed. The applicap.t tsmained on long absence withoat getting her leave sanctioned and wkh- out producing the eertificate from the CM.O. Amritsar. Applicant acither 8©nt any leply to the show cause notice nor resutned her étfties within 30 days and the applicant was rightly retired from serviee. The management has relied on the judgement. "f the Hon'ble Suprême Court in, the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. -S. B. Staff Association reportqd in JT" 2000(5) S:C. 243 wherein it has been held by the Hen'ble Suprême Coart that there is no v-iolation of principle of natural justice and thcre is no neeessity of holding any departnental enquiry in case. of ao employée is deeraed to hâve %"s"n volùntarily retired under the provisions of para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement.

9. 1 hâve carefûlly gone through the ar;;uaieats of the learned représentatives of the parties. It is admkted fact that the management < has not conducted any enquity against the aRjlicant. It is settled.law by the Hon'ble Suprême Court that -unless an opportunity &t hearing is given to such a woriamm .to enab-le.hkn to justify his absence, the antomatic ternânatkm of services of the basis of overstay woald be illé- gal. *Tt is aho "©tnpwjved by the management-that the reply to the show. cause • notice was not given by the applicant through-her sister to one ShriKaplish. Tfee management has not produead¹ the said.peison in the witness box to deny the same. Tire judgement cited. b y t he management in the case of • Syndicats Bank (Supra) of the Hon'ble Suprême Court is distiaguishaHe as in the above noted case, the employée resigaed ftom the Bank and on.the humantarian ground he was taken back in-service and aSer that ne absented from the Bank • th"s showing his intentions not to work in ihe Bank and- the 'notice was also refused. The notice was rejurned with the report of the postal auhorities that he refused to reeeive the same and reply was not sent by the workman concemed to tbat shaw cause notice. In the case in hand, the-stat"flient ,of the.applicant.was not assailedby the manage- meot that she had sent the reply to the show cause notice through her sister and given to one Mr. Kaplish an Offfcer 604 GI/2002—16

2593 of the bank. In thèse circumstances, the management was bound to hold enquiry in the case of the applicant before treating her volùntarily retired from the service. As no such enquiry was held by the management, the applicant can not be treated as volùntarily retired from the service. It is also an admitted fact that the applicant raised the dispute after about six years, and remained gainf-ully employed for one year with some private firm. In the given situation ihe applicant is not entitled to the backwawges and continuity of service.

10. In view of the above discussions made in the earlier paras, the order dated 16-11-1988 treating the applicant as volùntarily retired from the services of the bank is setaside. The applicant is entitled to be reinstated in the service with- out any backwages and continuity of service is allowed only for pensionery benefits. The référence is answered ac- cordingly. Central Government be informed.

Chandigarh.

7th Feb. 2002.

S. M. GOEL, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002 S.O. 865.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 118/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank ard their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.

[No. L-12012/271/98-IR(B-lI)l

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRTM, TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday, the 31st December, 2901

PRESENT :

K. Karthikeyan, Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 118/2001 (Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 78/99) (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub-seqtion (I) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 102594 tliLJ IJALIAIE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 | F A RI II—BEC. 1[Ï\)\ of the rndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Workman Sri G. Muhil Rnj and the Management of Syndicnte Bank.)

BETWEEN

Sri G Muhil Raj. . . .. I Party/Workman

AND

The Assistant General Manager, . . .. TI Party/

Syndicate Bank, Management Chcnnai.

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman : M/s. D. Hariparanthnvnan, V. Ajoy

Khose & P. Vijendran, Advocates.

For the Management: M/s. T. S. Gopaîan & Co.,

Advocates.

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section Cl) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of Tndustrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). hâve referred the concerned Industrial Dispute for adjudication vide Ord;r No. L-12012 '2"M 9S IR (B-il) dated'20-04-1999.

This référence has been made earlier to the Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal, where it was taken on lile as I.D. No. 78/99. When the matter was pending enquiry in that Tribunal, the Government of India, Miniïtry of Labour was pleased to order transfer of this case from that Tribunal to this Tribunal for adjudication. On receipt of records from that Tribunal, the case has been taken on file as T.D. No. 11 S/2001 and notices were sent to the counsel on record on either side. informina them about the transfer of this case to thi; Tribunal, with a direction to appear before this Tribunal on 31-01-2001. On receipt of notice from this Tribunal,, counsel on either side présent with their respective parties and pro^ecuted this case further.

When the matter came up before me for final hearing on 26-12-2001, upon perusing the Claim Statement, Counter Statement, the other material papers on record, the docu- mentary évidence let in on the side of the II Party-'Manage- ment, upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and this matter having stood over till this date for considération, this Tribunal has passed the foHowïng :—

AWARD

The Industrial Dispute referred to in the above order of référence bv the Central Government for adjudication by this Tribunal is as follows : —

"Whether the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank to distniss the services of Shri G. Muhil Raj, is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

2. The averments in the Claim Statement of the I Party/

Workman Sri G Muhil Raj are briefly as follows :—

Bank as A Clerk in 1977. Though he was a Clerk by désig- nation his services were utilised by the bank as a Cashier on rotation basis. Lastly, the Petitioner was working in Dindigul Main Branch of the II Party /Syndicate Bank. While so, on 2-12-91 one Sri Balavenkatraman came to the branch and deposited a sum of Rs. 1000 along with cash remittance challan (crédit slip) and pass book into the S.B. account of onç Smt. T. Palaniammal. The Petitioner received the cash ard verified the dénomination. He also recorded the amount remitted and the S.B. Account No. in the scroll at S. No. 26. When he was about to put Ihe cash received stamp on the challan, the person came for remitting the amount informed the Petitioner that the account holder has sent a person to get back the money brought for deposit and therefore, he re- quested the Petitioner to return back the money. The Petitioner shouted at him and asked why he was asking to give back the money when the process were in the half way. For which the person concerned replied the Petitioner to score out the entries and to return back the money to him. Therefore, the Petitioner retumed the money and the passbook. Since the above transaction was not completed and the money and passbook were returned to the customer's agent who came on that day for remittance. the Petitioner score out the entry made in the scrol!. After the close of ail transactions for that dav, the scroll officer had countersigned in the main scroll sheet written by the Petitioner. Since the money was returned back to the Customer's agent, the Petitioner riahtly score out the entry in the scroll maintained by him. That was why there was no entry în this regard in the scroll maintained by the Scroll Officer as well as in the suh-dav book. When this beine the real facts and events, the Petitioner was issued with a charge mémo cum suspension oTder dated 29-6-92 wherein it was alleged that while he was working ;>s a Cashier, at Dindigul main branch on 2-12-91 Sri Bala Venkaframan deposited Rs. 1000 in S.B. Account No. 3766 of Smt. T. Palaniammal customer of the bank ,'tlong with crédit slip, that after making necessary entries in the Cashier's scroll. he returned the counterfoil produced by the said party that the concerned S.B. Clerk made entries in the customer'¹; pass book and in the S.B. ledger folio, that later on he nn- authorisedly and in order to misappropriate cumstômer's money, eut entries made in the cashier's scroll and destroyed the crédit slip, that as there was no crédit slip, entries were not made in the sub-day book. that subsequently when Sri Balà Venkatraman* came to the branch on 24-1-92, for re- mitting cash and when he tendered the pass book the ear-!ier entry of Rs. 1000 was cancelled and that in view of this the party lodged a complaint as an amount of Rs. 1000 deposited into her account was not credited. Tt was further alleeed thnt he had not oniy misappropriated the customer money of Rs. 1000 but also tampered the cashier's scroll and des-" troyed the crédit slip and it was an act préjudiciel to the interest of the bank and a eross misconduct l'nder 19.5CI) of the Bipartite Settîement. After issuing charge mémo, the TI Party/Manapement (hereinafter refers to as Respondent) issued an amendment to the charge sheet by an order dated 9-9-92, by which the charge sheet was materially and sub- • stantially altered to the préjudice of the Petitioner with ' a" malafide intention to make him as a scape aoat and to save" the Clerk and Officer of S.B. section. Without giv'in.c an opportunity to thé Petitioner to submit his explanation, the Respondent straightaway ordei'ed for an enciuiry into the charges in a pre-determined manner, which is contrarv to the procédure contemplated in the Bipartite Settîement. The enemirv was fixed on 16-12-92. Since the workman was not well ond, hospitajised, he sent the telegram dated 14-12-92 and requested for postponement of the enquiry.- He. had also submitted a letter dnted 16-12-92 throuph Sri' Kannian directly The I Party/Workman Chereinafter refers to as the Peti- tioner) joined the services of II Party'Management Syndicate 2595

to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

3. The Respondent/Syndicate Bank Management has iiled a Counter Statement. The averments in the Counter Statement are briefly as folows :—

By the charge sheet dated 29-6-92, the Petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within 15 days of the receipt of charge sheet. In view of the party lodged a com- plaint, and the amount of Rs. 1000 deposited into the account on 2-12-91 was not credited in her account, the charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner charging with the misconduct of having acted in a manner prejudicial to the mterest of the bank. By a letter dated 9-9-92 that a portion of the charge sheet was amended. The Petitioner did not submit any ex- planation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Petitioner was not given an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer has set out in détail in his report the circumstances in which the examination oJ witnesses was done in the enquiry. The Petitioner was fur- nished with the déposition of each of the witnesses examined in respect of the charge and ail the witnesses were subiect to lengthy cross examination. No préjudice was caused to the Petitioner in the conduct of the enquiry. The Enquiry Office/ considered in détail the évidence of every witness examined on either side for the conclusions reached by him. The real question was whether the remittance was duly accounteJ for in the books of account. Sincç the Petitioner claim that he returned the money he ought to hâve established that fact and also he should hâve given satisfactory explanation for the corrections he had made in the cashier's scroll. No sutis- factory évidence was let in by the Petitioner about the alleged repayment of the amount to the agent of the account holder. Smt. Paluniammal or her agent were not examined by the Petitioner to establish the fact alleged by him. The findings of the Enquiry Officer based on adéquate évidence and his conclusion was supported by cogent reasons. His findings are not based on assumptions presumptions surmises and con- jectures. The Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority applied their mind in the material on record and they were justified in concurring with the Enquiry Qfficer that the charges against the Petitioner were duly proved in the enquiry. The action of the Disciplinaty Authority was not lacking in bonafide or i£ was discriminatory. Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an award rejecting the claim of the Petitioner.

4. When the matter was taken up for enquiry, no one has been examined as a witness on either side. The counsel for the Petitioner has made an endorsement as no documents of the Petitioner independent of a document covered in the domestic enquiry. On the side of the Respondent/Management 23 documents were marked by consent as Ex. Ml to M23., The Iearned counsel on either side hâve advanced their respective arguments.

5. The Point for my considération is—

"Whether the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri G. Muhil Raj from the services is justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

Point :—

and prayed for postponcment of enquiry on médical grounds. The request of the workman was objected to by the Manage- ment représentative. However, the Enquiry Officer adjourned ihe enquiry to 6-1-93. Then tne enquiry was fixed to l'i-2-95 the Peutioner participated in the enquiry. But, he was not able to go on with tne enquiry as his defence représentative had sent a telegram to postpone the enquiry to next day and the enquiry was heid on 24-2-93. Ex. Ml to M9 were marked. ï ne enquiry was fixed again on 3-5-93 at Dindigul. Though the Petmoner came with the Defence "représentative to Dindi- gul on 2-5-93 night and stayed in a lodge to attend the enquiry on next day, the Petitioner developed with chest pain during midnight and he was immediately taken to a private Doctor. As per the advise of the private Doctor, the Petitioner got himself admitted in Government hospital and was taking treutment there. So, he could not attend the enquiry on 2-5-93. Ail thèse tacts were duly informed to the Enquiry Officer on 3-5-93 by the defence représentative and he prayed for an adjournment. But the Enquiry Officer allowed the Management représentative to examine the management witnesses in the absence of the Petitioner. The objections raised by the detence représentative were not properly considered. On the next day, the defence représentative produced four documents, to substantiate that witnesses should be examined in the présence of the workman. If not, it will be a violation ot principles of natural justice. The defence representative's request, to examine the two material witnesses namely Smt. T. Palaniammal and Sri Bala Venkatraman at the first instance was also rejected by the Enquiry Officer on the grouud that the Management représentative was at liberty to examine the witnesses as he desired. After examining MW1 and MW2 on 4-5-93 and MW3 and MW4 on 5-5-93 at the request of the management représentative for examination of two other wit- nesses, the complainants, the enquiry was adjourned to 15-6-93. On that day, the Management représentative informed tftat he could not produce the other two witaesses, and therefore, he was closing his side, though it was objected to by the defence représentative as the non-examination of those two witnesses would deprive his right to cross examination. The Petitioner examined four witnesses including himself and marked Ex. Dl to D4. After the submission of written argu- ments by the Management représentative and the defence représentative on 30-7-93 and 01-10-93 respectively, the Enquiry Officer submitted his flndings dated 31-1-94 holding that the Petitioner was guilty of the charges. It is perverse, biased and one sided. Witbout giying an opportunity to the Pefitioner. to submit his explanation for the findings of the hnqiiir) Ollicer. the Disciplinary Authority simply concurred witlt ilic iiiulins;-, of the Enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice dated 4-5-94 proposing the punishment of dis- missal from service of the Petitioner. The Petitioner received the same in June, 1994 and submitted his detailed reply dated 8-8-_94 during the personal hearing held on that day. He had also pointed out that the complainant had also withdrawn her complaint by a letter dated 19-7-94 and that the disci- plinary action against him may be dropped. Without consi- dering the submissions made by the petitioner, and also without considering the withdrawal of the complaint, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment order of dismissal by an order dated 21-10-94. The appeal preferred by the petitioner and the submissions made by him during the personal hearing before the Appellate Authority on 12-1-95 and 23-3-95 were not consid#red by the Appellate Authority. Ey his order dated 1-3-95 the Appellate Authority concurred with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the punish- ment of dismissal. Thereafter, the Petitioner has raised this industrial dispute for conciliation before the Régional Labour Commissioner which ended in a failure. Then the mattev has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal by the Government for adjudication. The domestic enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was not fair and proper and against the princi- ples of natural justice. Hence, the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner has to be set aside. The punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and totally is ex- cessive. Therefore, this Hon'ble Tribunal ,may be pleased to interfère by invoking the powers under Section 11A of the I.D. Act and set aside the dismissal order. It is prayed that this Tribunal may be pleased to pass an Award holding that the dismissal of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent/ Management a"s tmjustified and direct the Respondent/Bank •

It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner worked as a Cashier in the Dindigul Main branch and that on 2-12-91 one Mr. Bala Venkatraman came to the bank to deposit a sum of Rs. 1000 in the S.B. Account No. 3766 of Smt. T. Palaniammal. It is the plea of the Petitioner himself in his Claim Statement that he received the cash and recorded the amount lemitted and S.B. Account No. in the scroll at S No. 2G. It h his •fïlrfher "Contention that when he was aboit to put the cash2596 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3(ii)J received stamp on the challan, Mr. Bala Venkatraman informed him that Palaniammal has sent a person to get back the money brought for deposit and therefore, he reqnested the Petitioiter to retum back the money. So, he returned the money and the pass book. Hence he scoied out the entry made in the scroll maintained by him. He would further contend because of that there was no entry in this regard in the scroll maintained by the Scroll Offlcer as well as in ihe subsidary day book. Ihe Respondent in the Counter para 2 has clearly mentioneii tlie procédure to be adopted for iemittance of cash to the saving bank account. That procédure is not dis- puted by the Petitioner.

mittedly made by the petitioner in the accounts are totally unwarranted. As issue No. 4 in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has analyseU the query as to whether tîie charge sheeted employée produced adéquate evMehce to prove rhat he returned back Rs. lOOOto Sri Bala Venkatraman and on analysis of évidence, he has concludett that the charge sheeted employée, the petitioner herein, though let in some évidence about the return of the money to concerned person, from the other évidence a^ailâble aboût the correction made by him in the bank books were without any authentteation and from the évidence available on the side of the' Management, and on the bàsis of the évidence giveh by the charge sheeteït employée, he concltides that the altérations were made by the charge sheeteid employée with motive and the reasons are atter thougftts and those cùttings antf altérations show that the charge sheeted employée misappropriated Rs. 1080 remitted by Sri Bâta Venkatraman and in order to cover up his mis deal, he made so many altérations in the cash scroll without the knowledg'e of his superiors which amounts to tampering of bank records. Further there is an evMence; the concerned party who made the remittance when met the Manager subse- quently, confirms aboût the remittancîe, it is seen that the charge sheeted employée should hâve destroyed or lemoved the crédit slip, as k is observed by the Enquiry Officer in his report. S0, trader sueh CLCpumstances, it cannot be* said that the Enquiry Officer has given a perverse findmgs withbut any évidence. Further from the perusal'of the entire proeeedings of the enquiry, Ex. M4 it is seen tirât fair opportunfty has been given to the charge sheetetf ertfployee to put forth his deîence effectivety and he has taken part ail through ihe enquiry along with his defence représentative and has let in his own évidence atong othefs as defence witnesses, after detailed cross exanThration of management wrtnesses. From this it is seen that the • contentioft of tlte Petitioner that the donïestic enquiry condncted by the Respandent/Management is not fair andproper and in violation of principles of natuial justice, is incorrect. From air thèse thir^s, it is évident that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appeïfâte Autherfty has concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Oflteer to corne to the conclusion tbat the Petitioner has comntîfted a serious and grave miscondtret which is detrimentàr to the interest of the bank, which can be constnred as an act donc by the Pelitioner prejudicial' to the interest of the bank under clause 19 5(J) of Bipartite Settfcmetit, as stated in the Cïmrgesheet Ex. Ml. Under such circum'stances, it is held that the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank by drsmfssiog Sri G. Muhil Raj from the services of the RespondentABank is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled for any relief. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

7. In the resuit, an award is passed holding that the action of the 11 Party/Management in dîsmissing the I Patty/Work- man Sri G. Muhil Raj from service is justjfed. Hence. the concerned workman is nul: entitled to atfy refief: No Cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed' and typed by him and corrected and pronoirneed by me in the opta Court on this day the 31st Decentber, 260-1.)

K. KARTHIKEYAN, Presklhig Officer

Witnesses Examined : On either side : None DOCUMENTS MARKED : For the 1 Party/Workman : Nil For the II Party/Management : Ex. No. Date Description

M1 26-06-92 Xerox copy of th*- charge sheèt cum sus-

pension order issued to Petitio"er;

M2 09-09-92 Xerox copy of the corrigendum to charge

sheet dated 26-6-92.

M3 12-10-92 Xerox copy of the notice of enquiry.

M4 16-12-92 23-02-93 24-02-93 03-05-93 04-05-93 05-05-93 15-06-93

6. The charge sheet dated 29-6-92 was issued to the Peti- tioner charging with the misconduct of having acted in the manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. Ml. By an order dated 9-9-92 an amendment to the charge sheet 29-6-92 was issued as a comgendum. The xerox copy of the same is Ex. M2. By which the words 'and in the ledger folio' has been addcd in the original charge sheet. Tbough the Petitioner was required to submit his explanation within 15 days of receipt of the charge sheet, lie has not submitted his reply. That is also not denied. In the domestic enquiry, conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the Management has examined C. T. Veerappan, Inspection Officer, N. Subramanian, Manager of the Drndigul Main Branch, T. Karunakaran, S.B. Account Clerk and K. Baladhandayutham, Spécial Assistant and in support of the charges nine documents were also markcd. Ex. M4 is the xerox c,)py of the enquiry proceedings. Ex. MS is the xerox copy of the Cashier's scroll maintained by the Petitioner for the transaction on 2-12-91. It is not disputed. From that document, it is seen under SI. No. 26 the entries made earlier has been corrected with subséquent entries with some otlier account number and remittance amount. The Petitioner has stated in his claim statement itself as the money and the pass book were returned to customer's agent he scored out the entry made out in the scroll and he returned the counterfoil produced by the said party. For this stand taken by the Petitioner, he has not examined Smt. Palaniammal and the agent Mr. Bala Venkatram to whom he said to hâve returned the amount of Rs. 1,000, on 2-12-1991. On the other hand, it is seen from an entry made in the pass book of Smt. Palaniammal, that Rs. 1000 has been credited in her account on 2-12-91 and the balance has been striked out as Rs. 1,411. The xerox copy of that pass book is Fx. M14. The petitioner has been examined as DW3 in the domestic enquiry conducled for the charges levelled against him. He has deposed before the Enquiry Officer that on 2-12-91 when he was performing cashier duties an elderly man deposited a surn of Rs. 1000 under a cuedit challan into the account of Sm1. Palaniammal and that he received the cash verified the same, noted scroll No. 26 and S.B. Account No. 3766 and Rs. 1000 in the column. He hns also stated in his évidence that when the depositor insisting him to give back the money, he returned the money, pass book and the challan without cash received seal and therefore, he eut the eatries made in the scroll. From thèse admissions of the petitioner in the domtstic enquiry, it is seen that he only made thèse entries. As it is seen from Ex. M8 xerox copy of cash scroil for 2-12-91, corrections had been made in sarial number 26 and some oiher S.B. account has been mentioned. AH thèse manipulations by way of entries and cuttings made in the bank account by the Petitioner has not been disputed. Ex. M il is the xerox copy of S.B. sub-day sheets for 2-12-91. The entry for the deposit of Rs. 1000 does not find a place hère. Ex. M12 is the xerox copy of officers cash controlling sheet for 2-12-91. If we compare the entries in Ex. M8 the cash scroll maintained by the Petitioner on 2-12-91 with Ex. M12 offker's cash con- trolling sheet for 2-12-91, the entry for the deposit of Rs. 1000 in S.B. account of Smt. Palaniammal is not uvuilable in Ex. M12. On comparision of Ex. M8 with Ex. M12 it is seen ail the entries found in Ex. M8 are found in Ex. M12, except Rs. 1000 because the challan for the same is not available and the entry has not been authenticated. In Ex. M8 what it is mentioned as item No. 25 is available under Ex. Ml2 under item No. 25. As stated earlier, the concerned man who said to hâve received back Rs. 1000 from the Petitioner on the same day has not been examined by the Petitioner before the Enqiïiry Officer as a defence witness to substantiate that stand. Tn Ex. M17 the xerox copy of the Enquiry Officer's report, the Enquiry Officer has clearly analysed the évidence on either side from paras 25 to 33 and had concluded from the available évidence that the reasons given by the charge sheeted employée are not acceptable and the altérations ad-

16-06-93 Xerox copy of the enquiry oroceedings pertaining to charge sheet dated 26-6-92.

17-06-93 18-06-93

20-07-93

21-07-93

22-0S-93

M5 27-01-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Palaniammal to Manager Syndicate Bank, Dittdùgul.

M6 27-01-92 Xerox oopy of the letter from M. Bala- venkatraman to Resp'ondent/Manâgement.

M7 31lO3-73 Xerox copy of the specimèto signature card of Account holder.

M8 Nil Xerox copy of thfe cashier's scroll.

M9 1987 to 1991 Xerox copy of the S.B. ledger sheet of T. Palaniammal S.B. account of 3766.

Nov. 91 Xerox copy of the S.B. sub-day sheet.

M10

MH 02-12-91 Xerox copy of the S.B. sub General Ledser. 03-12-91

M12 02-12-91 Xerox copy of the officer's cash controlling sheet.

M13 02-12-91 Xerox copy of the routine cash sheet of Dindigul Main of II Party.

M14 02-12-91 Xerox copy of thtf S.B. Pass book of T. PàlantântoHul Account No. 3766.

MIS 25-03-92- Xerox copy of the letter froin Sri T. Karunakaran; Clerk of Dindigul braneh to C. T. Veerappan, Manager Inspection regaidirig pass book entry in S.B. Deptt.

Mie 16-12-92 Xerox copy of the letter from T. Palnniam- mâî to of Dindigul branch regardrng her inabiiity to atteftd enquiry.

M17 31-01-94 Xerox copy of the enquky report.

M18 04-05-94 Xerox copy of the 2nd show eause* notice issued by Disciplinary Authority to Pcticioner.

M19 08-O8-94- X"erox copy of the explanation given by Petitioner to 2nd show cause notice.

M20 23-06-94 Xerox copy of the ktter by II Party to I Party informing postponement of personal hearing at Petitioner's instance.

M21 08-08-94 Xerox copy of the minutes of personal hearing given to G. Muhffl Raj.

M22 31-10-94 Xerox copy of the letter by II Party to Petittorter¹ ewekssing copy of ptoceedings dated 21-10-94 of Disciplinary Authority awarding punish- ment of dismissal from service.

H23 0-1-07-95 Xerox copy of the proceedings of Appellate Authority cortcurring'wkh the décision of-Dîscipjinary Au tharity.

2597 New Delhi, the 14 Feï"uâry, 2002 S,O. 867.— In pimean^e of Secti©n 17 of the Industrial Dispute Aot. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government bereby publishes the award of the Central; Government h <. usteial TribunaVLabour Court N^pur as shown in the Annexure in the In- dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management cf FCI and their workman, wbich- v/âs received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.

[No. L-220l2/290/F/9'MR(C-ll)]

N.P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THÈ CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL" NAGPUR.

Présent Shri B.G. Saxena, Presitiog©©cer.

Rftfe*(m©e No. : CGIT : 30/2001

Food Corporation of India"

AN"

Their Worknten

AWARD

The Central Government, Minis-try of Labour, New Delhi, by exercisirrg the powefs Confetreâ by clause (d) of Sub section" (1 ) and Sub-sectiôW 2f(A*) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dîspute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication" vide ordef'No. L-22OI2/29O/F/91-IR(C-II) dated ; 02-06-92 oit the fo*fe>wing soliedulc.

SCHEDULE

"Wffether tfre actian of the management o-f Food Corpôraftfcfn of India, Nagp"r, ift rtot allo^ing Spécial Allowance w.e.f. Ot-fO-8fô ta fbe Iabo"r âsked to aésïst I"àtmg o^efâtèrs is juStf ied ? If rlot, then wîkt re*fef he is entitïeâ T

This référence was seat to C.GJ.T Court at Jabal- pur, Madhya Pradesh videordèr No.L-22012/290/91- IR(C-Il) dated ; 02-06-92 by Government of îndia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. This file was recei- Vé& by- transfer in C.Giî.T. Magpur from C.G.I.T. Couït, J&batpur on 10-08-2001.

The dispute was raised rjy the Secretary, Food CoYpoîatiofï of Indra Employées Association, Nag- pur, Ajni, Nagpur.

The Statement ©f Clàsim was s-ubmkted on 5-10-942598 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHÀLGUNÂ 18, 1923 [PART II--SEC. 3(ii)] in Référence No.CG.I.T.-2/6/1980 in eraployers in relation to Food Corporation of India and their work- men. The Presiding Officer Shri M.A. Dcshpande had passed the award that the casual laboUrers who werc working in Quality Control Section and Were assisting Dusting Operators will get .33 paisa per day Spécial Allowance as the Dusting Operators were ge- tting Rs. 10/- per month by way of Spécial Allowance. The union further reprësented in Statement of Claim that this Spécial Allowance for Dusting Operators was enhanced to Rs.75/- per month w.e.f. 14-01-89. So the casual labours should also get Rs.2.50/- per day for the period thcy worked with Dusting Operatcrs.

lt is further reprësented that. from 01-04-94 the Dusting Operators Spécial Allowance lias been increa- sed to Rs.l 25/- per month. The casual labourers who were assisting the" Dusting OperatorS shotild alsû get Rs. 4.17/- per day for the period they worked with Dusting Operators.

In their Written Statement the Food Corporation of India stated that as per MOU dated : 14-01-89 between FCI management and National Coordination Committee, the Spécial - Allowances is payable to the Dusting Operators and not to any other category of employées of Food Cirporatioh of India, hence the labourers are not entitled to Spécial Allowances.

Both the parties hâve submitted documents. They did not produce any oral évidence in this case. Both the-parties hâve also submitted their Written Argue- ments. Shri R.B. Sayyad reprësented the manage- ment. Shri Narendra Shukla reprësented the Workers'Union. They also argued the. case orally.

I hâve considered the documents filed by the par- ties and the arguements advanced by them.

lt is admitted to both the parties that C.G.I.T. Court No.-Il of Mumbai had passed the award on 21-07-82. The Court had held as under :

"The demand - of Spécial Allowance @ 33 paisa per day when any casual labour Works in any Quality Control Section is held to be justified but n ot the demand for médical facility,. The Food Cor- poration shall pay the Spécial Allowance at this rate from the date of this award."

None of thèse parties challenged this award'in any superior Court, hence this award became final.

In view of the above award the casual labourers are entitled to Spécial Allowance with the Dusting Opcrator.

None of the parties hâve submitted any record as to whether thèse casual labourers raised; any dis- pute after 01-10-86 when Dusting Oper^tor Allowance wa
• In view of the- above facts and circumstances, it will be justified and proper to allow the casual labourer to draw Spécial Allowance {a) Rs. 4.17 per day from 01-04-94 for the duration they hâve worked in Qua- lity Control Section and hâve bsen deputed to assist the Dusting Operators in performing their du- ties relating to fumigation and spraying etc. as men- tioned in Circular Leiter No. 12/99 dated : 28-07-99. The allowance shall be payable on the basis of the record of the attendence of vhe "casual labour for the above work which is available with the management of Food Corporation of India.

To avoid future litigatien in this matter, this Tri- bunal fu'lhcr directs that from 01-04-2002 the proper record of the attendence of the casual labourers who are deputed to assist in the work of Dusting Operators in the Quality Control Section shall be maintained. The Attendence Rcgistcr showing the number of days for each casual labour who shall be deputed for the above job, shall be duly signed !>y the Officei in Charge of Quality Control Section. A copy of the attendence raarked for ertch worker i.e. the extract of the atten- dence register duly certified by the Officer-in-Charge of the Quality Control Section, s-hall bs provided to each casual labour so lhat he may ascertain that his attendence is marked p-opjrly.

ORDER

The Food Corporation of India is directed to allow Spécial Allowance to the causal labourers who hâve assisted Dusting Operators from 01-04-94 @ Rs. 4.17 per day for the pjriod thcy hâve worked in the Qua- lity Control Section with the Dusting Operators and hâve assisted them in performing the duties relating to fumigation, spraying etc. as mentioned in Circular No. 12 of 99 dated : 28-07-99.

The référence is answered accordingly.

B. G, SAXENA, Presiding Officer Date : 14-01-2002 New Delhi, the 14th February,- 2002 S. O. 868.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 50/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.

[No. L-22012/21O/98-IR (C-II)1

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDLSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR " COURT, ASANSOL.

Présent : Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO. 50 OF 1999 Parties : General Manager (Opération), Sonepur Bazari Project, E.C.L.

.. Management

Vs.. _

Shri Bhojan Singh, Damper Operator

2 599 After receipt of the référence from the Ministry summons were issued to both the parties directing them to appear m the Tribunal and file, their respective written statements. Despite service of summons by Registered Post none appeared on behalf of the workman although several adjourn- ments were given. Shri P. K. Das, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the management and filed photostat copies of letter dated 2-11-2000 of tbe General Manager of the management addressed to the workman and award passed by Arbitrator and submitted that the management has rein- stated the workman in service and now the dispute does not exist. The fact that none appeared on behalf of the workman despite service of summons also indicates that the workman has- got no interest in the dispute perhaps due to the fact that he has been reinstated.

In view of above facts it is clear that at présent dispute between the parties does not exist and accordingly a 'No Dispute Award' is passed.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer

". Workman'

Représentation :

For the Management Shri P. K. Das, Advocate For the Union (Workman) None. *

Mines : Coal. State : West Benfal.

Dated the 28th January, 2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (l) and- sub-section 2 (A) ^ of section 10 .of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the Govtf of India /through Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22G12/210/98/IR(CM-II)-dated22-4-99 has referred the following dispute for adjucdication by this Tribunal :— i

"Whether the action of the Management of Sonepur Bjazari Project of M/s. -ECL .in dis- missing Sh. Bhojan Singh, Dumper Operator i& légal and justified ? If not, to what reHef wopkman is entitled ?"

New Delhi, the 14tk February, 2002 - S. O. 869.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indutstrial Dispute Aet, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby -publishes the award (Réf. No. 21/1997) of the Central Govern- ment .Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between .the employers in relation to the manage- ment of CIL and their workman, which was recei-ved by the Central Government on-13-02-2002.

I

[No. L-22012/2Q5/96-IR (C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN,'Desk Officef2600 THE GAZETTE OF JNDFA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART J I - S E C. 3(ii ,1 ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Référence No. 21 of 1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the manage- ment ofCoal India Limited, Calcutta

AND

Their Workinan.

Présent :

Mr. Justice Bharat Prasad Sharma

.. Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of Management : Mr. A. K. Mukherjee,

General Secretary of the Union.

On behalf of the Workman : Mr. S. Mukherjee,

Advocate.

State : West Bengal. Industry : Coal.

AWARD

as ail thèse ycars.he had rendered valuable service for more than 240 days in each calender year. The Union, Rashtriya Coal Mnzdccr Sargh also made a similar request to the management fi r régularisation of his service. According to the written statement of the union the workman was engaged against a permanent nature of job ant against permanent vacancy and had worked for more than 240 days in ail thèse pieeeeding calen- der years, bat the management discontinued his serivee without ewen sesving any notice to him and. thus adopted unfair labour practice. lt is also stated that the union had requested the management to deduct Pio.vident Eund from the payment of salary to tbis workraan, but it was not done and rather tbe service of the workman was terraùiated. lt is al&o further stated that in course cf discussion the aianagement infermed the union that the matter of Ananta Biswas was being routed thrawgh prgper channel. It is stated that Shri Biswas had received sakiry ail along from the cash counter of the management of C. I.L., but the management pleaded that he was a.casual driver, though it was not a fact and he remaitwd engaged since 1991 to 1995. There- fore, he should not be treated as casual and he deserves to be absorbed in service as permanent and his termination cf service is illégal.

By Order No. L-22012/205/96-IR (C-II) dated 05-06-1997 the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 10(1) (à) and (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the foHowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Coal India Ltd., Calcutta in terminatiog the services of Sh. Ananta Biswas Driver w.e.f. 7-J6-95 is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief is tfee workman entitled ?"

2. The présent référence arises out of the industriel dispute raised by the Rashtriya Coal Mazdoor Sangh on behalf of one Ananta Biswas who was engages! as a Driver by the Coal India Limited.

4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the management of C. I. L. stating therein that the référence itself is not maintain- able, because no dispute has been properly raised by the union with the Company to transferm the dispute as an industrial dispute. It is also forther stated that there did not exist any relationship of employer and employée between the C I L. and the said Ananta Biswas, because he was hired from the A*itom"fcik Association of Eastern India. It is stated that such engage- ment by the Company was netther made against any permanent vacancy, ROT in terms of recruit- ment rules. Therefore,, it is stated that the work- man cannot claim régularisation of service, because his service was hired from the Automobile Asso- ciation of Eistem fadia on temporary requiseraent, He was accordingly paid on calcalation ©f his daily wages on monthly basis and when the requirement ceased, he was remeved. lt is staïed that for s"<ïh kind ©f removal of casual labeur, there is no necessity of adhering to^tbe provisions as laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is also further sfcated that semé tff the Drivers engaged in similar manner as Shri ®i*was namery, Dmesh Ch. Das, Nfipœtidra !K"Mnar Majamdar, Sanjtt Satpati ané =S"fcBm"r •'JGuria had filed ^ writ pétition bèfcre the'Hefft>îe >High 3. In the written statement filed on bèhalf of the union it is stated that the said Ananta Biswas was engaged as DrivarbyCoal India Ltd. in. the year 1991 in JuneandbyJune, 1992 he had c@mpfcted service of more than 240 days. Thereafter, in 1993 he also wopked. for more than 240 daysand again in 1994 he wcrtked also for more than 240 days. According to the union, in September, 1-993 Shri Biswas had made a représentation to the Régional Sales Manager, C.I.L. requeslàtg to regtrtarise his service as he had rendesed valuable service with ail sincerity and honesty. Thereafter, on 1$4)5-19#4 also he further filed such a pétition before the Régional Sales Manager of Cîï.L. requesting htm to régularise his service 2601 Court of Calcutta being C.O. No. 6397 (W) of 1995 praying for régularisation of their service in the Company and the said writ pétition was dismissed by Hon'ble Justice S. B. Sinha by a judgement and order dated 6th June, 1995. It is further stated that the aforesaid person had also filed appeal against the judgement dated 6th June, 1995 before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court and the Division Bench also dismissed the appeal by order dated 20th March, 1996. It is stated that the case of the présent workman also belongs to the same category and though he was pressing for his régularisation of service, it could not hâve been done according to the rules. It is stated that the workman con- cerned was in the pannel of drivers maintained by the said Automobile Association of Eastern India and his services were lent to the company on réquisition on casual basis. It is emphatically denied that the engagement of Shri Biswas was against any rsgular vacancy or according to any recruitment rules. Further, it has also been denied that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year 1991-1992 or even in 1993-1994 and he was engaged on casual basis on being hired from the said Automobile Associ- ation of Eastern India. It is stated that in case of urgent need, the Company used to send réquisition to the said Association and the Asso- ciation used to sponsor the name from the panel of drivers maintained by them. It is also stated that the Company used to retain them on temporary basis and therefore, his effort to get regularised was futile and it could not hâve been done. In this view of the matter, it has been stated on behalf of the management that neither the workman concerned was a regular workman, nor he was entitled to be regularised in service in permanent cadre against rules and when his services were not required, the same were dispensed with. Therefore, it is stated on behalf of the management that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

ment of this nature committed serious kind of mistake in doing so and the name of such officer was called for and it was further directed that no such engagement should be made in future without spécifie written approval of ihe cempe- tent authority ofthe CTL. Ext. W-2 séries are the xerox copies of the chèque through which payments were made to the workman concerned from time to time. Ext. W-3 is the letter wtitten by the Régional Sales Manager of CIL to the Additional Chief Personnel Manager in response to his letter dated 02-05-1995 seeking certain informations and in this letter it was stated that the engagement of Ananta Biswas was on hire basis from A.A-E.I. to drive a car with effect from 05-06-1991. It was also further stated in this letter that actually two drivers were provided to the office, but during that period only one driver was available and as the seivices of one Damodar Das was being utilised by marketing Head Quarters, the services of Shri Ananta Biswas were being utilised in the office. It is also revealed from this letter that the détails of em- ployment of Ananta Biswas from June, 1991 to March, 1995 were provided and from this détail it appears that in 1991 he had worked for 35 days in three months. In 1992 he had worked for 164 days in 1993 he worked for 345 days. Thereafter he had worked for a number of days in the year 1994 and 1995 also and in total he had worked for 952 days. Ext. W-5 is the letter addressed to the Régional Sales Manager by the workman concerned for making ex-gratia payment at par with the Drivers on regular basis as he was being paid salaries on daily-rate basis. So, from this letter it becomes clear that the work- man had admitted that he was being paid on daily-rated basis against which he had grievance Ext. W-6 is the letter addressed by the workman concerned to the Régional Sales Manager, West Bengal Cell requesting for his régularisation because he was working for pretty long time and he had stressed that he had worked for 373 days in ail from August, 1992 to the date oi writing this letter Le., 14-09-1993. Ext. W-6 a is also the letter written by this workman to the Régional Sales Manager, West Bengal Cell making a request on 18-05-1994 that he should be regularised ' in service as a Driver and he had also attached his bio-data and the détails of his working days in the Company. Ext. W-7 is a letter issued by the Régional Sales Manager to one garrage sending the departmental car for repair with the said Driver, Ananta Biswas. It is only in order to show that he was serving as a Driver, which has not been denied. Ext W-8 is the letter sent by the General Secretary of the Rashtriya. Coal 5. Both the parties led évidence, oral as well as documentary. So far as the documentary évidence is concerned, Ext. W-l is the letter of the Chief Personnel Manager of the Coal India Ltd. written to the Régional Sales Manager, West Bengal Cellwhich is dated 5th June, 1995. It appears from this letter that when the matter of engagement of the workman, Ananta Biswas was put up before the authorities, it was observed that deployment of Shri Biswas as Casual Driver was irregular and therefore, it should be dis- continued immediately. From this letter it also appears that the authorities of the CIL felt that the person who was responsible for engage- 604 GI/2002—172602 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC. ?î.ii)J Mazdoor Sangh to the Chief General Manager requesting for régularisation of the 7 casual employées, including the concernée! werkman.

daily-rate of salary used to be fixed by A.A.E.I., though he used to receive salary on monthly basis on being calculated on daily basis. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not worked continuously from 05-06-91 to 07-06-95, though he worked regularly from 1992 to 1995 and prior to it he was without work.

WW-2, Sambhu Nath Ghosh is also an employée of the C.LL. who is working there since 1982 and he happens to be a raember of the sponsoring union. According to him fram 1992 to 1995 he. was working as an Adminis- tration Clerk. He has given the manner of préparation of bill of the driver on the checks being prepared on the basis of the Log Book concerned. He has stated that on the recommeo- dation of the Controlling Officer that since the Driver had completed 240 days of service, he should be regularised, the matter was referred to the Head Quarters of C.I.L., but the Head Quarters recommended termination of his service.

6. So far as the management is ccnçerned, four documents hâve been marked in évidence, Ext, M-l is the letter sent to the Coal India Ltd. by the Automobile Association of Eastern India by which services of Ananta Biswas were placed at the disposai of CIL and the détails of the conditions of service and' ternis hâve been giVen in it. It speaks of payment to the said Driver on the basis of the quantum of work. Ext. M-2 is the letter sent by the Régional Sales Manager, CIL to the Secretary of the A.A-E.L asking him to furnish the détails of thé sa.id Ananta Biswas, Driver whose services were hired through the Association. Ext- M-3 is the letter sçnt by the Assistant Seçretajfy of the A.A.E.I. in réponse to the afor&said letter in whiçh it w,as sta^ed that the service of the said Ananta Biswas was hired by the Company on beiag provided by this Association from the list of casual Divers on réquisition. Ext. M-4 is th.e copy of the writ pétition along with the order dated 06,-06-1995 passed by the Hon/ble High Court of Calcutta.

WW-3, Pijttsh Dasgupta who happens to be an Assistant Secretary of the sponsoring uaiom has stated that Ananta Biswas was woeking as a Driver in the C. I. L. and he hadi worked contiauQusly as a Driver from 1992 to. 1995 under the management, aad therefore, he. had directed workman to appiy for régularisation and the union was informed by the management that they were forwaEddng the matter to the Head Quarteis with. the recommendation. He ajiso further stated that when they came to kaow about the terrninatiotij of the service of the werk- man, they raised industrial dispute. In his cross- examinafeion, he has stated that so far as nego- tiation is concernedi, thece is no paper available.

8. MW-1, Amit Roy is the Deputy Sales Manager, Administration of C.LL. at Régional Sales Office, West Bengal. Aecording to. him, Ananta Biswas was not an employée of C.LL. According to him the management happens to be a member of the A.A.E.I. and the management réquisition service of a> Driver from A.A.E.L and on the réquisition ofi the management the Driver was hired. According to. him one of; the functiorts- of the A.A.E.L is. to supply Driver to the member organisations. He has alsoi stated thafc the Company has a segaqate procédure of appointaient; of Class^lV employées, including Driver.. According to him there were breaks in, the, service of the worfëman during the period of his engagement and he also stated that there was noi vacancy in the post of Driver in the office of the management. He also stated that other Drivers, naraely, Dinesh Das, Nripendra Kumar Mazumdar-,. Sanjib Satpati and Sukirqjar Guria hau also prayed for régularisation,, but it 7. So far as the oral évidence is concemed, altogether three witness.es hâve been examined on behalf of the union and on,e has been examined on behalf of the management. WW-1, Shri Ananta Biswas is the workman concerned. He has stated that he worked with th,e C. I. L., Calcutta from 05-06-1991 till 07-06-1995 without break of seryiee. He also stated that his salary was being paid ail along by chèques by the C. I. L. and according to him his service was terminat,ed on 07-06-1995 by the Régional Sales Manager. He also stated that he had earlier appljed for his régularisation, but he did not r,eceived any response. He also stated tha,t he had worked in ail for 9.52 days. In his cross-examination, he admits that he was sets to the C. I. L. by the Automobile Associatioa of Eastetn India for doing servjce and he had not applied for any job with the C. I. L. He also admitted. that his name was not sponsored by the Emplpyment Exçhange for appointaient as a, Driver and he was also not given any appointaient letter by the C. L L. He has stated that in similar manner in 1992 also his name was forwarded on, réqui- sition of the C.I.L. and: similarly in. 1993 also A.A.E.I. recommended his name to the manage- ment. He has denied that his salary was not paid' on monthly basis, but as pointed out earlier, it becomes clear from his owa letter, Ext. W"5 that he> was being. paid oiv daily-Eaied basis. However, he has also admitted that his 2603

10. It is clear that neither the engagement of this workman was rëgûlar, nor it was against any permanent vac'aricy and it was totally irregu- lar engagement, and therefore, when in the opinion of the authorities of C.I.L. the necéssity ahd justification of his continued engagement had eeased or ended, his service was dis-continued. In sueh a circumstance, it was not at ail necessary to follow the procédure laid down under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in his case. The workmari, therefore, is not entitled to any relief whatsoever and the référence is disposed of accordihgly.

Dated , Kolkata,

was not done. So, lie has stated that the w-ork man concerned is not aîso entitled to any relief. In his cross-examination, he has stated that "the concerned worker was a Driver hired from some agency and in the paper the period of his engage- ment was riever specified. He has stated that he was being paid bn mohthîy basis on ealculation ât dàily rate and the rate was fixefl by the A.A.E.I. This fâct is admitted by the union also. Aeeording to this witness the workman concerned was driving office car during his engage- ment and subséquent to his disengagement, some permanent Drivers wëre transferred frdm sub- sidiàry Office. Sô, fftirn his evidëhcé it appears that the pdst of a Driver on permanent basis did not exist after his diserigagement.

the 5th February, 2Ô02.

B. P. SHARMA, Presiding Offlcer

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002

S.O.870.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubiishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Nag- .< pur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employées in relation to the management of WCL and their workman, which was rcceived by the Central Government on B-02-2002.

[No. L-22012/49/97-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Ôfficer

ANNEXURE

SÈFORÈ THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRÉSENT SHRT B. G. SAXENA, PRESIDING

OFFICER.

REFERENCE NO. CGIT : 94/2000

SUB ARÉA MANAGER, WCL

AND

9. From the évidence as discussed above, it beeomes clear that the workman in question was never appointed by the C.Ï.L. in regular rnanner aeeording to the rules and he was not alsoengaged or employed on permanent basis. It appears that because of the exigency, service of a Driver was requisitioned from A.A.E.I. and said Asso- ciation forwarded the name of this workmen to C.Î.L. aftd he was accordihgly engaged on casual basis âhd thë paymehts were being made to him accôfdittg to thë fâtes fixed by the said agency, A.Â.Ë.I. Of course, his payments were beirig made on mcrrithly basis threugh chèques^ which hâve feeen filëd. But, it bëëbmes eledr that his engage- rrtèrit wâs on castial basis arid he was working from tîme to time accôrdirig to the necéssity and reqtitrefnent of the compâny and he was being paid for the days for whièh he hatd worked. So, such an appointaient caririot be termed as a regular appointaient aftd the question of treatirig such an employée as regular employée does not arise. It bas been held by the différent High Courts from time to time and àlso by the Hoii'ble Suprême Court in différent cases that régularisation of a pers
PRASAD
2604 THE GAZETTE OF INDiA • MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FARF II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD

The Central Government, Minisiry of Labour, New Delhi, by exercising the powers conferrcd by Clause (d) of Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 has referred this dispute for adjudication vide order No. L-22012/49/97/lR(CM-I[) dated : 09-06-98 on the foilowing schedule.

SCHEDLLE

"Whcther the action of the Sub-Area Mana- ger, M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. Padmapur Opon Cast Mine, Distt. Chandrapur in not giving promotion to 84 workmen alongwith Sh. Lalan Prasad vide order No. WCL/SAM/POSA/PER/ 4754 dated : 23-10-93 is valid. légal and proper? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled to?" The Statement of Claim in this case was filed at C.G.I.T. Court No.-II at Mumbai by S. S. Sokli, workmen représentative for Bharatiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh on 18-08-98. It is mentioned that vide order dated : 23-10-93 promotion was not given to 84 workmen alongwith Lalan Prasad. Lalan Prasad was favoured by the management without rcasonable classification. The 84 workmen are en- titled to promotion w.c.f. 01-07-93.

The management of WCL contested the case on the ground that thero are two separate catégories for workers in underground mining and Excavation work. Lalan Prasad was a dcpartmental candidate in the Opération Stream whereas ail other claimants were new entrants and were appointed as trainee. They hâve différent catégories ard différent promo- tional channel.

Out of thèse 84 workmen, 35 are Operators and the other workmen are working in différent disci- plines, Such as : Maintenance Staff of Excavation catégories and Drivers, Electric ians, Mechanics, Fitters, Sub-Station Attendants, Pump Khalasis, Conveyer Operators etc. of mining catégories. They are not Opération Staff. They can not be campared with Lalan Prasad for the beneflt of promotion.

Lalan Prasad was a Category-l Mazdoor and was authorised to work as Dumper Operator w.e.f. 12-07-90 due to having Heavy Vehicles Driving License. The management after one year place him in Category-V and again after one year i.e. 12-7-92 hc was entitled to get Excavation Grade-D. He was also entitled to Grade-C from 12-07-93. When the Promotion Order of Lalan Prasad was issued alongwith others 84 workmen on 23-10-93, he was promoted from Catogory-V to Grade-C. He and his union represented his case. The management corrected the mistake and issued order restoring him as Dumper Operator, Grade-C w.e.f. 01-07-93.

The case of Lalan Prasad is totally différent as he belongs to différent category of service. The other workmen are not entitled to any promotion vide office order dated : 23-10-93.

On b^half of the workmen the statement of D.M. Satpute was recorded. From the side of the manage- ment K.L. Achariya, Personal Manager was examin- ed. The parties also filed documents.

I hâve considered the entire oral and documentary évidence on record.

The ordfcr dated : 23-10-93 shows that 84 employées of différent catégories were promoted to next higher pay scales. They were allowed to remain on pro- probation for six months.

There is another order dated : 25-04-93 showing that Lalan Prasad was given promotion to Excavation Category-C w.e.f. 01-07-93 on the basis of agreement between the union and the management. The matter of Lalan Prasad was discussed with the représenta- tives of the union by the management. The union has not challenged in this référence the order dated : 25-04-94.

In his statement on 11-10-2000 and further cross-examination on 04-07-01 Shri D. M. Satpute" the union représentative admitted that the order dated : 23-10-93 shows the promotion of 84 workmen who balong to différent catégories and had différent pay scales. He further represented that he is re- presenting only No. 1 to 29 workmen mentioned in list dated : 23-10-93. He is not contesting the case of workmen shown from Sériai No. 30 to 84 of list dated : 23-10-93. He further represented that he does not know how many persons from Sériai No. 1 to 29 are the members of his union? He later submitted the list of only 14 psrsons who had autho- rised him to contest the case. It is thereforc clear that he did not represent the 70 other workers of list dated : 23-10-93.

In his statement he admitted that Lalan Prasad was given promotion to Category-C in the Category of Dumper Operators w.e.f. 01-07-93. He did not explain anywhere how the other workmen were en- titled for any further promotion from 01-07-93 along with Lalan Prasad. Thus the statement of D.M. Satpute does not clarify anywhere that thèse 84 work- men were also entitled for any further promotion.

The management in their Written Arguments has admitted that Lalan Prasad was entitled to pro- motion from Catagory-V on 01-07-91. Due to over- sight he was placed at Category-V w.e.f. 24-04-92. Furthei' he should hâve bsen placed in Category-D w.e.f. 01-07-92. Again by mistake he was placed in Category-D w.e.f. 23-10-93. Whcn the mistake was pointed out by the union to the management his case was reconsidérée and he was placed in Cate- gory-C w.e.f. OL-07-93. The case of othei 84 workmen was not similar. The other operators were new entrants in service and thcy were granted promotion according to the rules. In view of the above facts thcre is no illegality in the order of the management.

ORDER

The action of the Sub Area Manager, Western Coalfields Ltd., Padmapur Opencast Mine, Distt. Chandrapur in not giving promotion to 84 workmen alongwith Shri Lalan Prasad vide order No WCL. SAM/POSA/PER/4754 dated : 23-10-93 is valid, légal and propor. The aforosaid 84 workmen are not entitled to any other relief.

The référence is disposcd of accordingly.

B. G. SAXENA, Preiding Officer Dated : 23-1-2002

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2002 S.O. 871.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Nagpur 't.s shown in the Annexure in the Industiial Dispute bjtween the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their woïk- man, which was received by the Central Government on 13-02-2002.

[No. L-22012/496/95-IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR PRESENT SHRI B.G. SAXENA, PRESIDING

OFFICER.

REFERANCE NO. CGIT : 162/2000 THE SUPTD. (M) MANAGER, WCL

AND

SHRI SRIRAM DEORAJ

2605

WARD

The Central Governmunt, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, by oxercising the powers conferred by Clame (d) of Sub-sectiop C ) and Sub-scction 2(A) of Section 10 of the Indu- -:>?\ Dispute Act, 1947 has rofeired this dispute foi i.djudication vide order No. L-22012/496/95-IR(C-II) dated : 04-09-96 on the following schedide.

THE SCHEDULE

"Whethcr the action of tho management of Suptd. of Mines Manager, Ballarpur Colliery 3 & 4 Pits of WCL, PO : Ballarpur, Distt. Chandra- ¹ pur vide lctter No. WCL/BA/BC/22/1096 dated : 06-08-95 in dismissing the services of Shri Sriram Deoraj, Ex-M.T.C.M. is justified?' If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? This référence was sent to C.G.I.T. Court No.-I at Mumbai on 04-09-96 by Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. The file was received in this Court by transfer on 03-06-2000. On 13-09-2000 the workman Shri Sriram Deoraj appeared in the Court and .représentée that no advocate is conducting the case. Rerpresenta- tive of his union also did not appear to contest the case for the workman.

On 26-06-2001 the son of the claimant Shri Shiv Kumar submitted Djath Certificats of wjrkmen Sriram. On 07-09-2001 application was moved to bring the légal représentatives of the workman on record.

Both the parties were directed to produce docu- menta.^ évidence and affidvaits in support of their case. The case was adjourned to 23-10-2001. Again the case was adjourned to 06-12-2001 for producing évidence in support of the claim by the légal représen- tatives of the workman. The counsel for manage- ment also moved application that th.? légal heirs arc not entitled to any relief after the death of tbe workman. No évidence has bsen produced in this Tribunal in rebuttal of the charges framed against the deccased workman by his légal représentative.

Today the case was taken up. The counsel for tho management represented that the workman Shri Sriram Deoraj had assaulted Shri E.M.S. Chandra, Supdt. Engineer (E & M) on 07-04-94 at 8.45 a.m. in his office for which he was chargesheeted. The Chargesheet was submitted on 07-04-94. After holding enquiry against the workman, he was dis- misscd from service. The documents regarding the enquiry p.-oceedings hâve been filed in this Court. The order dated : 29-05-95 shows that the charges framed against Sriram Deoraj were proved. Shri Sriram Deoraj had threatened, abused and assaulted Shri E.M.S. Chandra, Supdt. Engineer (E & M) on the alleged date, time and place. He was dis- raissed from service due to his misconduct.
2606 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA ; MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE

BEFÔRE THE CENTRAL GOVÊRNMÈNT INDlJSTfttAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHÂNBAD.

PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas. Presiding Officer.

The légal représentatives of thc workman or their CQimsel did not ton up in the Court today. No oral évidence or afljdavit has been filed from the side of the légal représentatives of the workman show that workman Shri Sriram Deoraj was falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing on record to show that enquiry was not conducted fairly or impartially. In view of the above facts and circum- stances the workman Sriram Deoraj was rightly dis- missed from service for his alleged miscondi:ct.

In the matter of an Industiial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the l.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO :—47 of 1997 From the above documents on record thc order of the Supdt. of Mine vide letter No. WCL/BÀ/Bc/ 22/1096 dated : 6-8-95 in dismissing Shri Sriram Dcoraj> Ex. M.T.C.M. was justified.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL's Lodna Area and their work- man.

ORDER

APPEARANCES :

On bîhalf of the workman : None.

On b^half of thc employers : Shri D. K. Verma,

Advocate The action of the management of Supdt. Mine Manager, Ballarpur Colliery 3 & 4 Pits of WCL, Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur vide lettet dated : WCL/BA/BC/22/1096 dated : 06-08-95 in dismissing the services of Shri Srir?:m Deoraj, Ex-M.T.C.M. is justified.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coke Plant The légal représentatives of the workman are not

Dated, Dhanbad,- the M st January, 2002.

entitled to any relief.

AWARD

The référence is answered accerdingiv.

B. G. SAXENA, Presiding Officer

Dated : 21-1-2002

The Govt. of Irtdia, Ministry of Labour, in exer- cise of the powers conferrëd on thém under Séet-ton 10(l)(d) of the l.D. Aet, 1947 has Mefted tftë Mlow- mg discute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-200l2/486/95-lR(Coal-I); dated, theSthAp/lï, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whethcr the action of the management of Lodna Coke Plant under Lodna Arca No. X of M/s, BGCL in not assessing the âge of Sh. Sheo- pujan Thakur by Apex Médical Board is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman enfitlëd?"

2. R"le 10 B of fhe Inéœtrial Disputes (Gefctra*)

Rïttes, Ï95ÏÏ speaks as foltows :—

New Dtefti, the 15th Febïuaay, 2002

"While referring an industriaï dispute for tfdjïtëicaïi®* to a Lafeour Court, Tribunal or Na"o"!al Tr^baaaL t-lke Central Govt. shall d'rect the party raising thc dispute to file a statement of claim compifete with roïevant documents, list of feliaaice amd witnesses with the Labour Court, Tïifeuaal or National Tribunal within fifteen days of tke seceipt of the order of refeionc" and also forward a c©ç>y ©f such statement to each one of the opposite parties involved in the dis- pute."

S.O. 872.—In pursuanec of Sectio* 17 of the Tmlustriaf Disputes Acf, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central ChTvenfment lœrefiy pttbfrshes the award (R&f. No. 47/l'997) of the Centrât Government Indusfrial Tri- bun"! 2, Dharrbad no-w as shown in the Anncxttïe in- the Indiistriaî Dispute bstween the empfoyers in refetfon to the management of BCCL and their work- man, wfttefr was recaived by the Central Govcmment en- P4^2'-2002.

Therefore, fhe provision of law spieaks cleatly that the concerned workman is liable to sùbntit his W.S. within 15 days from-ihe da-te of receipt- of [No- L-20012/486/95-IR(C-I)] M. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer 2607

the Industrial Dispute b3tween the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their work- man, which was received by thé Central Government on 14-2-2002

[No. L-20Gl2/388/$S/ï*(C-T)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Uesk Officcv

ANNEXURE

0EFÔME THE CENTRAL GOVERNMKNt INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD In the matter of a référence* undér Sec. 10(î)(iffê2A) of thë ïrtdustrfaf Dispwtes Act, 1947.

KL-fefewSe No. 61 of 19^9.

Parties : Empioyciis i" relation to the management of

Sudamdih Area ©f M/ss SCCL.

AND

Th-jir Workmen

Présent : Shri S.H. Kazm-i,

Presiding OffiCër

Appearances :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocatc.

For the Workmen : None.

State : Jharkhand. Inriust.-y : Coal.

DA"8€;tthte-4Jl!Li Fte&rMry 28011:

AWAR"

référence in question. It- is scon that the instant référence was referred to this Tfibu"aï on 8-4-97. Record shows clearly that thereafter severaî notices in- cluding notices under Regd. Post with- Â/D wcré sent to the concerned workman for causing his appearar.cc before this Tribunal. But the concernée! workman did not eonsider aeeessary totafee-any step on his bshalf in the matter of êisposing of the référença in question. On tfce eontrafy it is seen that after eonsumtog ab- normai period the nranageïfient fiké thrir W.S. which bas been kep* with the record, Tfce référence was made in view of the mdnstrial dispute raiseé by the conc&rned workman. Naturally as per Rul# 10B of th.© Indus! rial Disputes (Centrai) Rules, 1957 surémission af W.S. hy the concerned workman is mandatoiy. UaMl and unless any, such W.S. is s"b- roitted on hebalf of the concerned. workman tbere is no scops to proceed with the- hearing of the- in-siant referepjcc though it is seen that the management has fiïed W.S. on thoir bshalf- The attitude of the concerned workman if is taken into considération will spjak clearly that it was a, luxury on his partto make référence by ratfeing iadusteiai dispute. Hc inspite of rai .ing- the industrial dispute did uot consi- der necessary te puriin the roatter (hrough bis unian. On the contrat hy virtue of his. act the Tribunal had t© waste valu".bb tixns and also had te" incur expsnsci! from the G®vt. exche^ttît in th.? matter of issuance of notice to him.., Haw&ver, as the cooeeen- ed workman inspite of givirag anaflc oç>poïtu*wty has failed to take. any step. for satauttiag W.S. It should bi presum-îd that he is not interestei to- pco- cced with the hearing of the instant case any further. Uiîder s"ch cirewnsta'nces a 'No dispute' Award is rendered presumed. noa-existenee. ©f any inductrial dispute between the parties presently.

B.' B^WAS, Presidîng Ôfficer

By OMer No. L-20Ol)2/38%'98-I.R.(C-I) dated 17-4-99 the Cantral Govornment in the Ministry of Labour has, in cxj/cise of tne powers conferred by elsme- (># of sufr-^action (Ity mé sttb-sgetiéit (2A) of Section 10' of ttie Ind*a*.t*tel D^Wrt^s ./tets- \M7, referred tha follewing. disputo for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whsther the demand of the union frbm the rtt&ttai§erttBnt of Sttda"itiiti> Shaft'Mue-lé- M/s. B€tEL"O'ge".theage0f'S#r Sttkâif MaHtt^S^^sod by the Médical Board is justified? If-séH&*w1iat relief the workman is entitled"?" New, Delhi,, the 15th. Feb£uary"; 2002

2. From, tiie> record of this reftsrance- it.app^ars that despite notices bsing sent repsatedly to the sponsoring* uftioiv for filhîg' wrfttfen' staftBBMt rkîne appsare* on Behalf of the workman. It is thus obviouï. that njither the workman nor the sponsor- ing union is interested in pursuing the matter any fufltee.

3. In such cirteuMstBaee, I render a 'No Dispute'

Award- in the presenk référença ease.

S.Q, 873.—In pursuance e£ Section. 17 of the Industçial. Disputes Act,. 1947, QA ef. l'947,)j.tfer Central Go.vejnment horeby publishes the, a"wafdi ($£&. No. 61/1999), of the Conteal Goveraraent Iadastml, Tri- bunal 1", Dhahbad now.as sho,wn. in. t-hc Annexum in

Si H. K*gMP,*Piesldittg"0ffl%r?fios THE GAZETTE OF INDfA . MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 113, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ii)J Section 10(l)(d,l of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudica- tion vide their Ordcr No. L-20012(182)/87 D-Ill dated the lOth February, 1988.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Sudamdih Incline Mine of Sudamdih Area cf M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Shyamdeo Bhuiyan from service of the company is justified. If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002

S.O. 874 -—Tn pursuancc of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 39/1988) of the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal 2, Dhanbad now as shown the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in rela- tion to the mar-agoment of BCCL and their workman, which was recived by the Central Government on 14-02-02.

[No. 1.-20012/182/87-DIIl A/1R(C-I)] N. P. KESAVAN. D^sk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT

DNANBAD

2. Soon after the receipt of the order of référence notices were duly served upon the parties. Both the parties at first appeared before this Tribunal and filed their respective W.S. documents. But subsequently, the workmanside abstained from appearing befere this Tribunal and taking any steps further inspite of sending Regd. notices to them repeatedly. The instant référence is pending since lcng. Ample opportunity has already been given to both sides. But the management though remain ed présent al- though the workman side did not consider necessary to appear before this Tribunal for taking further steps in the matter of hearing of the instant référence. As such there is a reason to believe that the conceined workman is not interested to preceed with the case. Under the circumstances, a 'No dispute' Award is rendered and the référence is disposed of on the basis of 'No dispute' Award presuming non-existence of any industrial dispute between the parties presently.

PRESENT

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer Shri B- Biswas,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFRRENCE NO. 39 OF 1988

. PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of ¹ Sudamdih Shaft Mine of M/s. BCCL and their

workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalfof the workman : None

Onbehalfojf the employers : Shri B. Joshi,

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2002

Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 31 s). January, 2002

AWARD The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under

S.O. 875 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award"
[Nb. L-20012/148/96-IR (C-I)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXUPE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

DHANBAD

In the matter ef a référence under Sec. 10(l)(d) (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 127 OF 1997, Parties ;

Emt>l->yers in relation te the management cf P. B. Area of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Wcrkmen.

PRESENT :

Shri S. H. Kazmi,

Presiding Officer.

Appearances ;

Fer the Emol'-yers : Shri H. Nath, Advccate Fc r the Wv rkmen : Ne ne.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Ce al Dated, the 4th February, 2002

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/148/9MR (C-I) dated 26-6-97 the Central Government in ih* Ministrv if Labeur has, in exercise of the p^wers cenferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section QA) of I.D. Act, 1947. referred the foll^wing dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ;

"Whether the action rf the manpgeirent cf Balihari C-lliery rf M/s. PCCL in dismissirg the services cf Smt. Kunti Devi, wife cf late Karu Mahato after her appeintment in ternis cf NCWA-Il provisions is légal and justified ? If net, to what relief is the concerned werkman entitled ?"

2. This référence case was received in this Tribunal on 11-7-1997 and since th'în none is aooearing on behalf of the workman to take any step, despite notices being sent to the workman repeatedly for tiling written statement. It is>, thus, obvie us that the "nrkman does not want to pursue the matter any further. 604 Gi;2002—18

2609 3. In such circumstances, I render a 'No Dispute* Award in this référence case.

S. H. KAZMI, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 15th February, 2CC2 S.O. 876 —In pursuance cf Secticn 17 cf the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 cf 1947), the Centra] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No 14/1994) of the Central Gcvernment Industrial Tribunal-2, Dhanbad ne w as she wn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplc 3 en in relation to the management cf BCCL ard their wt rkman, which was received by the Central Gcvern- ment en 14-2-2002.

[ Ne. L-20O12/59/93-IR (C-I) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industriaî Dispute under Section 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE NO. 14 OF 1994 PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Bastacolla Area No. 9 of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri K Ghakravor ty

Advocate. On behalf of the employers : None.

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal, Dated, Dhanbad, the 3!st Janu ary, 200?
261OJTHE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9. 2002/ PHAtGUNA~ 1B, 1923 [PART H-Sse.--33M
AWARD

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exer- sise of the powers conferred on them under Section 100)(d) of the I.D Act 1947 ba<= referred the fol- lowing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/59/93-I.R. (Coal-I), dated the 20th December, 1993.

SCHEDULE

"Whether tbe deraand of the union for régu- larisation of Sbri fcesto Msndal as Sweep;h rotr?sn;ctive ef/ect ucde/ the mapage- ment of M/s B.C.C.L , Bastacolla Area No IX, PO Jharia Distt Dbanbad h justified ? If so, to whst relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman according to the W.S in br'ef is as follows :

Sweepefs. Jarradars to undertake the ccntract job of Sweeping and cleaning tbe Area office by engaging tbree Sweepers so that before the commencement of work tbe work could be over. Three persons namely, S/Shri Arun Harî. Bablu Harî and Kesto Hari sub- mitted their quotalions and the matter was decided and Shri Arun Hari wâs issued the work order for a period of three months from 1-1-92 to 31-1-92 and according-to the-schedule Sbri AruH Har" engaged tbree persons induding himself on part-time ba^is and used to complète ihe job within a period of 1 to 2 ho irs before the commercîment of work in the Area Office. The persons vh"> Weie engagéd by the contractor to carry on part-time Sweeping work were paid wages according to the comractual rate. Subsequently as irregularity wâs detected, the said contract was terminated and thereafter the mamge- ment did not engage any contractor on part-time basis. The management submitted that the concer- ned person was not directly engaged by the manage- ment. If he at ail worked with Shri Arun Hari on his contract job for a period of three months he can- not claim for régularisation undeT the management. He even has not received any wages from the company for working as part-time sweeper. Accordingly the management submitted that tbe claim of the concer- ned workman finds no baâis and foi* wbich he is noi entitbd to get any relief wbich he has prayed foi.

4. The points for décision in this référence* are :

The corcerned workman in bis W.S. submit- ted tbat he bad been working as Sweeper whidh was perrranent and prohibited nature of job at Bastacolla Area s"nce long under the direct coi trol and supervision of the management He slleged that thougb tbe management iirip'emented the Wage Board Rccommendation aîid NCW\ hâs ref used to give pay benefit to him according to tbe said recommendaiion. Acccrd"ng"y he tbrough the union raised an industriel dispute demanding régularisât on of hi" service according to the Wage Board lecommendation and NCWA before the ALC(C) Dhanbad which ultimately resuJted référence to tbjs Tribunal. The concer- ned workman accordingly bas prayed for an Award directing tbe management to regularse him "n the service and also to pay him Cat. I wages witb rétrospective efïect and a'so wîth al) back wages.

"Whether the demand of the union for régu- larisation of ShYi Kesto Mondai as Sweeper in Cat. I with rétrospective eftect under the manage- ment of M/s. BCCL Bastacolla Area No. IX, P.O. Jharia. Distt. Dhanbad is justified ? If so to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 3 The management on the contrary after fjUng

Decisio.i with reason"

WS curn-rajo'nder hâve denied ail th ch'ms and allégation which tbe concerned workmsn as erted in his W.S. The management submitted that there was no re'atiDnship of employer and employée exfsted in between the management and the concerned workman at any point of tiuî. The management subnitted that they had sufficient number of Sweepers on theif roll to carry on job at Bastacolla and for which there was no requirement for engaging the concerne person as S"veeper in Cat I. They submitied that during the end of 1991 it was felt that the S.veeping and cleaning job of ihe area office building Shoùld be done before the usual opeiîing hours of the" Area office for smooth running of the Administration and accrdingly they wanted to deploy threc Sweepers at a time for a per'od befoie the commencement of work in the Area Office through contractor. Accordingly the management itjvited ieateU tèwfers frorh théJocal

5. It is the spécifie claim of the coficerned work- man that he worked as Sweepei at Bastacolla Area foi a long period directly undei the control and supervision of the management. His specific allé- gation was that though he uorked as Swteper conti- nuousiy for a long period under the management, the management did not consider necessary to îegu- larise bis service ir Cat. I Sweeper. Even ihey refused to pay wages accordins o the Wa?e Board "ecommendatiom and NCWAs. On fhe contrary the managemeiit categofically denied the fact asserted by the conce?ned workman. The management sub- mitted that thë concerned wûrkman never work d under tbe management on any occasion excepfing on one occasion when three pait-time sweepers were appointed for cleaning Area Office Building before 2611

J^çw Delhi, the l$th .Febnja,ry, 2002

S 0. 877.-In puisua.nçe of Seciion 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Centra) Government hereby publishes the awaid (Réf. No. 33/1999) of the Central Governrnent Indvst fol Tribunal-cum-LC, Asansôl as shown in tbe Anne ur in the "Industiial Dispute between the employeis in relation to the management of ECL and their work- man, which was received by the Central Goveinn^ent on 15-02-2002.

[No. L-22O12/325/98-IR (C-II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officei

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, ASANSOL

Présent :

Shii Ramjee Pandey

Presiding Officer

Référence No. 33 of 1939

Parties :

palurband Collieiy of M/s. E.C. Ltd.

—Employer

Vs.

Shri Gandu Pradhan —Wprkirçan

Appeajances :

usual opening hours for tbe interest of administration and the said period was trom 1-1-92 to 31-3-92. Theieaftet as a dispute was raised they never engaged any such part-time Sweeper to carry on work at their area. The management further submitted that they never paid wages to the concerned .workman directly from their office. In view of the submission made by the management the onus absolutely restad on the concerned workman to show that he worked under the management as Sweeper continuously fqr a long period and inspite of bis wovking there for a such a long period the management refused to régularise his service as Cat. I Sweeper and .refused 10 pay wages accord ing to the Wage .Board Recooi- mendation and NCWA. It is seen from the record that inspite of giving several opportunités the con- cerned woikman did riot consider .necessary to appea,r before the Tiibunal in connection with.the instant référence case. He even did not consider necessary to submit his rejoinder in view of the W.S.-cum- rejoindei filed by the management. The attutude of tbe concerned workman if is taken into considejation it will expose clearly that he was not at ail interested to proceed with his own case. Just relying on the facts disclosed in the pleadings there is no scope to uphold the contention of the concerned workman because of the fact that facts disclosed in the W.S. cannot be considered as substantial pièce of évidence. The concerned workman has got ample opportunity to adduce évidence in support of his claim buthe did noi consider necessary to avail the same. Accord- ingly aftej careful considération of ail the facts and circumstances I hold that the concerned workman has failed to substantiate his claim lamentably and fer which he is not entitled to get relief as he prayed fc r. In the resuit, the following Award is reridered :

Foi the Employer .Shri P. K. Dt*,

Ad vocale

For the Workman Union Shri S. K. Çandey,

Chief Général Secretaj^, Koyaja Ma^door Congress "Tbe demand of the Union for régularisation of Shri Kesto Mondai as Sweeper in Cat. I with rétrospective efïect under the rqanagejnent of M/s. BCCL, Bastacolla Area No. IX. P.O Jharia, Distt. Dhanbad is not justifled. Consequently, the concerned woikman is not entitled to get any relief."

Industry : Coal State : West Ben^al B. jBJSWAS, Presidiçg Officer

Dated the llth Japuary,.j2OO2

AWARP

In exercise of powers confeired by tbe clause D of sub-section 1 apd sub-section 2(A) pf Section ^0 of the Indmtrial Dispute Act, 1947, Govt. pf India tbrough tbe Ministry pf Labour has referred ' the followjng disputes foi adjudicatiqn :

"Whetber the action of tbe management of Dalurband of Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Eastern -Coalfiêlds Ltd^ in dismissing Sh.
2612 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALOUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I - S E C. 3(ii)]
Gandu Pradhan, General Mazdoor, fiom service is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

During argument the Union did not challenge the fairness of domestic enquiry and hence presuming the fact that finding of enquiring Officer duiing domestic enquiry is correct, both the parties argued their cases on the point of quantum of punishment.

Shri Gandu Pradhan was General Mazdoor, employed in Dalmband Colliery, Pandaveshwar Area of M/s. Easiern Coalfields Limited. From the case of both the parties it is clear that he was dismissed from the service due to illégal absence from his duty from 21-01-94 to 18-07-94 without any information to the Management.

In view of above discussion it is clear that the finding of enquiring Officer regarding the absence of the woikman from duty is correct Now only question to be decided is as to whether the punish- ment of dismissal from service is justified, in propor- tion to the misconduct commitied by the workman.. In this regard Learned Lawyer for the management submitted that the workman remained absent with" out any justification and prior intimation to the management and hence he has been rightly dismissed from the service. But in principle he fairly admitted that dismissal from service is capital punishment for the worker.

The case of the management is that Shri Pradhan became absent from 21-01-94 and he did not inform the management about his absence. Hence charge of misconduct was framed against him by charge sheet No. DBC/CS/91/1826 dt. 25/28-07-94. A copy of the charge sheet was served to the workman and a domestic enquiry was staned in his présence in fair manner and charges levelled against him was found to be established duiing enquiry and on that basis he was dismissed from service vide letter No. 06 SF/ 11603 dated 08-01-95 by the compétent authority which was communicated by the agent. Further, case of the management is that Shri Pradhan filed Title Suit No. 21/95 in ihe Courtof Second Munshif Court, Asansol and obtained an order of injunction against the order of dismissal and in that view of the matler the order of dismissal was kept in abey- ance and Shri Pradhan was allowed to join his duties from 20-03-95. Ultimately Title Suit filed by Shri Pradhan was dismissed by the Court of Munsif, Asansol, by order dated 17-04-97 and consequently -an order df dismissal was reim'orced; Further case of the management is that the misconduct of work- man ha s been fully established during the domestic enquiry and hence the order of dismissal is légal and justified and the workman is not entitled to ge" any relief.

On the other hand Chief General Secretary of the Union submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the workman has committed such default earlier during his whole service per.od. He submitted that it was the first misconduct on the part of the workman and on the giound that he was il]. In this regard he pointed out the letter dated 05-09-94 signed on 03-09-94 and letter dated 14-12-94 signed on 12-12-94 issued by the agent of the colliery to the management. A photo copy of both the lettets hâve been filed by both the parties and hence the letters are admitted by the parties. The Chief General Secretary submitted that even the agent has recom- mended twice by those letters for permitting the w^rkman to join the service and to punish him by stoppage of one annual incrément. Learned Lawyer for the management did not deny the existence of tbose letters. In view of the above ci cumstances it was submitted on behaif of the werkman that the order of dismissal is very hard for the workman and it is too severe to the proportion of misconduct

From perusal of the record it is clear tbat it has been p'eaded by the workman that he became absent frem 21-01-94 to 18-07-94 due to his illness and this plea was takea by h"m during the domestic enquiry also, but there is no finding by the enquiry Officer that the plea of illness taken by the, workman was false. And hence there wUl be naturaJ inference that the workman became absent due to his illness. Only fault on the part of workman is tbat during the whole period of h"s absence he did not inform the manage- ment and for this nature of fault the punishment of dismissal from service is uDcalJed for and it is too severe.

On the other hand tbe case of workman is that Shri Pradhan fell il! from 21-01-94 and had to remain under treatment ti!l his recovery. After recovery he reported for duty to the management on 19-07-94, but he was not permitted to join and he was served with a copy of charge sheet. It is admitted fact that on the order of. injunction granted by the Learned Court of Murjshîf, Shri Pradban was permitted to résume his duties w.e.f. 21-0.1-95 and continued his working t"Jl 07-05-97 and ultimately the suit was dismissed by the Learned Court of Munshif in the default of appean.nce of plaintiff. It is further stated that the issue was amicably sett.'ed and in this light of the matter the Union did not like to pursue the matter in the Court and due to this fact the Suit was dismissed and after dismissal of the Suit, the management served with a copy of dismissal to th e worknm. It h furthsr stated ihat ordst of dismissal is not >-•ustifjed and punishment is too severe.

I perused tbe photo copy of letters of agent of the colliery, one dated 05-09-94 and the other dated 14-12-94 in which considering the natu e of mis- conduct. the a sent has recommended to permit the workman to join bis duties and bas recommended the punishment of stoppage of one annual incrément. It is also clear from the record and admitted by the parties that during the pendency of TitleSuit in ihe Court of Munshif the workman was permitted to join hî s duties on 20-03-95 andhe continued to serve the management til) the year 1997. It is aîso admit- ted that during whole period of his service it was the first misconduct on the partof workman and hence in my opinion also the punishment of dismissal is not justified and according.'y the order of dismissa! of the workman from the service is hereby set aside. The management is directed to permit the workman to join his duties with back wages and the workman will be punished by stoppage of one annual incrément. Accordingly, in the above manner, the Award is passed.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 18th Fcbruary, 2002 S.O. 878.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes Ihe award (Réf. No. 81/2000) of the Central Government Ir.
[No. L-22012/44/2000-IR-(C-II)] N.P. KESAVAN, Dosk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL Présent : Shri Ramjee Pandey,

Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NUMBER 81 OF 2000 Parties Kumardih 'A' Colliery of M/s.

E.C. Ltd. through its Agent.

Employer

2613 Vrs.

1. Shn K.D. BErerjce,

2. Shri D. Banerjee Workers through Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union.

Appearances : For the management : Shri P.K. Das, Advocate For the workman

(Union) : None

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal Dated 23rd January, 2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by the clause (d) of sub-section(l) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Govt.of India through the Ministry of Labour has referred the following disputes for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Kumardih 'A' Colliery of M/s. E.C. Ltd. in not giving notional Seniority to Sh. K. D. Banerjee and Sh. D. Banerjee in clérical grade I from 18-12-92 is légal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman are entitled ?"

After receipt of référence summons were issued to the parties by registered post. In pursuance of the summon management has appjared through Shri P.K. Das, Advocate. Despite service of summon none appeared on bohalf of the Union (Workman).

Shri P.K. Das, Advocate, produced a "Mémo- randum of Seulement" in form H in seven copies duty signed by the authority of management and Shri C.S. Banerjee Jt. General Secretary of the Union, which indicates that parties hâve amicably settled th" dispute. According to the seulement by the parties Shri K.D. Banerjee and Shri Dipak Banerjee, both the clerks, shall bc given notional seniority in Clérical Grade-I from 18-12-92 which shall not attract any re-fixation in their respective grade.

Despite service of summons none appeared phy- sically on behalfof the Union which also indicates that now the Union has got no dispute. Shri P . K. Das, Advocate, appearing for the management has produced the "Mémorandum of Seulement" and he certified that Shri C.S. Banerjee Jt. General Secretary of the Union has signed the mémorandum of seulement and his signature is genuine.

Hence, let a seulement Award be passed. The "Mamorandum of Seulement" will form part and parcel of the Award.

RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer2614 THE GAZETTE OF 1MDJA :MA"CH 9, -20"W PHAtGtîNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. TS)] New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 879.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 15 /2001) of the Central Government Industral Tribunal-cumrLC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-II)]

N.P. KESAVAN Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent

Shri E. ISMAIL

Presiding Officer

Dated 31st December, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D.

No. 152 of 2001

(ID No. 86/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad)

Between :

Sri R. Subhash C/o F.C.I. MRM Miryalaguda-508207. —Petitioner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporaion of lndia, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad,

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of lndia, Nalgonda District —Respondents Appearances :

For the Petitioner: M/s G. Ravi Mohan For the Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case 1 .D. No. 86/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of lndia, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-11026/1/ 2001-IR(C-I!) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 152/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court cf Andhia Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of lndia and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of lndia, estab- lished MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the petitioner was engaged as contract wofker in • the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the .petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of lndia Nàlgônda District. He worked from Jan. 1977 to 4th Dec. 1978. The petitioner was drrectly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked .contipuously for the above said period with- out any break in service.. The services of the peti- tioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of lndia. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan. 1977 till December, 1978 instead of.absorbing the peti- tioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of ,-employment. Hence. the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and un- just.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the AI.C(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and the Gover- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard àlscr thè petitioner mado scveral représenta- tions to ÀLC(C) to send ths dispute to the Govern- ment. However ho action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute wavraised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen, Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue ofl sim;lar grounds. The petitioner rs one among those- 250 workmen-. And the petitioner's prayer i* same as that of the otner workmen. - - 4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy file'd WP No. 9008/92 that prior to fîlïng of the WP the Central Govt. passe'd an order da'ted" 13-5-199 J rejecting thé petiticner's claim on the groiind that there îs no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in vîew and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chînnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation oflndia and two 'others reperted m 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the thfee pefifiôners to approâch the Hon'ble Labour Court UfRtef Sec. 2A{") ôf the I.D. Act. Hence, thé petf- tioner is aiso constrainted to approâch the Hon'ble Court alofig" for rïeces'sry relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 wîthoutany break in service the petitif ner repeated that efter extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the pro- visions of principles of naturaî justice. The Res- pondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the T.D, Act. It is submitted that the petitioner ïs the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workeTS who are juniors to the pstitionerin service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The pstitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become diffi- ult far hin to eak out his livelihood and maintenance

*6Î* of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may by pleased to set asîde thé oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondeni and cotisequently direct the respondent to reinstate the .petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter' stating that the petkioner is not maintainable under thé I.D. Act neither on îaw nor on facts. The petk tioner again approached the Labour Court* under See. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an a'mendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an* employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Ri<2e' Mill at Miryàlaguda was establisfted in the yeanr 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missionerf with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submjtted that the respondent used to award H & Tjcontract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the food grains at Modrn R'ce M"pondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the pétitionsr as he was nev?r engag- ed as ca°ii?l k b iw at any point of tinv. Thorrfbre, the all^gptior that he WF.S cpgefrd a" rr'-xxl kbcar by thr FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and doried.

IL Union nised an irdiïstrial dFpufc in con- n^-ctiôn with 256 worker prH the p •litioner was one amorg fhrm. The ALC(C) n.bmittcd his n^port to the Mirisfry of L.'bciv. Gcvnrm'nt cf )i dif on 13-5-1996. The Goverrnurt of Ird;a bv leiter tcd 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 convcyçd its dotàsion that2616 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 PART tt—SEC: 3(8)1 the dispute is not fit for référence to the Ind-wtria

Trbi'.r.f.l on the gro\ird that there is no material shewing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the p^titioner and tho Répondent. Petitiorer has not chosen to question the above dreision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah J. Vnera'Wrmy and V. Venkateshwarlu filed a WP Np. 9008/92 seeking di-ections when the WP was prvlhç, GovTnrmnt of Hdia p ^ ed an ord^r dated 7-4-1993 rf!J-"ting their clf.im which reads as thus, "The worknrm has failnd to p-odu.ee any docu- mentary évidence to p^ovo that he had worknd for a p irid of 240 days or more d'ring the p^iod of 12 months preceiing the date of alleged disengagement of his service by the management. He was alco failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate d^lay of more than 9 years in raising the dkpute. Therfore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refor the above dispute for adjudica'.ion." Th" Hon'blc High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 p^rmitted the patitioner to apptoach appiop"iats forum. Hence, tho petitioner also has approachod this forum.

13. The pftH'onai wâs nevei engaged and was nevn employed by the corpoiation, henœ: there is no questior of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitionor has approached the Hon'ble Court affer a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapées. Hence, the pétition may be dismissod.

period from 2-2-1977 to 2-12-1977 issued by the Asst. Manager (Depot) Mr. Ratna Swamy. The origi- nal service certificate was suubmHted to the RLC(C), Hvdtrabad Ex. W5 is the attendance register m"in- tained bv the F CI. He could eet the conv nf this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. t'ur- ine the conciliation perod. Durin*' tVie sa'd n^rïod the Depot Mara.çer was ont Hr. Sn'nivasa Rao. The maragement produced the relevant rec^H ^uch as atten^ance register. navtnent rtgister etc.. durina the conciliation oeriod. In the cross exainmation he de- posed that the resnondent corporation is a central govtrnmeit corporation;. He has n^t fii^d anv rfnrn- mert before the Churt showin? that he wnrVert for two years from Jamuary, 77 conf'nuuously under the resoondent. He den'ed thatthert is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the cornorafion. It is true that he filed the prtsent case af'er 20 v*ars. He has not filed any représentation or letter adores- sed to the Rf"pendent Corporatior allegine thft fhey worked in F.C.Ï. and they were termina^ed from service at anv point of time dur'ng the period from 1977 onwards. He dtnied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file aiy documer/t showing that he received any amount from the corporatior. After 1978, he worked undtr the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejec- ted the référence on the ground that the dûpue raised by the union was belated. And thre is no relationship of employer and employée. That urion has not filed any WP against the sa;d proceedings of ALC(C). He den'ed that Ex. W5 is forged and crea- ted. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W5 before the RLC(C).

14. Sri R. Subhash examined himself as WW1 and d^poscd facts statcd in the pétition in the chief examination and addod that he was sup^rvising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Mirya- laguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years.. The res- pondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No f.ppointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation subnvtted attend- ance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar dunng conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah. ob- tained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subroqufiP.tly thoir services were convortéd as if they were working with the contractors. Nô notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of con- tractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex.Wl datcd 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicablo KcttHnent. Matter was refor"ed to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3, Ex. W4 is the Xerox copy- of Service certificate for the.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Mana- ger at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to award H & T work to private contractors by callirg tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H"&T contract. The contracter was beLig paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work donc by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engage- ment of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supeivised or controlled by any of the offi- ciais of the F.C.I, The contractor used to get the wokr done as desired by them. Duriag the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayara Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employée by the ssid 2617

a>ain working ti.'l 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.I., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Res- pondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among tliose 250 workmen, That the petitioner was looking ai ter stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 ailmitted in the cross examination he has not filed aiy licence of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further h3 is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with a 11 back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Soc, 25F was not compl'ed with, the termination was therefore bad. He al so relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held îhat petitioner was appointed on tenure basis given artificiel breaks. Pîtitioner's services terminated refusing renewal a îd another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sections 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to efïect automatic terminaion of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be re- instated.

contracter. Therc is no prictice of engaging casual labour for H &T works in F.Cf. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.CI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H & T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The-petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex.M2 is the copy of the minutes of concilia- tion proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex.M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Go- vernment of India expressing that the industrial dis- pute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or morez This order has not been question- ed in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AH the other works were cairied through contractor. They hâve not filed any licence before this Court. He is not the con- cerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are emp- loyed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said période It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In tbe said référence petitioner is one such, That S/Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorredt that copy oî Order in WP No. 9008/92 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. Thaï: it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H & T contract to private contractors for hand- ling and transporting of foodgrains. The contrac- tors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain zerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is along period. And that there is no relationship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the peti- tioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He erlied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT 16. It is ar.gued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Atft. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceed- ings. Ex.W2 is also served to the said ëffect. Ex.W3 is the faiJure report of the ALC(C). Ex.W5 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are tbe helpers and sweepers tbat is for the month from October, 77 to Januaiy, 78. Hence, in view of aîl this voJumfinous évidences the mère . fact that thèse helpess ilJiterate persorjs who were 604 GI/2002—192618 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [FART II—SEC. 3(ji)] page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satis- factorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position *o hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 vherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein Their Lord- ships held dispensing with services of persOns engagôd on daily wages in a Government départaient theiefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after completion of work hâve no right 10 post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée con- tractors of Singareni Colliries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absoibed as badli fillers of the company without their narntes being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Govern- ment to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and 10 revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Govern- ment has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR(67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Deprives them remedy avail- able to them in law Loses- their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the peti- tioners even if they had any right. and if it is adniitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner 1o appronch the Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to

clarify one position that this is Central Govt. In- dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amend- ment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. How- ever, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therfore direct applications can be enter- tained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that,they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which show daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. Anxl those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continuée! to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. There" fore they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the si- tuation? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limita- tion is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisableto direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve re- ferred to 2000(l)LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on •Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 wherein Their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen Their Lordships held four years detey is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 Their Lordships he%i that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages ia a goveramental department is not a retrenchment. That their distnissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate mapked in L.CLD.No. 164/300.1 sfeates that the petitiioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the others are Xerox copies witho ut filmg'the original and in wnié 4 or 5 cases J. Veera- swamy's - certificatè is filed although he himself did not file his service certificatè.

2619 Dictated to Kum K. Phanî Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL. Presidins Office!

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri R. Subhash MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex.Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93 Lr. Of ALC(C)dt. 9-5-94

19. In conclusion, petîtioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificatè is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-IU) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble Hîgh Court etc. wbuld be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under' différent contrac'tors and more over they say that they worked tîîï 1984 under various contràctors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of théir services for which agâin they were removed by contràctors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse per- sons did work for F.C.I. although under various contràctors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contràctors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondeni which shows that they were contràctors during the relevant period'. No dôubt, there is delay but not often years. Because, they continued workmg under sottie contracter or other till 1984 andthey approach- ed the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Supfeme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ *ay person as casual labour wfao is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wagestakinghisseniorityas employée of January 1977 either at'Miryalaguda or at'Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this awârd.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the "tien Cknirt.- Transmit

Ex.W2:

Ex.W3: Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3

Copy of the service certificatè dt. 10-12-77 Ex.W4:

Ex.W5: Copy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.Ml: Copy of the tender and the contract dt 1-3-74

Ex.M2: Copy of the minutés of conciliation proceed- ings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C) Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitra- tion Award dt. 25-1-89

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S. O. 880 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 153/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hydera- bad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the ©mployers in relation to the2620 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-ll)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent

Shri E. ISMA1L

Presiding Officer

Dated the 31st December, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 165 of

2001

(ID No. 87/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III Hyderabad)

Between :

Sri V. Venkateshwarlu C/o. F.C.T.,

MRM Miryalaguda-508207. ..Petitioner AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. ..Respondents.

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : M/s G. Ravi Mohan For the Respondent : M/s B. G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 8 7/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-l 1026/1/ 2001-IR(C-Il) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 153/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, estab- lished MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 cairying on Milling Opérations. Initial!y the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namcly, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period with- out any break in service. The services of the peti- tioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner Ttas been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with eifect from Jan' 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the peti- tioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore. petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and un- just.

3. The petitioner field a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and the Govern- ment in tu m could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représenta- tions to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reporîed in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the peti- tioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform ; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contracter on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner withcut complying with the pro- visions of principles ôf natural justice. The Res- pondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence thesaid action amounts to violation of provision Under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the sen ior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Responden} to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal germination it has become diffi- cult for him to eak out his livelihpod and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court ma y be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wage s and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent, filed a common counter stating that the petitioner is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The peti- tioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as ît is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

2621 10. Mcc'cin Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and conamissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modeto Rice mills es- tablished ail over the country. Iaitially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casua workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling ( ajid transporting of the food grains at Modem'Rico Mil!, Miryalaguda . and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as por the scheditlcri rates fixed under the H & T contract depenûing on the work donc by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many posons should bz engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with thosc matters. The corporation never controlled or super- vised the work done by the contract labour. The potitioner might be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11- 1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engag- ed as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an indi'.ctrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministiy of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter datcd 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industiial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that theu was relationship of employci and employée between the petitionei and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted thaï S/Sri N. Anjriah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Von.kateshwarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 -eeking di.vciions wher the WP was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus "The workmen has failed lo produce any doev.- mentary évidence vo prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of allegud disengacment of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therfore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute. for adjudication."2622 THE GAZETTE OF TNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002; PHALGtJNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] The Horfbie High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 pfcrMttect thf^peticiojtër to "ppfoach appropriait; forum. H"nB6$-thfo' petrtibner also has approaehed this Foî'ùM.

13. The pafitiôner was never engaged and was never errfptoyed by the corporation; hence there is not question of vioiation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petittoncr has approached the Hon'ble Court aftcr a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the groiïnd of delay ari'â lapses. Hence, the pétition rnay be dismissed.

used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amoùht from the corporation. Aftef 1978, hè wtrrked umV-r the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanaïayana. Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cheriapally¹ Ram Murthy etc. It is tfue that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence* on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not fited any WP against the said proceed- ings of ALC(C). He denisd that Ex.W4 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex.W4fbefofe the RLC(C).

14. Sri V. Venkatcshwarlu examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in thé pétition in the chief examination and added that hé was supurvising the stocks f;om rnr.ects by e.pplyin.g pesticides. Akmg with hira theie wero 30 ic 50 casual'werke/s sX Miry- alaguda. That lie used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two yeârs. The res- pondent used to maintàin at
15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechatiical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 lie worked as Asst. Manager at Miryala- guda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to award H & T work to private con- tractors by calling tenders. The contracter useU to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the Works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contractor was being paîd as perthe scheduled rates fixed for H & T contracts depending on the Work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do With the engagement of labourers and work done by the la- bourers was not supervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contracter used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the cantract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Coopérative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioiier was emplbyed by the said contractor. There is no practice of'engaging casual labour foi H (feT'Wôi'ks in F.C.I He never worked during January, 77 to Decembor, 78 as casual tabou: under F,CI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the coijtràCî dsted 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Wotfcers Coopérative Soeiety for H & T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who rai sed irjdusîriaJ dispute. ALC(C) submiîted a failure report Ex.M2 "s the copy of the minutes of concilia- tion /preceedings he'd on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C) Bx.M3 is Ihe'letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the "Go- vernment of India expressing that the industijal dis- putis not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.Ï nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been question- ed in the High Court by the cofleerned workman. Ex. W4 was not maintained by the F.CL In the cross examination he deposed that he-used'to'look after the mai nteriance and rôpairs of themachinery at MRM unit for handîing and transport used to engage a contracter, AH the othet works were carried tBrough contraclor. They'hâve not filed -i&23

page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis given artifleia! breaks. Petitioner's services terrai nated refusing renewa! and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He aîso relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termination of service. Therefore piays the petitioner to be re- instated.

any license before this Court. He is not the con- cerned man to appoint a "ontracior. They did not maintain any register of tbe workers who are emp- loyed by the contracter. Work re'ating to the dépôt was beiog looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager, He denied thaï those contractors were not there during the said period. It.js true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Veakateshwarlu, N, Anjaiah and J. Veera Swarqy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It js incorrect,that eopy of Order in WP No. 9008/92 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is enthled for any relief.

16. It is argued by.thè Leamed Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has .been made to run frorh pillar to post. The petjtioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from Jahuary, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under.one,or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9Â of the LD. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceed- ings. ExW2 is also seryed to the Said effect. Ex.W3 is the fajlure report of the ALC(C). EX.W4 is the Xero,x copy.of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month^romOctober, 77 to Jamiary, 78. Hen;ce, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless' illiterate persons who were again.woïkjng till 1984 under contractors after having worked withrthe F,C,I., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute bèlatedfy. They were working directly under the control of second Hes- ponâent. Hewever the said dispute was raised >by more than 250 w
17. The respondent Counsel ar£"çd that peti- tiower.never worked iniF.CI. at any .-point-of time. That ithas corne in the<"vi4ence thatfF.C.I. used to awàrdH <& T contrait to privflte£oatsaetors>for hand- ling and traosporting offood grains. The .contrac- tors used to bring their labour rfor the purpose of doing the works undertàken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the WQrk of the labour of the contractor that there was twô différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledgewhether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioaer is trying to projeet hiittseif as tasu?rlabour with fcerçiin xeroi papers wbich havê no value in *the àbsestte of originals The presect case is filed in the >.year r998 after a lapse of 22 years w'hichis a locg priod. A"d that there is no relatiouship of employé* aud emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appoiiW©^ there j s no question of disrflissmg. 'Heace, the peti- tioner is Bot.ectitled for aoy relief vfhiî so-ever^ He reîied OG .thé following Judgemecîs. 1992 2 fttJI page 171 wherein it washèldfaîlure to -eïpteia saibr factorily that origicai document was lost or lhat k is not in a position to hâve tbe- sa"". Coait rejecting ^permission to filë;Xerox copy of •doo"njebt as secondary evideiîce jus'fïfied. Hê also reJkd <ôo 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it washeW deily w a^ employées cafinot clsim regalar emptoy^Beat, thkit disenga-gemect from service cannot 'be cons!r"od as violation of "Sec. 25F. He aj's" ïeî.*ed -on (*®èîl) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wheirem tbeir l o r d- shi.ps held dispensiug with services of persoas "ngaged on .dai 1y,wages in a government departroent-ïheîaloSe is .cot a retrench ment. FuTther, hëld that right %o pqsti'ngs is ,not available. Fxrrfher *beîâ that -daBy wagers disengage,raent after completion of wôA hâve no "ight to post. Their Lordshrps further 4*&]d that concept of retrenchment caîift&t be stpetched to such an extent as to cover Thèse errtployaefc Sinee the petitioners are only daiîy wa:ge 'errrpîei5NKfs -a"â had no right to the posts. He also TeïfeU on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was 'held th"t cOR&agt labour working ajs jHarrfafi ^Ettfpteyee con- tractors of Singareni Cdlïi"e"fres Cô. Ltd., Hrrêy-tut 4iot2624 . THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 |?ART ^I-SEC-JUM entitled to be absorbed as badli fiUers of the company witbout their names being sponsored by employaient exchange, So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Loidships held Law does not prescribe any time lirait for the appropriate Govern- ment to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matteis which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a .rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the central govern- ment has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR(67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Deprives them remedy avail- able to them in law Loses- their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the peti- tioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

fore they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xtrox copies of the service certificates produced in so many car-es are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? H has come in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limita- tion is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of ireascnableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kep quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve re- ferred to 2000(1 )LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the dealy of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 where in their Lordships held that where there was wholesaie discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental department is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the others are Xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veera swamy's certificate is filedal though he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-iri) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse per- sons did work- for F.C.I. although under various 18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Decembej, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. In- dustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amend- ment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. How- ever. as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be enter- tained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which show daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of Octobre '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certifkates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. There- coitractors but th? o^titiontr hws failed to prove by any sati"frrtory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, thev continued working under some contracter or other tiil 1984 and they approach- ed the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casuaî labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 3!st day of Dscember, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri V. Veakatesh- MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama warlu Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex.Wl : Consiiiation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93 Ex.W2: Lr. Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94

Ex.W3: Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3

Ex.W4: Cooy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI

Docmentns marked for the Respondent 604 GI|2002—20.

2625 Ex. Ml: Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74

Ex.M2: Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceed- ings dt 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C) Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt.cf India, Min. of Labou; Dt. 17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitra- tion Award dt. 25-1-89

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S. O. 88!.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 154/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hydera- bad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002"

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRI/L TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent

Shri E. ISMAIL

Presiding Officer

Dated the 31st December, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 165 of

2001

(ID No. 88/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III,

Hyderabad)2626 THE GAZETTE. OF ÎND/A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(H)1 Bétween :

Sri K. Venkanna. C/o. F.C.I., MRM Miryalaguda-508207. ..Petitioner

AND

to remove the petitioner from service. Therefofe, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, tbe action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect fjom 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal arbitrary and unjust.

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food . Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. .. Respondents.

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : M/s G. Ravi Mohan For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC
This case I.D. No. 88/98 is transferred from Labour Court III. Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's O?der No. H- 11026/1/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 154/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswaralu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and emp- loyée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri TJ Chinnappa and M/s. Cotfon Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the ihree pel't'oners to approsch fhe Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the LD. Act. Hecce. the petitioner is also constrained to approsch the Hon'ble Court alcng for necessaiy relief.

5. Rctreat.'Eg that he worked from January, '77 to December, '78 with R2 without any break in service tbe petitioner repsated that afîei extrecting woïk from petitioner as casual labour p'aced b.
2. Brief avermeuts of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, estabîisbed MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respon- dent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Thezeîore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan.' 1977 to 4th Decs 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked conti- nuousiy for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were termi- nated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal terminafion petitioner hs-s been making repré- sentations to the Respondent Corporation, Ulti- roately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of bis tenure as casual labour with efïect from Jan., 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Raspondent intentionally instructed the contractor

6. The Respondent 's a mode! employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve xerminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- sions of principles of natural just'ce. The Respon- dent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence, the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The pet'tioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oraJ représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respcndent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the famiJy and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his liveJihood acd main- tenance of family. The petitioner has not fi.'ed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed tbst this Court may be pîeased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respcndent and consequently direct the respcndent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such otber orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that ihe pétition is not ma'ntainable under the I.D. Act neither on law noî on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment The petitionef neve? worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Mjdern Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and ccmmissicned frcm 28-5-1971. It is cne of the Mcdern Rice Mills esta-" blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number cf casual workers and subsequently Parbciled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength cf casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private ccntiactcrs fer handling and transperting cf the feedgrains at Modéra Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the feod storage dépôt at Miryalaguda en tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the werk done by him. It was his respensibility as to who should be engaged and hcw many persens shculd bs engaged for his work. The FCI has nething to do with those matters. The corporation never cen- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those centract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. was the contracter from 22-4-1974 to

2627 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the peried from 12-11-1997 to 11-11-1979. The Respcndent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitiener as he was never engaged as casual labeur at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that be was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitiener was one amongthem. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government cf India en 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and he Respondent. Peti- tioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Government of India passed an crder dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to preduce any decumen- tary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the peried of 12 months preceding the date cf alleged disengage- ment cf his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons fer the inerdi- nate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute fer adjudicatien." The Hcn'ble High C.urt of A.p. in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to appre ach appre priate fc rum. Hence, the petitioner also has appreached this ferum.

13. The petitionef was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even etheiwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Ce"rt after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on .the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri K. Venkanna examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Alcng- with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continueusly fer two years The respondent used to maintain attendance registei and wages register and he used to sign on the registgrs. No appointment letters were issued. They were2628 THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDÏA : MARCH 9, 2.002/ PHALGUNA 18 1923 ïT-\nr T T - S K. V "M paid m.nthly wages. The corpcratkn submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-1I at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Stxretary Mr. Arijaiah, cbtained the attendance register fn.m ALQQ-H subiequently their services were ccnverted as if they were w,.rking with the contracte rs. Ne nctice was served at the time of changing to the feld ef cent- ract_rs. They w.rked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularizatk n cf their services for which they were ail terminated frvm services. The unLn raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 cf ALC (C) that there is no amicable settlement. Mat.e; was referred to the Central G^vt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the.service certificate issuea by the Asstt. Manager (Depc t.) dt. 10-12-77. The petitk ner dep~ sed that he w^ rked as a daily rated casual helper.tw that effect he has predveed an crigir.al tf certificate marked as Ex. W4 wheiein it is stated that the petitiener werked £.s a daily rated casual labeur for the peried frem 12-1-77 to 10-12-77. Ex. W5 is the attendance register maintained by the FCI. He could get the cepy cf this frem the RLC^C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation periud. During the said perkd the Depct Manager was cne Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management pjxduced the relevant recerd such as attendance legister, payment register, etc., during the ccncilia- tion pe,. L d. In the cre ss-examinatk n he depc sed that the resp^ndent cerperatkn is a Central Gcvern- ment Ctpcratien. He has net filed any decument before the C.urt sh. wing that he werked fer two years frem January, 1977 continue usly under the res- pendent. He denied lhat there is no practice cf engaging casual lab. urers directly by the ce rpe iatkn. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any representâtie n c r letter addressed to the Respcndent C.rperatkn allegirg that they werked in FCI and they were terminated frem service at any p. int cf time during the perkd from 1977 cnwards. He denied that cnly ccntiacUrs used to pay him. He admitted that he did ne t file any document shewing that he received any ameunt frem the C.rperatkn. After 1978, he werked under the contracters namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Kcnduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and cenciliatkn officer rejected the ieference en the grcurid that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relatie nship c f emple yer and emplc yee. That union has not filed any W.P. against the said precee- dings cf ALG(C). He denied that Ex. W5 is ferged and created. That, they themselves filed original of Ex. W5 before the RLC(C).

to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryala - guda M^ dtrn Ricc M'ill. The Régienal Cfiice cf the FCl used to award H&T w.rk to privaie contr?ctt.rs by calling tenders. The contracter used to brirg labourers Lr the purpose cf deing the weiks under- taken by him under H&T cotUrrct. The ccntractor was being paiu as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T c^ntracts depending en the wcrk de ne by him. FCI has nething to do with the engagement cf labo- urers and work done by the labeuieis was ne t super- vised er centre lied by any cf the officiais of the FCI. The contractor u=ed to gtt the woik de ne ss desired by them. Dunng the peiicû fiom 22-<-74 to 14-5-77 the contact was given to A.?. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyduabaa ai. a ficm 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Saty*- narayana Reddy. He cannot say whether the peti- tkner was erapkyed by the said contiactt. r. There is no practice cf engagmg casual labeur er f^r H&T werks in FCl. He never werked ounr.g Ja; vaiy, 1977 to Decembeir, 1978 as casual lc.beui ia.cei ICI. Ex. Ml is the Copy of the tender and the ccnti^ct dattd 1-3-1974 where in the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Werkers Co-eperative Society f>. r H&T w^rks at M RM, Miryalaguda. The petitiener vras one cf the 256 Werkers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliatkn pr^ceedirgs held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(Ç). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Gcvernment cf India expressi.'g that the industrial dispute is net fit Lr référence. As no ne cf the labc urers were engaged directly by FCI ncr they w^rked fer 240 days or mère. This order has net been questkned in the High Court by the concerned w^rkman. Ex. W5 was not maintained by the FCI. In the cre ss- examinatk n he deposed that he used to k ek after the maintenance and repairs cf the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transpeit used to engage a contracter. Ail the othtr wciks were carried through contracter. They hâve not filed any license before this Ceurt. He is net the c<.n- cerned man to appeint a contractor. They did net maintain any regkter ef the werkers whc are e np- leyed by the c^ntractor. Work rtlatkg to the dépôt was being lLoked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that thèse con- tractors were net there during the said peried. It is true that ail thèse workrnen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has n Jt atterided the coa- ciliatkn pr^ceedings. In the said référence peti- tiener is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkates varlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swa ny filed a Writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed befere the RLC(C).He denied that he is entitlea fer any relief.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, M^ûnanical at the District Office of the FCI, Vijaya- Wàda deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 2629. 16. It is argued by the Leamed Ccunseî fer the petitLner that this is a case w.iere this petitiener has bsen made to run from pillar to posî. The peti- ti^ner has put in almv&t 2 years continue us service with the corporation fr^m January, 77 to 4th Decem- ber, 78. That consiantly they baye been put under one or an&ther contracter witheut giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A cf the I.D. Act. INL notice cf termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is adressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) aKut et nciliatic n pre ceedings. Ex. W2 is als^ served t. the said effect. JEx. W3 is the failure repe rt c f the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the Xerc x et py c f the attendance register, which sh ws that, the.y are the helpers and sweepers that is fer,the menth frem October, 77 to January 78. Hence, in view cf ail this Ve-lumincus évidences the mère fect that thèse helpless illiterate perse ns who were again werking till 1984 under contracters after having worked with the FCI, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They. were werking directly under the contre 1 cf second Respcndent. However the said dispute was raised by mere tban 250 w^rkmen, Ihî petitLner was among these 250 wû.knen. That the petitioner was. looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admit- ted in the cross-examinatien he has net fijed any license of the contracter and that it is true that ail these w^rkmeh who worked in dépôt and ether centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitiener is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitiener relied en a Judge- ment in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hcn'ble A.?. High Court wherein the petitioner was appe inted by the orders of the High Court. He also relied en 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the peti- tioner did complète mere than 240 days ef service, that Sec. 25F was net co nplied wilh, the terminatie n was thereLre bad. He also reljed on 1996 (3) ALD page 9i;5 wherein it was held that petitiener was appe inted on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminasd rtfusing leritwaîand another perse n appe inted. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection urder Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Supremt Court Cases, page 61, where it was held that the absentée w^rkman was required to je in duty by a spécifie date but when attempted tJ pin duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic terminatie n ef service. Thîrefore prays the pstitioner to be reinstated.

That it has corne in the évidence that FCI used to award H&T contract to private contracte is for hand- ling and transporting o f f. e dgrains The ccntiack rs used to bring their labeur fer the purpese ef dting the works undertaken by the centractor The cor- poration never contre lied cr supervise the wcik ef the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contracte rs during the said peried. The FCI has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contracter. The petitiener is trying te pr ject himself as casual labt ur with ceilain xerex papers which hâve no value in the absence ef originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse cf 22 years which is a long peried. And that there is no relatienship cf emplcyer and employée. When the respcndent has net appe inkd there is no question cf dismissing. • Hence, the peti- tioner is net entitled fer any relief whatscever. He relied on the fUlcwing Judgermnts. 1ÇÇ2 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the sam?. Court rejocting permission to filj Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence jurtifiod. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wago employées cannot claim'rcgiJar cmploymonJ., their disengagement from se/vice cannot bj cons- tru^d as violation of Soc. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Siip-em: Covrt Cases page 391 wherein their Lordôhip; hcîd dbpênsing with services of p Tions engaged on daily wages in a govcrnmont departmont therefore is not a rotrer.chm.nt. Fv. -thor, held that right to p^stings is not availablc. Fu ther held that daily wagers diac'ngag^m^nt after compie- tioa of work hâve no right to past. Th^ir Lordship^ furcher held that concept of retrer.chimnt cannot bo strotched to such an extent as to covo? thc:;.e crv- loy^-es. Sinc3 tho p :titioncrs arc only daily wago- employées and hait no right to thi p?sts. Hc aîso relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division B :neh it was held that contrat k.b:n;r working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Cjîl'c.ies Co. Ltd., they are not cntitl'd to ta £b;orb:d as b:.dli fillers of the compiny wlthou." thoir naims bjing sp^nsored by cmploymait exchango. So futhor held such workm;n employé through a contracter does not b^com; employées of tho compriy. He aho îvlied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wher in the L)rdship; held Law does not prescrite a:.,y time l;mit for the app op ïate Gov^r.iment to exercise it". powjrs uad ;r Sx'. 10 of the Act. It is not that this pow^r ca:i b) exrrciscd at any point of time and to revive mr.ttors which had sinec b xrn scttled. Power is to b; exercised rcasonably and not in a rational manner. There app^ars to us to bî no rational basis on which the Central Government has exerc-ised powers in this case afeer kpse of about 7- years of 17. The tëspondënt Cdunsél argued that peti- tbîtsr mv.it \v_>r.£3i ia'FCl at aay point of time.
2630 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ordor dismissing tho respandcnt from service. Hc also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was hold : lr.p'jc of over 15 ycars in e.pproaching the Cov.'t—D:pïv.-s them renrrdy avr.ik.blc to them in law—Loscs their rights as woll. So hc submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the p ;titioncrs even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sakc the right is lost by efflux of tirae.

Their Lordrhips rcfurcd to cor.ciorc tho detey of 7 years. Hc also relicd on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workracn SCLF 1950—83 page 157—64 whercin their Lordships hcld that wherc there was Wholesale discharge of workmer. their Lordships hcld four yjars delay is suffeient not to grant rcin- statcm:nt. Fu'ther (1977) 4 Si:p-emo Court Cases page 391 their Lordshipj held that diFp^nsing with services of p :rsons engaged on daily wages in a Governmental department is not a rctre-.chmcnt. That their dismissal cannot b; treatcd as retrench- m;nt. Hc also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lap;e of over 15 years dep ùves of th .m of the remody availablï to havo and in law loses their right a<5 Well. No d?ub:, L'ïarned Cjunsel for the pïtitioncr tried to distinguish bitwoen thosc who p:oduced service cercificates and those who did not p/oduce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do ar.y good to pjtitioners and docs not imp/ove their case bxausc the original certificate marked in this case states that thu pjtitioner worked only foi three months two dayj, in other cases they are Xcrox copies without filing the original and as in some 4 or 5 cases J. Vej/aswamy's certificate is filed inclu- ding this case although he hinuelf did not file his service certificate.

18. It may b; seen that this case has a chequored history. The allégation is that the potitioncr in this case and 43 othor cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Docombn-, 78. Thur Court and the amondmjnt of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment. Howcvcr, as statcd in the b ;ginning of the case itself the Hon'blc High Court by a Division Bonch Judgement hcld as the amendment is assen- ted by the Président of India, thereforc direct appli- cations can b; entortained by the Central Govt. Indir>trial Ti'ibiinal-ctun- L£.b su • Court. Accordingly, this case was filcd on 11-3-1998. Without going into muoh clab ?rate discussions it is an ' admitted fact that they arc casual labjirers. Granted that the argxœonts of the Lcarned Counsel for the p^titioners arc correct and the vory attendance register which shows daily ratcd sw:op~r attendance is from the month of Octob;r, 77 to Januiry, 78, that is only for 4 months. And those who havj p;oduccd service certificates are ail xcrox copies except one in this case wherein the original cc/dncatc fil:d showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily ratcd casual hclpcr. No doub ", it is allegcd that they continued to work under contrcxtors as they were made ovor to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Thcrefore they did not app.-oach the conciliation officcr. Evon if that is taken as truc and ail the Xorox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to bo truc. Does it impove the situation ? It has como in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doub;, no limitation is p.cscribjd under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the qxiostion of rcasonableness in app.oaching the prop^r authorities also has to bi seen. They kupt quitc till 1988. And afeer ail the writs etc. almost 22 years have passed. WiU it b; advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Ccunsol for the respondent have reforred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561.

19. In concluûon, pîtitioners have not proved by any roliable dDcummtary évidence that they wo/k;d und;r the FCI even in cases wh^re service certificate is filed. For examplc as stated in the p-esent case, that is in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/9S of Lab:"Ui" Cou:t-III) it is only for three manths two days. But it cannot bj simply b.ushed aside that pititioncr has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwiss, ail th;53 pjtHionsrs filing writ in the Hon'ble High Cjurt etc. would bz a futile exer- cise. They did w^-rk for F.C.I. no di^ubt perhaps under différent contractors and mere over they say that thay wjrked till 1934 uader various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking thsm not to engage them. So it can safely bs concludid that thèse pir"jns did w3rk for F.C.I. altajugh uader various contractors but the pôtitioner hâve failîi to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the evideace on record the exhibits, it can safely b; concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that, they wjre contiractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of tea years. Because, they continued working under some con- tracter or other till 198+ and they approached the ALC(Q in 1988. Hen"3, the above-cited Suprême Courts cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no prc of that they wrked under the F.C.I. But however, in ail thèse c-ses they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directcd that he is free to employ any pcrson as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employaient is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he sfcall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment cf casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalçonda District. However, a w rd of caution that this shall apply only foi engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchnunt in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for Petittoner

the Respcndent WW1 ; Sri K. Venkanna MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna Dccuments marked fer the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl Conciliation order cf ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Failure cf conciliation report of ALC(C) vide Lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 Copy of service certificate

dt. 10-12-1977.

Ex. W5 Copy of the attendance register cf Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Dccuments marked fer the Respondent Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation preceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 Lr. from Govt. of India, Min. cf Labour dt. 17-6-97.

263Î Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Awa^d dt. 25-1-89.

New D^lhi, the 19i:h Fjb.'uary, 2002 S. O. 882.—In pu*suance of Section 17 . of th^ Indu>trial Dispute Act, 1947(14 of 1947), the Central Government . hnrcby p-:blishes the award (Rif. No. 155/2001) of the Central Gavommjnt Lidustïial TribuiF.l-cum-LC, Hydc T.bad as shown in the Annexirc in the Industrial Dispute b .twoen tha emplpyors in relation to the nvuiagcm :nt of FCI and thcir workman, which was reccived by the Central Gov^mmcnt on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, D^sk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent .:

Shri E. ISMAIL

Presiding Officer

Dated :—31st Decembsr, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 155 of 1001 (ID No. 89/98 Transfcn-ed from Lr.b:>ur Court-

III, Hyderabad)

B^twoen : Sri P. Prasad C/O F.C.I., MRM ML-yalaguda-508297.

. .Petitioner AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HÀCCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.
2632 THE GAZETTE OF INDJÀ ÏMXBCR-9, 20Ô2/-FHAEGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H—SEC". 3
2. The Disfict Manager.

Food Coloration of Indis, Nalgonda District.

. ."Rsspondents.

Appearc-JKcjS'• :

Fo? tho Potitioncr : M/s G. Ravi Mohan For tho Rosnor.dc nt : S-i B. G. Ravindra Roddy

AWARD

but failed tb report to the Government and the Government in lura could not refe? tbe dispute. In this regard aise the petît'oner made several repré- sentations to ALC (C) to send the dispute to the Government. However, no action was taken against the representstion., It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the simiîar issue on similar grounds.* The petitioner is - -one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioneï's

prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

This case I.D. No. 89/9S is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- .ment of India, Ministry of Xabour"s prder No. H- 11026/1/2001-IR (C-IT) dated 18-î 0-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.GI.D.No. 155/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in- view oî the judgment of the Hon'bie High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

4. Asgrieved by the' action of the ALC(C) S'S -i V: Venkat'eswai-Iu. N. Ànjaiah and J. Veera Swaray fîled W:P. NO. 9038/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govî. passed-an order dated 13-5-1993 rej*cting the pethionsrs' claim on the ground that there is no reTatiomhio of the- envoyer and o ip- loyee. The Hon'bie High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9099/93 keeping ail facts and circumstauces in view and basing upon tha Jf-jd^ernsnt of bîtween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation oi ' India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 dire'ted the three pstitioners to approach the Hon'bie Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hencs, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'bîe Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December, '78 with R2 without any break in service the paiiitîonîr repsated that after exîracting work from pstitiomr as casual labour piaced him at the disposai of the variom contractors to psTform; the same nature of work. At the ti.ne of tfansferring to the fold of the contractor the pstitioner was not given any notice as rsquired-under-Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since h related to change or service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services' were terminatad by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought noi to hâve terminated the ssrvices of the patitiotier without compiying with the provi- sions of principles 'of natural iustice. The Respon- dent having cont'nued the petitioner for a p&riod of almost two years continaously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence, the said action amounts to violation o{ provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioaer is the se.iior most ennloyee of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the pstitioner. continue;! the workers who are juniors to the ostitioner m seïvic^. H3103, the aciion of the Re>p.on:bnt amoants to discrimination.

% Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent. Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Qperations/Depots/Gcdown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tiorier was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 te December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respon- dent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractois. Therefore, the petitïoner was drectly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan.' 1977 to 4th Dec. 1978. The petitiones was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked conti- nuousîy for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petjtioner were termi- nated in the rnonth of December. 1978. After the illégal termination petit"oner has been making repré- sentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ulti- matety the pslit'oner managed to get a iob with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same d?pot in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the' basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan . 1997 till December, 1978 instesd of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally 'nstructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore^ petitioner was again ont of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the pet'tioneï with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal arbitrary and unjust.

7.- Ths" p-îtittoner is nn'A
having made oral fe^reientations to th^ Respondem lo reinstate him.-the Resnondent ignored the samo The pstitionet is.otjly earning mîinST of the faiiily" and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak ont his Hvelihood and main- tenance of family, The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed tbat this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. was the contracter from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contracter for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal 604 GI/2002—21

2633 on the ground that thére is ho ina^rial^ôTimrgili'St there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Peti- tioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any documen- tary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of his services by the management. He was aïso failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Heoce, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri P. Prasad examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along- with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of cont- ractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the sàkl dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made b y t he2 ^ ^ j r j p. GALETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9/2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] union to. ths AtiC(O). Ëx. W5 is the order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W 6 is the attendance register maintained by the FCI. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management prcduced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register, etc., during the concilia- tion period. In the cross-examination he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Govern- ment Corporation. He has not filed any document befûre the Court showing that he wcrked fer two years from January, 77 continucusly under the res- pondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labeurers directly by the cerpc ration. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in FCI and they were terminated from service at any point cf time during the peried frem 1977 onwards. He denied that cnly contracters used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any ameunt from the Corporation. After 1978, he wcrked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any W.P. against the said pro- ceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W6is forged and created. That, they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

Works in F.C.I. He never wcrked duriag January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the centract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the werk was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-cperative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitiener was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation preceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued Oy the Government cf India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none cf the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they wcrked for 240 days or mere. This order has not been questiened in the High Court by the concerned werkman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cress- examinatien he depesed that he used to leck after the maintenance and repaîrs cf the machjnery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contracter. Ail the ether werks were carried threugh contracter. They hâve net filed any license befere this Court. He is net the cen- cerned man to appoint a contracter. They did not maintain any register of the wc rkers who are emp- loyed by the contractor. Werk relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that thèse cen- tractors were net there during the said peried. It is true that ail thèse werkmen hâve raised the dispute befere the ALC(C). Fie has net attended the con- ciliation preceedings. In the said référence peti- tioner is cne such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a Writ No.. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed befere the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled le r any relie*".

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel fer the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The peti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continue us service with the ce rpc ration frem Januaiy, 77 to 4th Decem- ber, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or anether contracter witheut giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F cr any wages paid. The petitiener has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation preceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report cf the ALC(C). Ex. W4 is the Xerox copy c f the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is fer the month from October, 77 to January 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mere fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again werking 15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager Mechanical et the District Ofîice of the F.C.I. Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and staied that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he wcrked as Asstt. Manager at Miryala- guda Mcdern Rice Mill. The Régional Office cf the F.C.I used to award H&T werk to private contractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers fer the purpese cf deing the werks under- taken by him under H&T centract. The contracter was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the werk de ne by him. FCI has nothing to do with the engagement cf labo- urers and work done by the labeurers was not super- vised or controlled by a,ny of the cfficials cf the F.C.I. The contracter used to get the werk de ne as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to' 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and frem 12-11-77 to .11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satya- narayana Reddy. He can not say whether the peti- tioner was employed by the said contracter. There is no practice of engaging casual labourer for H&T 2635 till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.I, who go against them saying thaï they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were wcrking directly under the control of seccnd Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was lccking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admit- ted in the cross-examination he has not filed any licence of the contracter and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who werked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected wiîh the said werk hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the peti- tioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the terminat;cn was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petilioner's services terminaled refusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required. to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect autematic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

2 ALT page 171. wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot ciaim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be çons- trued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services . of persons engaged on daily wages in à gpvernment department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after- comple- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse emp- loyées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on .1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour' working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to bs absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names bsing sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec.¹ 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since bcen settled. Power is to bs exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powere in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. Hc also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court—Deprives them remedy available to them in law—Loses their lights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private contractors for hand- ling and transporting of foodgrains. The contracters used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the Works undertaken by the contracter. The Cor- poration never controlled or supervise the woik of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contracter. The petitiener is trying to Project himself as casual labour with certain Xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long peried. And th>at there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has net appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the peti- tioner is not entitled for any relief what scever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992*

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Decembsr, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no con- nection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State- Ammdment2636 ;.1HE..GAZETTE OF IND.L\ : MARCH 9, 20Q2/ PHALGUNA 18, .1923 .. [FART II—SEC. 3(ii).| because the original certiflcate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the others are Xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the FCI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three: months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the FCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exer- cise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent, contractors and moreover they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of FCI asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for FCI although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the FCI although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some con- tractors or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the FCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employaient is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall. be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual laboure"s from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assen- ted by the Président of India, therefore direct appli- cations can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual laboureis. Gianted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October, 77 to January, 78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates ail xerox copies except one in LCID No. 164/2001 wherein the original certiflcate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service ceitificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was Wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is suffcient not to grant rein- statement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Governmental department is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrench- ment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years depiives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loscs their light as well, No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not; do .any good to patitioners and does not improve theirse case Award passed ccordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31 st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for Petitioner

the Respondent WW1 : Sri P. Prasad MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 Union's repesentation dt. 16-8-93 Ex. W5 Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Ex. W6 Copy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI. Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report ofALC(C).

Ex. M3 Lr. from Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

2637 New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 383.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 193/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22012/7/2001-IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated: lOth January, 2002 Industrial Dispute No. 193/2001

BETWEEN

Sri Mohd. Saveer, C/o Sri Md. Gulam Rasool, General Seçretary,, Swatantra Boggu Gani Karmika Sangam, H. No. 5030122, Civil Lane, Yellandu, Khammam-507123.

... Petitioner.

AND

The General Manager, M/s. S.C.C. Ltd., Yellandu, Dist. Khammam. .. Respondent.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Nil. For the Respondent : Sri J. Parthasarathi, Sri V. Hariharan & Sri A. Chandrasekhar.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/7/2001-IR (CM.II) dated 28-8-2001 referred the following dispute under sec- tion 10(l)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal. The référence is,

"Whether the action of the management of M/s SCCL, Yellandu in terminating the services of Sri Md. Saveer, MV Driver JKOC, Yellandu w.e.f. 1-2-1999 is légal and justified ? If not, what relief he is en- titled to?"

Inspite of several adjournments given from 15-10-2001 the petitioner was continuously absent for seven adjournments including lOth January, 2002. Hence, heard the arguments of the respondent's counsel. As the petitioner has not turned-out inspite of number of adjournments and the petitioner/ union has failed to produce any évidence in suoDort of his claim. Therefore, the référence ïs ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
2638 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/^PHALGUNA 18, 1923 JFARf H—SEG^3(iQ]
BETWEEN

Accordingly a 'Nil' Award is passed, Transmit.

Sri V. Saidulu,

C/o F.C.I.,

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- taflt transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in the Open Court by me on this the lOth day of January, 2002.

MRM Miryalaguda-508207. ~.. Petitioner.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officef

AND

APPENDIXOF EVIDENCE

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Pefitioner Respondent

HACCA Bhavan,

NÏL ML

Hyderabad.

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

NIL

Documents ma*rked for lhe Respondent

2. The District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District.

.. Respondects.

NIL

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

New Delhi, the I9th February, 2002

This case I D. No. 78/98 is transferred from Labour Couit-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-11026/1/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in tbis Court as L C.I.D. No. 144/2001. This is a case taken under Sei. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

S.O¹. 884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 144/2001) of the Central Government Industriai Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was receiyed by the Central Government on 19-2-2002!

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KËSAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer

Dated: 31st December, 2001

Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 144 of 2001

2. Brief averments of the pétition are: That the Respondent. Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milliug Operations/Depoîs/Godown in 1970 carrying on MiJling Opérations. InitiaJJy îhe peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Res- pondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Vlanager, Food Corpo/ation of India, Nalgonda Disti-ict. He worked from Jan' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. The petitioner was directly under the contro! of the 2nd Respondent. Tbe petitioner worked continuousîy for the above said period with- out any break in service. The services of the peti- tioner vvere terminated jn_the monîh of December 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been makjng représentations to tbe Respondent Corporation, UJtimately the pefitioaer managed -to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation (ID No. 78/98 Treasfcrred frûra Labour Court-IIL Hyderabad) 2639 — t'r, .-"•."• *•"—•,• *•"-- - "r ..-••-•

of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the^yëàï¹ 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casuaî labour with efiecî from Jan' 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the pefitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instruc- ted ' the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

,., 6. The Respondent is a moâeî'empfoyer. Hence, Respondent ought not to.have terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- sions of principles of natural justice. The Respon- dent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action. amounts to. violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The Corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinsîate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The peiitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become diffi- cult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent' on failure of îhe meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government, However no action was taken against the représentation. It is subm'tted that îhe said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as thst of the other workmen.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and aJl other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating tbat îhe petitioner is not mainîainable usder the I.D. Act aeither on law nor on facts. The peti- tioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore, Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy" filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to fijing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D, Act. Hence, the peti- tioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreat'Bg that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without • any break in service the petitionei repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casua! labour placed him at the disposai of the varions conîractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the tîme of transfer- rjng to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were tenninated. by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

10. Modem Rice Mill at MiryaJaguda was established in the year 3970 and commissioned fiom 28-5-J971. It is one of the Modem Rice MiJls established ail over the country. Initially Raw Mi'ling facility was provided with a limited number of casûal workers and subsequentîy Par- boiled unit was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contvactors for hand'ing and îransporting of the food grains at Modern Rice Mil], Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used t.o bring his own Jabour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who îîhouîd be engaged and how many persons shouîd be engaged for his work. The FCI has hothmg to do with those matters. The Corporation never controlled or sùpervised" the work dône by thé corrtrac2640 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [EA*T II—Stc 3(ii)3 labour. The petitioncr might be one of those con- tract labourers. A. P. Transport Workers Co- opérative Society Ltd., was the contractor frorn 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Res- pondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of tirne. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI fnm 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Govenunent of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitionei and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Shri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V, Venkateswarlu filed a WPNo. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending. Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claimwhich reads as thus, 'The work- men has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked fora period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding ibe date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give iustifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication". The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petit} oner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never empîoyed by the corporation. Hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even other- wise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary • He worked continuosly for two years. The respon- dent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The Corporation submitted atten- dance register to ALC (C)II at Vidyanagar during conciliation.General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC (C)-II bubsequently their seivices were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularization of theiî services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 3-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex W4 is the Service certificaîe issued by the AssL Manager (Depot) dt. 29-12-77. The petitioner deposed that he worked as a daily rated casual helper to that effect he has produced a copy of certificate marked as Ex. W4 wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked as a daily rated casual labour for the period from 2-1-77 to 29-12-77. Ex. W5 is the attendacne register maiutained by ibe F.C.I. He couJd get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.CI. duriBg the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao, The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-exa mi nation he deposed that the respondent corporation is the central goverament corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court, showing that he workerd for îwo years from January, 77 continuously under the respondent He deuied that tbere is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Res- pondent Corporation alleging tbat they worked in F.CI. and they were terminated from service at any point of fime during tbe period from 1977 oc- wards" He denied that only contractors used to pay him He admitted that he did not file any document sbow- ing that he received any amount from the corpo- ration After 1978, he worked under the contractors nameJy, S/Sti V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cheriapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and concialation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was beiated. And there is no relation- ship of employer and employée, That union has 14. Sri V. Saidulur examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at 2641 not fiied any WP againsî the saïd proceeô'ngs of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W5 is forged and crrated Tbat they tbemselves filed original of Ex. W5 before the RLC(C).

the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri. V. Venkats- warlu, N. Aajaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/9?. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed be- fore the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It h argued by the Learned Counsel for tbe petitioner that tbis is acasewhere this petitioner has been made to run from p:llar to post. The peti- tionei has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from Janrary, 77 to 4th Decem- ber, 78. That constantîy they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec, 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as requ:red under Sec. 25 F or any wages paid. The petitionei has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedmgs Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC (C). Ex. W5 is the xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that the y are the helpersand sweepers that is for the month from October. 77 to January, 78. Hence. in viewofall this voluminous ev'dences the mère fact thèse helpîess iJI'terate persons who were aga'n working ti!l 1984 under contractors after having workerd with tbe F.C.I. who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However, the said disp'tewas ra;sed by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workrnan. That the petitioner was looking after stock by sp aying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross exa- mination he has not filed any licerce of this con- tracter and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in c'epot and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that pet:tioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The peti- tioner relied on a Judgrment in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the peti- tioner was appointed by the orders of the High CoiTt. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 701 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on ter.ure basis giving arti- ficial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) I Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join 15. Sri Sivaram Krishana, the Asst, manager, Mecbanjcal at the District office of tbe F.C.T. Vjjaya- v,ada deposedas MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to Jurse 1991 he worked as Asst. ransfer at Miya- la^uda Moc'ern Rice Mi!1 The Régi na! office of the F.C.I. used to award H&T work to privated contrac- tors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works under- taken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was be'ng paid as per the scheduied rate? fixed for H &T contracts deperjding on the work done by him F CI. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the Jabourers was not supervisée or controlled by any of the officiais of the F,CI. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was g:ven to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanaryana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor There is no practice of enga- ing casual labour for H &T works in F.C.I. He never worked during Janusry, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society for H &T works at MRM. Miryalaguda The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute ALC (C) submitted a failure report Ex.M2 is the copy of tbe minutes of cono'liation proceedingsheJd on 4-4-96 be- fore the ALC(C) Ex M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As one of the Jaboums were engaged directly by F.CJ. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman Ex. W5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. Ir> the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the mach'nery at MRM unit for handl'ng and transport used to engage a contractor. Al! the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any licence before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy wbo was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there durins the said period. It is true tbat ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended

604 GI/2002—222642 THE GAZETTE OF INDÎA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j duty was prevented doing so. Held tlie said standing order would not be used to effect automatic ter- mination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

and to revive matters which hsd since been settkd. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also reiied on 199"? FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held: lapse of over 15 years in approch- ing the Court Deprives them remedy available to them in Law-L"scs their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in F.C.T. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private contrrctors for hand- ling and tiansporting of foodgrains. The contrac- tors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contractor. The Corporation never controlkd or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contre ctors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitoner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project hirmelf as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the ab- sence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is alcng period. And that theve is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatso- ever. He relied on the following Judgements : 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was heîd failure to explain satisfactorily that criginal document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file xerox copy of documents as secondary evic'ence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherin it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lord- shjps held dispensing wilh services of persons enpaged on daily wages in a government department there- fore is not a retrenchment. Further held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after completion of works hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be streched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that con- tract labour work'ng as Hamali Employée contractes of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the com- pany. He also relied on 2000(1) LU page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exer- cise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, ] 977 to 4th December 1978. They hâve approched for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connec- tion whatsoever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approched the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Indus- trial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clerify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribu- nal -cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court. Accoidingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. With- out going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance regis- ter which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the rnonth of October 1977 to Januaryl 978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produeed service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in case of LCID No. 164/2001 (ID No. 98/98) wherein the original certificates filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they made over to con- tractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the xerox copies of the service certificates produeed in so many cases slso taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper author- ties also has to be seen. They kept quite tilî 1988.

2643

ALC(C) in 1988. Hcnce, the above-cited Suprême Coua's cases are not completly applicable to thefacts of thèse case;. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted bxause as stated earlier theie is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent, No. 2 is directed that hc is free to employ any pjrson as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is givon to such porsons, pctitioner's services shall bj taken as worker of Janaury, 1977 and he shall bj given p/eference over others in the matter of employmont of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual kbours from today and there shall bj no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in

open Court, Transmit.

Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowri Personal Assistant, transcribjd by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of D^cembjr, 2001.

E. ISMA1L, Presiding Officer And, after ail the writs etc, almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Coipoiaticn of india to take thtm back, The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve retciivd to 2UUO(1) LU page 561. Tùur Loïd- ships refused to condone thu delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their Warknun SCLF 1950-83 p-igj 152-64 whe.:em thoir Lordsliifs hjld that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen theii L-rdships hcldfou; yoars deky is sufficient not tog/uaromstatem-nt. Further (1977)4 Sup-vnu Cour* C<-scs page 391 thuir Lordships held that dispcnsing with services of posons engaged on daily wagcs in a govornnunial doparcmunt is not a rcti'enchmunt. That thcir dismissal cannot b-* treatcd as rotrcnch- m;nt. Hc also reliod on 1993 FLR whcre said : lapse of ovcr 15 years dep/ives of them of the remedy avial- able to hâve and in law loses thcir right as Wvll. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioncr tried to distinguish between those who p/oduced service certificates and those who did not p:oduce service ce:tificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to pjtitioners and does not imp/ove their case b..•cause the original certificate marked in case of LCID No. 164/2001 (ID No. 98/98) states that the petitioner wo;ked only for three months two days in other cases they are xerox copies without filing the ori- ginal and as in somc-4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate

Appendix ôf évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for

Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri V. Saidulu MWl : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishana

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

Ex.Wl : Concilation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2: Lr. Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94 Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C)

vide Ir. No. 8(1) 1993-E3

Ex.W4 : Copy of service certificate dt. 29-12-97

Ex. W5 : Copy of the attnedance register of Helpers

& Swcepsrs of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt.

1-3-74

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation pro-

ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lt. From Govt. of Indîa, Ministry of Labou

Dt. 17-6-97

Ec M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitra- 19. In conclusion, pjtitioners hâve not proved by any reliablc documentary évidence that they workud under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is filed. For examplc as stated in the case, that is in L.C. I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Cou:t-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot bj simply brushed aside that potitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. CKhcrwise ail thèse poti- tioners filing wnt in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would hi a futile exercise. Thoy did work for F.C.I. no doubt p-'rhaps under différent contractors and more ovcr they say they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they wore removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage thom. So it can safely b; concluded that thèse posons did work for F.C.I. although under various contrac- tors but the potitioners hâve failcd to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely bj concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that, they were contractors dunng the relevant pjriod. No doubt, there is delay bw not of ten years. Bxause they continué working utvVsr somo con- tractor or other till 1984 and thwy app.-oached the

tion Award dt. 25-1-89.
2644 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ FHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th February, 2C02 S.O. 885. —In pursuance cf Secticn 17 cf the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 cf 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 146/2001) tf the Central Gcvernment Induitrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shu-wn in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute b^tween the emplcyers in relation to the manage- ment cf FCI and their w^rkman, which wasreceived by the Central GivernmenUn 19-02-2002

( N J. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNE^URE

BS^O^E THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent :

Shri E. ISMAIL Presiding Officer Dated 31st Dacember, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. Ne. 146 cf

2001

(ID No. 80/93 Transferred from Labeur Court-III,

HyderabaJ)

Between ;

Sri R. Venkatnarayana, C/"> F.C.I., îM.IM Mirya1a3uda-5382D7 ..Petitioner AND

l.. Ta; Sr. Rîgbnai Manager,

F> .1 C >r •> > raton of Iadia, H\CCA Bhavan, Hydîrabad.

2. The District Manager,

F^od Crp.,ratk.n cf India, Nalg^nda District

.Respcndent Appearance :

For tha Petitioner : M/s G. Ravi M^han

F^r ths Respcndent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 83/98 is transferred from Labour Court-[II, Hyderabad in view of ihe Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Oi'der No. H-11026/1/2001-IR (C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 146/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reporkd in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cottoc Corpo.ation of India and two others.

2 Brief averments of "he pétition are: That ihe Respoodenî. Food Corporation of India, esîabJished MRM Mining Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying OD MiUing Opérations Ini*iaHy tbe peti- tjoner W3" engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to Decembez, 1976. Subsequently, the Res- pondent Corpo.aîion did uot entrust any work to the contïactors Therefore the petitioner was direct)y engaged by the 2nd Respondent nameiy, the Disfrict Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District He worked from Jan' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978 The petitioner was direct'y uuder the contre' of ihe 2nd Respondent Tbe pet't
3. The petitioner fiied a conciliation application before the ALC(C)on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admiîtcd by ALC(C ) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on l'ai Jure of the meetings ALC{C) closed the pioceedings, but failed 10 report to the Government and the "iovcrnaum in tura cculd not reïer the dis- pute. In this regard aJso tbe petitioner ms-de sevjral représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govermnent. Hotvever no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted thaï the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. AU the worianen were questioning the simiiar issue on siiniJar grounds. Tne petitioner is one among tnose 250 workmen. And the petitioner's praye* is same as that oi the otner woi&caen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to fiiing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground tnat there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 90J9/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Cninnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two otiiers reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) oi' the I.D. Act. Hence, ihe peti- tioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessaiy relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repoated that after extracting work from pet'tioner as casuaJ labour placed him at the disposa] of the varions contractors to perforas; the same nature of woik. At the time of transfer- ring to the fo'd of the contractor ihe petitioutr was not given any notice as requ'red under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it reîated îo change of service conditions Subséquent'}' the petît>oner's services were te.minated by the contractor on tbe ad vise of tbe Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a modeJ employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without compiying with the provi- sions of principîes of natural justice. The Respon- dent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action aroounts lo violation of provision undei Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It '"s submiîfed thaï the petitioner is the senior most employées of Corporation who worked since 1977. The coiporation though termÎBaîed se?vices of the pet'tioner cont'nued the workers who are juniors *o tfce petitioner in service. Hence, the acti on of the Rejpondenî amounts to distrimination.

7 The petitioner is uneducated inspife of his baving made oral représentations to tbe Responden¹

2645 to reinstste him, the Respondent ignored the same. The pet.t.oner is OB.' y earcing member of the famiJy and m view of illégal terminatiOn il hss become diffi- cuit for him to eak out his liveJihood and maintenance oi famiJy. The petitiOEer has nol fi.'td any suit or case in any forum for necessary îehef.

8. Therefore, it is prayed thaï tbis Court may be pJeased to set aside the oral teïminstion order dated 4-12-1978 oi the Respondent and consequentîy direct the respondent to reinsfaîe tbe petitiocer irto service with continuity of service with bsek wsges acd 8ll other attendant benefits and pass such other oraers as erejust and aecessary in the inîerest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is col msiEta'nable under tbe LD Act neiîher on law nor on facts. The peti- tioner sgain approached the Labouï Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as i* is sn amendment by the State Govercmenî The peïitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation cf India st any point of t"'me. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is net atlracted.

10. Modéra Rice Mil! at Miiya'sguda was estab'ished in tfac year 1970 and comrnissioned from 28-5-197] It is om of tbe Modem Rice MiMs estab'ished ail over the country. InitiaiJy Raw Mi'J'ng faciJify a was provided with a Jim'ted number of cssual workers and subsequentJy Par- boiled un't was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T coniracf to private contracîors for handling and transporting of the food grains aï Mo'dern R;ce MiJl, MiryaJaguda snd at the food storage dépôt at Miryclaguda on teeder basis. Thfi contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scbeduled rates fixed undei the H&T contract depending on *he r-ork done by him. It was his responsibility as io who should be engsged and how many persons shou'd be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with thosc matters. The corporation îsever coatroJïed or supervised tee work done by the coutract labour. The petitioner might be one of thosc con- tract Jabourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co- opérative Society Ltd., was the contracter from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was Ihe contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to U-lï-1979 The Res- pendent has no kttowledse as te fhe service put m by fhe pefitiouer ss he was never engsged es casuai labour at any point of time. Therefore, the alJegat'OB tbat be was eugaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is iacorrect and deEied.

11. Union ra"sed an iudustriaJ dispute in conuec- t'OBwith 256 workers sfid tbe petitiouer was ons among îhem. The ALC(C) submitted his xeport264 to tbe Minisîry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996- The Goveinment • of India by Jetter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision îhat the dispute is net fit for référence to the Industr'al Tribunal on the groued that there is no materia! showing that there was reJatuinship of employer and employée between the petit-oner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. Iî is submitted that S/Shri N. Anja'ah, J. Verraswamy and V. Venkaieswarlu fi'ed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking direction when the WP was pending. Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting tfaeir cJaim which reads as thus. "The work- men has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alJeged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the ino.dinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication". The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even other- wise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hsnce, the pétition may be dismissed.

no amicable seulement. Matter wasreferred tothe Ctntral Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the Xerox copyof service certificate for the peried ficm 12-1-77 to 10-12-77 issued by the Asstt. Manager (Depot) Mr. Ratna Swarry. The original service certificate was submitted to the KLC (C) Hyierabad. Ex. W5 is the attendacne register main- tained by the F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation peried. During the said peiiod the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register. payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Cential Government Corporation. He h&s not filed any documents before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respt ndent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Res- pondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 77 onwards., He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document show- ing that he received any amount from the corpo- ration. After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram fv'urthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejecied the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by tbe union was belated. And there is no relation- sbip of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said procee^ings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W5 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W5 before the RLC (C).

14. Sri V. Venkatnarayanaexaminedhimself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Mirya'aguda. That heused to be paid monthy salary. He worked continuosly for two years. The respon- dent used to ma'ntain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted atten- dance register to ÀLC (C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC (C)-II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 js the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(Q that there is

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mxhanical at the District Office of ths FCI, Vijaya- wada d;poscd as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the FCI used to award H&T work to p;ivate contractors by calling tendes. The contracter u>ed to bûng labwers for the pu'p^se of doing the Works undertaken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was b;ing paid as pir the schedubd rates fixed for H&T contracts d?p mding on the work donc by him. FCI has nothing to do with ths engage- ment of labDU'ors and work doue by th; lab>u\>rs was not sup^ivised or controlled by any of ths officiais of the FCI. Tha contractor u^ed to got the work donc as dasired by them. Diring • e pjnod from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract w> given to 2647

they are rho help^rs and sweep^rs that is for th? month from Octob.r, 77 to January, 78. Hcnce. in viow of ail this volummous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illitoratc porsons who were again working tf 11 1984 undof contractors after having workf d with the FCI, who go against thrm saying that thoy hâve raiscd thn dispute b-latodly. Thoy were working d*rcct]y ur.der Ihe cor.trol of second Rerpondent. HoWf-ver thc w.id d'Ypi'.'e was raised by more than 250 workman. thc pntiiionor was among those 250 wo"knvn. That tho potitioncr was lookmg after stock by sp-aying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in tho cross exammation ho has nof filcd any lïcensc of tho contractor and that. it is true that ail thèse workmon who workod in dipot and othor centres hâve raised tho dispute bifore the ALC(C). This shows that thoy worked in the dopot. Fu'iher he is not connocted with the said work hence, it is sr.bmitted that potitioner is to bi reins- tatcd with ail br.ck wages etc. Thc p^titioner relied on a Judgomont in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court whoroin the p-;titioner was appointed by tho orders of the High Coirt. He also relied on 2001 LLJ pago 201 whorein it wa". held that the p:titionor d;d complote more than 240 days of service, that Soc. 25F was not compltod with, the termination was' theroforc bad. He also r.li^d on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 whorein it was hold that potitioner was f.ppointcd on tenu~c basis giving arti- ficial b"eaks. Potitioner's services to"minatcd rofu- sing rencwal and another pirson appointed. It was hold that tho p^titior.er is entitlod to p-otoction undor Soc. 25F and 25H. Ho aiso relied on (2001) 1 Sup-emo Coirt Cases page 61, whore it was held that the absentée workman was roquirod to join dufy by a spécifie date bu* when attnmptod to join dify was p-evented doing so. Hc-ld the said standing orde* would not b"; usod to effect automatic termi- nation of service. Thereforc prays the potitioner to bc reinstated.

A.P. Transport Workers Co-ç>?-cn qinstioned in the High Cou-t by the con- corned workman. Ex. W5 was not maintaincd by FCI. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of thc machinery at MRM unit for handling and trans- port used to engage a contractor. AH the other works were carried through contractor. Thoy hâve not filcd any licensc bîfore this Court. He is not the concerné, man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the work^rs who arc employed by thc contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was b ;ing looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there dunng the said piriod. It is truo that ail thèse workimn hâve raised the dispute b;fore the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence patitioner is one such.That S/Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a Writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that capy of Oder in WP No. 9008/92 is filed bofore the RLC(C). He denied that hc is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioncr lhat this is a case where this petitioner has bsen made to run from pillar to post. The p^ti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th Dxem- bor, 78. That constantly they hâve b^en put inder one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of th" I.D. Act. No notice of termination was giv^n as reqtired under Sec. 25F or any wages prud. The pititioner has nv-i-kad Ex. Wl which is add^essod to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation p-oceedmgs. Ex. W2 is also so-vcd to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failu-c report of the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the Xorox copy of the attendance register, which shows that

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in FCI at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that FCI used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains. The con- tractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years wbich is a long period. And that there is no relationship of264g THE GAZETTE OF ÏNDTA-: MARC" 9; 2M2/"PHA£GUNA 18, 1923 [PART Iï—SEC. 3(ii)l employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, tbe petitioner is not entitled for any relief whai so ever. He reîied on the following Judge- ments : 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original docu- ment was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He aLo relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daiîy wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service can- not be comtrued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government Department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after comple- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannnot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse emp- loyées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 520 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company without Iheir names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dis- missing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court Deprives thern remedy availabie to them in law Loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it îs admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Irdus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amend- ment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement heîd as the amendment is assented by the Président of Tndià, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October, 77 to Jariuary, 78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificaîes are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/ 2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is ailpged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore they did not approach the con- ciliation ofrlcer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates pro- duced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daiîy rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the T.D. Act, but. ail cases the question of reasonable- ness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisabk; to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent bave referred to 2001 (1) LLJ paee 561. Their Losrdships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950 83 page 152- 64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstaîe- ment. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lord^hips hs'd that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Governmenfsl Department is noî a retrenchment. That their dis- missaJ cannot be treated as retrenchment. He sîso relied on 1993 FLR where said : Japse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy avaiJabJe to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for thé petitioner tried to distin- guish between those who produced service certifi- 18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from Janvtary. 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no con- nection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is 2649

Dictatcd to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix-of Évidence

Witness examined for Witness examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent catcs and those who did not produce service certi- ficates. I am afraid'thât also will not do any good to petitioners aad- does not improve thejr csase because tbe original cejtificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. l64j29Ob states thaï the petitioner in- that case worlfed" on!y for thçee months. two days, the others are XWQX copies, witfcout filing. the. original and in some 4 or 5~ cases J~. VeeraswamjCs certificate is fikd althougfche bimsejf did not file his service certificate.

WW1 : Sri R. Venkafanarayana MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

Ex. Wl Conciliation order of ALC(C)

dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Failure of conciliation report of

ALC(C) vide lr, No. 8(1)1993-EÎ.

Ex. W4 Copy of the service certificate dt. 10-12-77.

Ex. W5 Copy of the attendance register of

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract

dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings di. 4-4-96' and failuie

report of ALC(€).

Ex. M3 Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitratîon Act and

Atbitratipn. Award dt. 25-1-89.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not provedby any reliabjet documentary évidence that* they worked under, the FCI even in cases where service certifleate is filed. For example as stated in L'.C.IvD. No. 164/ 2QÇ1. GLp, 98/98 of labour Court-Iïi} it is only for three. months two days. But it cannot be simply brushad. aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the ËCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petiîioners filing writ in the Hon'ble Efigh Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for FCI no doubt perhaps undej différent contractôrs and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under varîous contractôrs that they. made a représentation to the management for reguîàmation of their services for wbich again they, were removed by contractôrs under the direc- tion of FCI asking tbem not to engage tbem. So it can safely be concljided that thèse perdons did work ior FCI aïthough under various conWractors but the çetitioner haye failed to prove b'y any satisfactory évidente that they worked direcîly at the FCL Seeing- the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safejy be concljided that they did work for the FCI altheugb; through contractôrs- More so in view of the exliibife fjled by the respondent which shows that the-y. were contractôrs during the relevant period. No doubt, there is deîay but not of ten years. Becajuse" they continued working under sorrle con- traetbr or other till 1984 and they açpro&cheé the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the arîove-cited Stlpreme Gourt's cases are- not completely applicable to the faGts of thçse cases. No doubtv their prayer cannot be gtanted beeause as sated earlier tjiere is no proof thafr ^"y worked under the FCI. But, however, in ail th©se cases they are eritjtled for some relief;

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 30-. In tbe resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that'he i" ke^tp employ any person. as easual labour who is working earher to this petitîonet. But once cmplayment is givçn ta such' persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he sbaU be given préférence over others in the matter of emfîoyment of easual labour even though on daily wages taking bis senjority as employée of January, 1977 eitherat Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. Howevev, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh easual labours from today and tlïer& shall be no retrenchaient in view of this award.

Award passedJ accordingly and pronouneed in

S.O. 886 .—In pursuance of Section 17 cf the Industrie Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 163/2001) of the Centra! Government Industiral Tribu,nal-cum-Labtmr Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tb the management of FCI and the open Court. Traûsmit, 604 GI72D02—2?
2650 THE GA/.L1TE UF FMOIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
Iheir workman, which was receiv-d by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[NJ. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-Il)] N. ?. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1N- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT ;

Shri E. Isnail.Presiding OfTicer Dated, 31st Decembor, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.T.D. No.163

cf 2001

(TD No.97/98 Transferred fron-, Laboui Court-TII

Hydcrabad)

BETWEEN ; Sri Sk. Ja:ii Miya, C/o F.C.I. MRM Miryalaguda-508207 /Petitioner AND 1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan Hyderabad.

!. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District Respondent APPEARÂNCES : For the Petitioner : M/s Ravi Mohan For the Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 97/98 is transferred from Labour Court-IIT, Hydeiabad in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-l 1026/1/ 2001-TR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumb'-.red in this Coure as L.C.I.D.No.l63/200i. This is a case taken under Sec.2 A(2) of the'Î.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High" Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P.No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Biief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, estab- lished MRM Milling Oporations/Dopots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the petitioner was engaged as' contract worker in the year 1976 to Decernb;;-, 1976. Subséquently, the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner v/as directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. Hc worked from January 1977 to 4th Decembcr, 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The peti'ioner worked continuously.for fhe above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corpora- tion. Ultimately the pîtitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his; tenure as casual labour with effect from January 1977 till December, 1978, instead of absorbing the peti- tioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the rervices of the petitioner with efLct from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioncr filed a conciliation application bsfore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 sesking absorption. The conciliation p;oceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that endud in failurc. Conséquent on faihre of the meetings ALC(C) closed the p-occjdings, but failed to reporc to the Government and the Governmen.t in turn could not refer the disput. In this regard also the pstitioner made several representa- tions to ALC(C) to se,nd the dispute to the Govern- ment. Howovcr no action was taken against the représentation. It is subnrtted that the said dispu*e was raised by the union on b:half of 250 workmen. AU the workmen were questioning thy similar issue on similar grounds. The pothioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the potitionei's prayer is same as that of the ofhor wjrknrn.

4. Aggrieved by th; actio.i of th- ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Aijaiah and J. Vesra Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that p:ior to filing of the WP the Central GnvL passed an ordïi- datod 13-5-1993 rejocting tho pjtitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of th: employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Coût Bjneh k WP No.9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Jud jomînt of bitween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cjtton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Pagj 556 diricted the three pétition ors to approach th; Hon'bb L'ibour Court undïr S:c. 2À(2) of th.- I.D. Act. Hjue, th; pitrtioner is also constrained to app'oach tho Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he workod from January, '77 to Docembar, 78 with R2 without any break in sori vec the pîtitioner rep^atcd that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of thc various contractors to perform thc samc nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of thc contractor thc petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.Di Act sinec it rclated to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently the. pctitioner's services were terminated by the contr.acfor on the advicc of ihe Respondent.

6. Thc Respondent is a model employer. Hcncc, Respondent ought not to have terminated the services of thc petitioner without complying with the pro- visions of principles of nr.tiral justice. The Res- pondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to have given .notice pay. Hcr.cc the raid action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of ihe l.D. Act. It is submitted that the p;titioncr is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. Thc corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to thc pititioner in service. Hence thc action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to îhe Respondent toreinstate him, the Respondent ignored thc same. The petitioner is only earning membsr of the family and in view of illégal termination it has bocome diffi- cult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayod fhat this Court may be pleased to set aside thc oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the p.îtitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stat- ing that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approachcd the Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) of l.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner ne ver worked as an emp- loyée in Fôod Corporation of India. at any point of time. Therefore Sec.2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was es- tablished in the year 1970 and commissioncd from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills os- tablished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used tb award H & T contract to privatc contractera for

2651 handling and transp v/ting of the food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tundtr basis. The contractor used to b:ing his own labour for the :;ame and hc was paid as per ,thc schcdulcd rates fixed under the H & T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to whc should bs engaged and how many psrsons sîiouk bs engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing t< do with those matters. The corporation never et n trolled cr supervised the work done by the ccctiac labour. The petitioner might be cne cf thc se con- tract labourers A.P. Transport Workers Cc-cpcra- tive Society Ltd. was the contracter frem 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contracter for the peried frein 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979.. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the pctiticiur as he was never engaged as casual labc ur at any point cf time. Therefcre the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitiener was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his repeit to the Ministry of Labour, Goverr.ment of India en 13-5-1996. The Government cf India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 convèyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no materiai showing that there was relaticnship cfemplc'jcr and employée between the petitiener ar.d the RCÏ.- pondent. Petitioner has net chesen to question 11 e above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP Is'o. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The wcik- man has failed to produce any dccumentaiy évidence to prove that he had worked for a peried of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months precedirg the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justi- fiable reasons for the inordinate delay of mcre than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt has decided not to refer the above dispute fc r adjudication". The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitiener to app- roach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitiener ako has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec 25F even etheiwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is, liable to2652 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H - S E C. 3(ii>] bedismissedon thegrourtrî of delay andlapses.Herice. the pétition may be dismissed.

pay him. He ^dïttitted that he did not file any de cu- ment showing that he received acy amc untfrcm the CcTporaticn. After 1978. he werked under the contractors namely. S/Sri V. Satyanarayar.a "Heddy, Konduri Vceraiah and Cherlapalîy Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC{C) and "cnéiliatk-n efficer rejected the référence on the ground tbat tjîe dispute raised,by the unien was belated. And fàere ,is no relation$hip of employer and employée. That.unkn has not filed any Wp against the said preceedings cf ALC(G). He denitd that Ex. W7 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W7 before the RLC(C).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the District office of the FiC.I., Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and.stated that 2/-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at MJrya- laguda Modem Rice Mil). The Régional office of the F.C.l. used to award H & T workto private contractors by oalling tenders. The contracter used . to Oring labo urers for the purpose cf doing the works undertaken by him under H '& -T - centract. The contractor was being paid asper the schadutëd rates fixed for H & T contracts depending on*the work done by him. F.C.l. has nothing to'do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or contrelled t>y any of the officiais of the F.C.l. The contracter used to get the work done as desired"by tbem. Dufing the period from 22-4-74 to 14^5-77 ihe c"-ntract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Cc-opeiative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana-Reddy. He çan not say whether the petitioner was eaaployed by the said contracter. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H & T works jn F.C.l. He. never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as causal labour under F.C.I.Ex. Ml is the copy cf the tender and the conttaet dated 1-3-1974-wherein the work was awapded to A.P. TransportJltorkers, Coopérative Society for H& T works a t - ^ R M, M^lryalagyda. The petitioner was.
used to engage a contractor. Ail the other works wards. He denied that cnly ccntiacters used to

were carried through contractor. They hâve not 2653

page 955 whçrein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artfficial breaks. Petitipner's services terminatei .refusing renewal açd another person appointed. It was heW that tbc petitioner is enthledto protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on ( >;01) 1-Suprême'Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée wprkman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to jotn duty was prevented dPing so. Held the said standing oider would not be nsed te etfect automfltic teimination of service. Therefore prays the;petitioner to be reinstated.

.fijed ajjy licen&e *bef"we this Court. He is not,the conceinçd maafJ° appoint i(a. çontractpr. They did not rmaja^ijn apy ,regj,$er,of t|ie worjcers w,ho are ,çp}pio|!ed by ;the,cpn|t^etor. Wpck içla^ing to t,he djffot was h/çi^g jQO^ed.af|er by $ri Ratna Swamy who was the.AsstS. J^pagçr He deniedthat those contractors were ,aot î&çre. during the .said peripd. It -is t^Çe ti^it^aH.tàese wprkmen.haye raîsed thedis- "jwite beforethe ALC(C). Hehas pot atteoded the conciliation .proceedings. ;ïn the sajd fiflfrençe .peti- tioner is one $"ch. That S/£ri V. Vçnkateswarlu, ;-N. Aiya^a-h a^d iJ. \Jee£a &\^Biy Jîçd a wrjt No. *$CtQ8$2." It isancorECct that Ex"W'5 is fitedbefoïe -t|ie,^C(C). He derned tfcat he.is-entitled for any rejtef.

il7. The .râspoEdeotîCounsel ,#rguçd ,t^at peti- tioaer never.-worked in F.QI. atany point of time. That it has coœie in,the évidence, that;FiCiI, ysçd.to award ;H & T cootract to private contracj^rs fpr haariiiag and tgaaspo^tiag of food .grains. (She "oalraçtors usedjtp-bringitbfiir labojur.lor the p#çgo.se "f doieg>tte -works undertaken by the ce^iactor. J h e. corporation never cwatrofled or supervise the work of the labour of the contraçtor thât.therovas two différent xoatraçt^rs 4urjng the ^ajid .period. .The F.C.L ha,s no.knowledge whçtherj^ petitioner was engaged ynder the. çontractor. T^e petitjoner M ttyiflg.to prpject himself as oasual.labeur,with certain xeroxpapers,which hâve no vajue in4the ab- sence of prjjynals. (The,présent case it.fiied in the year 1993 aï^er a l^pse of 22 years whiçh' is a long pejjod. And that there is no ralatip^.liip of en;plpyer . ajjd rern.p,lo^ee. \V|ien the tespandent has not ap- rppjnfçd there is ao gjjçstion of dismi^sin^. Her^ce, .the p.elitipiîcf is not entitled for.any selfef.whatso- ever. rHe rfjjed on.lhe foUowing |udgemeots. .1992 ^ ^ J ^ T ^ a g e . ni wlierein it wasjheîd /allure to ex- plain.s.àtisiactorily îhat original document w;as Jost .'.Qr, that.it isnptin a position |o,bave the saine. ^ Court tïejeçling^ermissipn to file^rox copy of document as Sjçç6nda0 évidence ju&tifjed. fHe also reljed on .20J31/2 AUD p^ge 2P5 whf teip, it.jvas held djily wage 16. It is argued by the.Learned Counsel for the petitioner tbat this. is a case wherc this petitioner has been made to rijn from pillar to post. The .petjrionerhas put jn âîpost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from'Jarjuary, 77 to 4th Decem- "beï, 78- That constarjtly they hâve been put under one or arjotjber contraçtor wilhout giving .any notice of chapge as envisaged under Sec.9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination.was given as required under Sec. 25F or.any wa^es paid. The pelhioner has jjiarked Ex.Wl whjch is addressed to Ânjaiah by ,ALC(C),about conciliation proceédirjgs. Hx'.W2 is also served.to the said efïect Ex-.W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex!\V7 is the Xerox copy of the attendançe register, which shows that they are .the helpers and sweepers lhat is for the monfh from Qctober, 77 to Jânuary, 78. Hençe, in viçw of,all *t(hJs voîurninous évidences the mère fact that thèse htlpless illitetate persons who were.again wor,king ,tUI 1984 under cpntractors after havjng wprked with the .F.CI., who go against them saying tjiat they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondant. Howeyer the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the.petiiioner .was ampng Ihose'250 .wpi;kmen. That the petitioner was Jooking after stock by spcaying pesticides etc. That MW1 fdrftjtted in the" cross examination he has not fiïed arjy IJcense of the conttactor and that it. is true that al! thèse Vfor.kmen who worked in dépôt and other een,tres hâve raised the.dispute b^fore the ALC(C). ;fhis shows that they worked in the dépôt. Furiher he is not connected with the said work hence, it is sub- raitted that .petitic-joer is to be reinstated with ail .baçk wages etc. Ttïe petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in "WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P.

,High Court wherein the petitioer was appointed by.the orders of the .fîigh,Court. He also relied on*2001LLJ page-201 wherein it w,as held that,the petitioner did complète jnore than 240 ^lays pf service that Sec* 25F was not cpmplied with. the terrnination was thcrefore bad. He also relied on 1996(3) ALD

.emjjLoy.ee s ,c,annot claim .çe^jar emjjlpymfnt, tbeir dise^gagement frpm servicevcannpt be .çonsti^ued . a.s vîpfe^on of Sec.2|F. .He^also .rçl^ed on (1597) 4 Suprême Court Cases, p^ge 391 vyijef-ein.their.Lord- shipç held dispensing with services^persojiSjeiugaged .on^iajly wages in. a gpverjiment departmeat, therefore is not a rçtrenchment. Fuither, held.tb&t right to postàngs ,is not available. tjurther.hejd that daily .wa^ers dissngagement after,cojçaçletion .of work hâve novright,to post. .Thsir Lqrdships f^rthsr held that concept of retrepçhnient cannot be stj^tched to.suchan. extent^s to cover, thèse employées. ,,Since the petitioners are o.nly daily.,wage employées and had,no right to the posts. He alsorfilied on 1989 2 AJ^D page 420 Division, Bench jt \vas hejid.that contract labour working as,Hanjali Employée con- tractors of Singareni ÇplUries Co. Ltd., :they ar not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of2654 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(ii)] the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the ccmpany. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribeany time limit for the apprepriate Govetnmentto exer- cise its powers under Sec 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exeicised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appe^rs to us to be no national basis on which the central government has exercised powers in this case afterlapsc of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherinc it was held lapse of over 15 years in approach- ing the Court-Deprives them remedy available to them ifl Law-Losses their rights as well. So he submit? jjthat in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

they did not approch the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily ratecl casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in apprôaching the proper author- ties also has to be seen. Theykept quite till 1988. And, after ail thé writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent liave referred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refuseâ to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied^ on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workman SCLF 1950- 83 page 152-64 wherin their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sifficiént not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977)4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dis- pensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a government at department is not a retrench- ment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said; lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried ,to distinguish between those who produeed servise certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any^good ti petitioners and does net improve their case because Lue original certificate marked in L.C. I.D. No 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for thrèe months two days^the others are Xerox copies wûhout filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

18. It may be scen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitionerin this case and 43 other cases workedfrbm January, 77 to 4th December 78. They hâve approched forthe first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no cennec- tion whatsoever with this petitioner but he is one of the candidates who approched the High Court and got the order.Wherein his Lordship directed the petkibner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A (2) of A.P. State Amendment under Indus- trial Disputés Act, 1947 1 would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribu- nal cum Labeur Court and the amendment of Sec- 2A(2) is of the State Government. However as stated in the beginning of the caseitself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assérited by the Pesident of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. With- out going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers Granted that the arguments of the Leamed Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance regis- ter which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January'78 that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in case of LCID No. 164/2001 (IDNo. 98/98) wherein . the original certificates filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily trated casual helper. No doubt it is allegedthat they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore

19. In conclusion, petilioners hâve not proved by any reliablc documentary évidence that they . worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitoner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. . Qtherwise, ail thèse petitioners filipg.writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work , for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant peripd. No doubt, there is de.lay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence the above- cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted becàuse as stated earlîer there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shallbetaken as worker ofJanuary, 1977 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée ofJanuary 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a wcrd of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner: Respondent:

WW1 : Sri S. K. Jani Miya MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex.Wl : Conciliation order of ALCfC) dt. 10-9-93 Ex.W2 : Lr. Of ALC(C) dt: 9-5-94

Ex.W3: Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3

Ex.W4: Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93

Ex.W5 : Order in WP No.9008/92 dt. 16-9-97 Ex.W6: Copy of service certifiçate dt. 2-12-77 Ex.W7: Copy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI

2655 1 Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.Ml: Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74

Ex.M2: Copy of the minutes of conciliation pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)

Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitra- tion Award dt. 25-1-89

New Delhi, the 19th February,'2002 S.O. 887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 cf 1947), the Cen- tral Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No.164/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No.L-22025/l/200z-IR (C-II)]

N.?. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Présent

Shri E. Ismail

Presiding Officer

Dated : 31st December, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.CJ.D.No. 164 of 2001 (ID No.98/98 Transferred frôm Labour Court-III,

Hyderabad):*56 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH-9 2002/ FHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H- SEC. 3(iil] Between :

Sri B.- MaHa Reddy, C/o F.C.I., MRM Miryalaguda-508207

...Petitionet

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager;

his temrc as casual labotr with effect from Ja". 1977 till Decemb:r. 1978, instead of absorbing the pe:i- tionor into >c"vicc. The Répondent intc't'ional'y instructed the contraclor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, pitîtioner was again out of employm ni. HV/.ce. the action of Rfespondenl in torminating the services of the petilioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice" ami wiihout assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

Food Corporation of India. HACCA Bhavan, Hydefûbad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation-of* Todia, Naigonda District

.. Respondents

AppfearaftceS :

For trie Petitiorter" : NT/s G Ravi Mû ftan

For thé Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

3. The piîitionea"- filed a- conciliation, application bafore th© ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking ab.arp.ion. The conciliation proceeéings were, admitted by ALC(C) but that endûd in failure. Conséquent on failurer of the meetings ALC(C) closed the- proccedingV, but failad to report to the Governmant and the Go- vernment in turn could not re&r tho dispute. In this regard also the petitioer made several rep;esenta- ticis to ALG(<î)'t0 send- thé* dispute- to- thc Gavern- mertt. HOWCVCF no- action' was t?.ken agamst' the représentation. It is siibmittxl that the- said dispute was raised by tHe union on bihaif of 250' wortenen. AH the workmsn- wjr" qu^stionin? th*î similar issxse on similar ground";. The po:iii>rter is one- among those- 250 workmefn: And. the patitioner's prayer is sami p.s tihat- of the othe¹- woricmen^ This case I.D. No. 98/98 is transferved from Labour Cotrt-Hi-, Hydêrabad ifi v;ew of the (Sovernment ofln∈,- Mmistryof Labour's O d er No. H-11026/1/ 2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumb^red in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 164/2001. This is a case taken under Sec.2 A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in vieW of thfr judgement of'tho Hon'ble HigH Cou:t of Andhta* ft-adesh rep^rted- in W.P.Noi$395 of 1989'
4: Aggfievod' by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that p:ior to fflittg of the WP the Central Govt. pac,ed an order datèd 13-5-1993 rejecting the potitioner's daim on the ground that thef&is m refett©nship of tào emplayer, and-'^pioyee. The Hon'ble High Court Bsiaîh in Wfr No:98e9/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in viow and basing upon the Jud-gement of bjtweeh Sri U. Chinhappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of Ihdia and tSvo others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directe*' the t h r" petitioners to apf*oach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hcnce, the petitioner is also constràined to approach the Hon'ble Cowt'a&Migfor necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, 1977 to Dccemb^r, 78 with R2 without any b-eak in serivee thé ptttilkmer repwated that' af"£ exte-âeting- work fronv-patitiaier as casttal labour placed him at the disposai of ihe various centractors to pjirform; the samc naUre of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of Dit© edntfdCior the p^titidner wa" not given any notice as reqviireti uader Sec. 9;V of' the I.D. Act sinee it related to change of service condi- tions. Subjequontly the p2t:ti jiK.r's services were

terminated by the conlractov on the advise of the Responxlent.

2. Brie-f averments of ihe pétition are : That ihe Respondent, Food Corporation of India, estab- lished MR*M Milling Op'ôrations/'Dcrpts/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Ihitially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to Deccmb-/, 1976. Subsequently, the Ro: pondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Tharefore, the petitioner was direct ly engaged by tho 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Foocf Corporation of India, Nalgotté" EMstriet. He wcwked* from fetv. 1977 to 4th Doe' 1978. The p^titioner was directly uàder tho control of x\v. 2fld Respsnde"t. The petitioner worked contimiously for ihe ab.we sait! pariod without any b.eak in sc:vict.. The services of the pditioner were terminatod in the month of Deccmber, 1978, After the illégal termination pjtitioncr has bsen making represontaiiorfs to the lÛespondent Corpora- tion. Ultimately the peûtioncr managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of ïfidiâ. Hè worMed in tfee saMîe à&pm. in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Resporidënt seeking appointment on the basis of

6, The Rtspoiwle \t is a m >del employer. H^nce, Respondent ought n^t to Kavc terminated tlic services of the pititi&ïïfcfr withoirt* ootttplyiog witiè tiw pro- visions of principU'S^ of natural Justice. -Tae Res- pondent havihg continUed thé p;titianer for a parioc/ 1657 of almosc two years continuously ought to hâve given novice pay. Hence thc said action amounts to violation of provision uudsr Soc. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the p .'titioner is tbe senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminatcd services of the potitioner continuod thc workors who are juniors to the pjtitioner in. service. Honcc the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The pstitioner is uneducatod inspitc of his having made oral représentations to the Répondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it lias b -.corne diffi- cult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of family. The potitioner has not filcd any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Thcrcfore, it is p,-aycd that this Court may be pleasod to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequrmtly direct the respondent to reinstate the p?titioner into service with continuity of service witb b.ick wages and ail other attendant bmefits and pass such other orders as are just and. necessary i;i the interest of ju
9. The rcf.pondent filed a common counter stat- ing that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The pititioner again approached the Labour Coirt under Sec.2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Go- vernment. The pc-titioner never worked as an emp- loyés in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec.2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill to Miryalaguda was es- tablishcd in the year 1970 and cornmissioned from 28-5-1971. le is one of the Modem Rice mills es- tablished ail ovor thc country. Initially Raw Milîing facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the food grains at Modîrn Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bting his own labour for the same and he was paid as psr the scheduled rates fixed under the H & T contract depending on ths work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should b=5 engaged and how many psrsons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of these con- tract labourers. A.Pl Transport Workers Co-opera. 604 GI/2002—24

tive Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22 4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contracter fer the peried from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never enaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI frem 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an indus trial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labeur, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industr.'al Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner - and the Res- pondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a Wp No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The werk- men has failed to preduce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of \1 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement cf his services by the management. He was aise failed to glve justi- fiable reasons for the inerdinate delay cf mere than 9 ye^rs in raising the dispute. Therefcre, the Central Govt. has decided net to refer the ateve dispute fer adjudication." The Hcn'ble High Court cf A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to app- roach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitiener also has approached this forum.

13. The petitiener was never ergaged and was never employed by ihe corperation, hence there is no question of violation cf Sec. z5F even etherwise the petitioner has approached the Hen'ble Court after a lapse cf 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dimissed on the greund cf delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri B. Malla Reddy examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Akrgwilh him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryala- guda. That he used to be paid me nthly salary. He worked continueusly for two years. The respendent used to rnaintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No2658 THE GAZETTE OF INDÏÂ": MARCH 9, 2007/' FHALGIÎNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3 ^ )1 appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The ccrpcraticn submitted attend- ance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretry Mr. Anjaiah, ob- fained the attendance register frc m ALC(C)-II subse- quently their services were converted as if they were working with the contracters. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of centractors. They werked till 1984. They made a représenta- tion to the management fer regularizaticn of their services fer which they were ail terminated frorn services. The union raised the said dispute whereïn his claim was also included vide Ex.Wl dated 1-9-1993.. Ex.W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Gcvt. vide Ex.W3. Ex W4 is the représentation made by the unien te the ALC(C). Ex W5 is the order in W? No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex.W6 is the service certificate issued by the Asst. Manager (Depot) dt. 2-12-77. The peti- tioner deposed that he werked as a daily rated casual helper+o that effect hehas prcdxiced sn original of certificate marked as Ex.W6 wiierein it is stated that the petitioner worked as a daily iated casual labour for the period frc m 1-9-77 to 2-12-77. Ex.W7 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.Ï. He couîd get the copy of this frc m the RLC(C) which was filed by thç F.C.L during the ccnciliaticn peried. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Raô. The management predueed the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the ccnciliaticn peried. In the cross examinatien he deposed that the respondent cerporatien is a Central Government Ccrpcraticn. Hc bas not filed any document befere the Court showing that he werked fer twe years ficrr January, 77 continucusly under the respendent. He- denied îliat there is no practice cf engaging casual labeurers direetîy by the ccrpcraticn. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has net filed any représentation cr letter addressed to the Res- pondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.l. and they were terminated from service at v.ny point <_f time during the period from 1977 on- wards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. Ile admitted that he did not file any docu- ment showir=g that he received any amount frc m the corporation. After 1978, he werked under the contractera namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Kcnduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation efficer rejected the référence en the greund that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relaticnship cf employer and employée. Thst union has not filed'any WP against the said preceedings cf ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W7 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W7 before the RLC(C).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asjt. Marager, Mechanical at the District office cf the F.C.L, Vijaya- wada depesed as MW1 and stated that ;?-1T-l977 to June, 1991 he werked as Asst. Manager at Mirya- lagudà Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office cf the F.C.l. used to award H & T werk to private contractors by calling tenders. The ccntiEetcr used to bring kbourers for the purpete c f d< ing the wciks undertaken by him under H & T contact. The contracter was beirg paid aï; per the rchedfkd'raies fixed for H & T centracts depending en the werk done by him. F.C.l. has nothing to do with the engagement cf iabeurers ar.d werk de ne by tfte labeurers was not supervisée cr centre Ile d by any of the officiais cf the F.C.T. The contracter used to get the werk dene as desired by their. Eun'rg the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 fhc certrret was given to, A.P. Transport Workers Co-opevative So- ciety, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to ll-9-79.it was given to Sri V. Satyanaraysna Reddy. He can not say whelher the petitioner was employed by the said contracter. There is no prfetice cf engaging casual labovr for H & T v-'erks in F.C.l. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as causal labour under F.C.l. Ex.Ml is the copy of the lender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the w'ork was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-cperative Society for H & T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The peîiîioner was OHO of the 256 workers who raised indijsîriai dispute ALC(C) submitted a fsilure report Ex.M2 is the copy of the minutes of concilia- tion proceedings held on 4-4-96before the ALC(C). Ex.M3. is îhc letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Go- vernment of India expressing that the industriel dispute is not fit for référence. As nonc of the ia- bourers, were-engaged directly by F.C.l. northey worked for 240 days or more- This order has- not been questiened in theHigh Court by the concerned workman. -Ex.W7 was not maintshied by fhe F: CL In the cross examination he deposed thathe used to look affer the maintenance.and. repairs of the ma- chinery at MRM unjt for liandling and transport used to engage a contracter. Ail the other works were carrier] through contractor. They bave not filed any licence before thi? Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contracter. They did noî mamtain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work reîating to îhe dépôt was being iooked after by Sri Ratna SvasTiy who was the Asst. Manager. He denisd thaï thosc contracîors were not there during the said period. It is true that- al! thèse workmen bave raised the dis- pute before the ALC(C). He has no' attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence peti- tiotner is or-e such, That S/Sri. V. Venkateswarlu, N. Acjaiah aad J. Veera,Sw3my filed a'writ.'No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex.W5 is fiîed befoiç 2659 tbe RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learaed Coisnse) for tbe petitioner that this is a case when tbis pethioner has been made to run from pillsr to post The petiîioaer has put in almost 2 yeavs continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4îh Decem- ber, 78* That constantly they hâve been put under one or anoîher contracter wiîhout giving any notice of change as envisaged under Ssc. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex.W2 is also served to the said efïect. Ex.W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex.W7 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register which shows that they are the helpera and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voîuminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who \yere again working till 1984 under, contractors after having worked with the F.C.I., who go against them saying îhat they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail tliese workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is noî connected with the said work hence, it is sub- mitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitiher was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LU page 201 wherein it was held ihat the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not compîied with, the termination was theefore bad. He also reiied on 1996(3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenura basis giviag artificial breaks. Petiîionar's services terminated refusing reaewal and a a other par son appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection unde; Sec. 25F and 25H. He also reiied on (2031) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to joln duty by a spécifie date but when attemptéd to join duty was prevented doisg so. Heîd the said standing order would not bs ussd to effeot automatic ter/aiaation of service. ' Therefôre prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti tioner never worked in F.CI. at any point of time. That it has coma in the évidence that F.CI. used to award H & T contract to privaîe contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains. The contractors used to bring their lnbour for tbe purpose of doisg the works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlîed or supervise the work of the labour of the conttactor that there was two différent contractors during the said période The F.CI. has no knowîedge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the ab- sence of originals. The présent case it filed in the year 1998 after a îapse of 22 years which is a long • period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employés. When the respondent has not ap- pointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Judgements. (1992) 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to ex- plain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on (2001) 2 ALD'page 205 wherein it was held daiiywage employées cannot cîaim regular empîoyment, their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on.(1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lord- ships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daiîy wages in a government départaient therefore is not a retrenchmeut Further,' held that rïght to postings is not available. Further he.'d that daily wagers disengagement after comp.'etion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He aîso relied oa (1989) 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée con- tractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are uot entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the eompany without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further heîd such workmen'employed through a contractor 'does not become employées of the eompany. He aîso reiied on (2000)1 LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships heîd Law does not prescribe any time lirait for the appropriate Govern- ment to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can bè exercised at any point of tïme and to revive matters which had since been ' settled. Power is to be exercised reasonabîy and not in a rational manner. Thare î i r mn to us to bi no ration?.! b.-iiis on which-tha2660 THE GAZETTE OF ÎNDTÀ : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J Central Govcmmo; ' is exorcisod powers in this case afcer lapsc of about 7 ycars of ordor dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 yoars in app-oaching the Court-D.jp ives them reimdy avaikblo to thera in law-Loses their rights as wcll. So ho submits that in lieu of this clear ruiings the patitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right it lost by efflux of time.

also taken to be true. Does it improve the situa- tion? It has come in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisale to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to (2000)1 LU page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-164 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Sup- rême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental départaient is not a re- renchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said; lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy avaikle to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the peti- tioner tried to distinguish between those who pro- dueed service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certifi- cate marked in this case states that the petitioner worked only for three months two days, in others cases they are are xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed althcugh he himself did not file his service certificate.

18. It may bi seen .hat this case has a choquored history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from Januaiy, 77 to 4th Deccmtar, 78. They bavo r.pp-oached for the fi:st lime o:>. 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what so ev;r with this p^tiiioner, but he is one of the ccnd:d:.tcs who approachod the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the potitioner to app;oach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Dif pûtes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. How- ever, as statcd in the b ;ginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Coût by a Division Bcnch Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can bî enter- tained by the Central Gov.\ Industrial Tribmal-ciim- Lf.bour Court. Accord ingly, this case was fibd on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learn- ed Counsel for the potitioners are correct and the very attendance register which show daily rated sweeper attendance is from ihe month of Octobor '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produeed service certificates are ail xurox copies oxcopt one in this case wherein the original certificate fikd showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daly rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to con- tractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore they did not approcah the coniliation officer. Even if that is taken are true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produeed in so many cases are

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where ser- vice certificate is filed. For example as stated in the présent case, that is in L.C.T.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.Ï. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularizatîon of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractcrs. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above- cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is dirccted that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employaient is given to such persons, petiticner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. Ismail, Pr^id'ng Olficer Appendis.of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner: Respondent:

WW1 : Sri B. Malla Rcddy MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna

2661 Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93 Ex.Wl :

Ex.W2: Lr.ofALC(C)dt. 9-5-94

Ex.W3: Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3

Ex.W4: Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93 Ex.W5: Order in WP No.9008/92 dt. 16-9-97 Ex.W6: Original of service certificate dt. 2-12-77 Ex.W7: Copy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI

Documents marîced for the Respondent Ex.Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74

Ex.M2: Copy of the minutes of conciliation pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)

Ex.M3: Lr. from Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitratiorx Act and Arbitra- tion Award dt. 25-1-892&S2 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II--SEC. 3(ii)3 New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. Ki5|2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in îhc Annexure in the Indiibtrial Dispute between the employer^ in relation to the management of FCI and their worlcman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 19-2-2002.

[No. I.-22025]l!2002-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated : 31st December, 2001'

Industriaî Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 165 of 2001 (T.D. No. 99J98 Transferred from Labour Court-III,

Hyderabad)

BETWEEN :

w . .

Sri Md. Yesudani, C|o. F.C.I., MRM Miryalaguda-508207. - .Petitioncr

MRM Milling Oparations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carryîng on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract workor in the year 1976 to Decembsr, 1976. Subsequcrtly, the Respon- dent Corporation did net entrust any work to the coniractors. Therefore, the p.rtiiionor was riirectly engaged by the 2nd Respor>cV?nt rxrnely, ihe District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan., 1977 to 4th Dec, 1978. The patitioncr was dircctly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. Tho potitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petiîioiv.r were lerminatod in the month of Decembor, 1978. After îhc illégal termination petitioner has bien making représentations to the Respondont Corporation. Ultimately the potitioncr managed to gct a job with the contractot in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointaient on the basis of his tenure as casual labour wiih effect from Jan., 1977 till Decem- ber, 1978 instead of absoibing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instnicted the contracter to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the pytitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 witfrdut any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. —-Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner.—M's. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Rcspondent.—M|s. B. G. Ravindra

Reddy.

AWARD

3. The petitioner filod a conciliation application bsfore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. . The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the procoee.ings, but failed to report to the Government and the Govern- ment in tara couîd not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govemmcnt. However no action was taken Egainst the représen- tation. It is submttted that .the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issu*; on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the pîtitionor's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

This case I.D. No. 99/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hydsrabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H-11026/1/2001-IR (C--II) datcd 18-10-2001 and rcr.umbercd in this Court a; L.C.I.D. No. 165/2001. This k a case taken ir.doi Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of tho judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reportcd in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 bsîween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. CoHon Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief r.vencsr.is of the pstidor. are : That the

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Vcera Swamy filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the potitione/s' claim on the ground that thers is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'bk High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 keeping ail fact? and circums- tances in view and basing upon the Judgemont of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corpo- xaXKm of ïrtdia r.r.d two ovliori reporx-d in 1977 ALT U r o n b a t, F J Î .I Cjrpvation al'Indu, ijtablisa^d Page 556 dîrected thc three petitioners to approach the Hon'bic Labour- Court under Sx. 2A(2) of thc I.D. Act. Hcnce, the potitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for nocessary relief.

5. Reîreating that lie worked from January, 77 . to December, 78 with R2 without any b.'cak in service the pjtitioner repeated that after extracting work from pstitioner as casual kbour pîaced him at the disposai of thc various contractons to perform; the same natire of work. At thc time of transfer- îing to the fold of the contracter the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D.. Act since it reîated to change of service conditions. Subsequcntly the petïtioner's service wëre terminclcd by the contracter on the advisc of the Respondent.

: 6. Thc Répondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent oicght not to hâve terminatcd !hc services of the petitioner wivhout complying with thc provi- sions of principles ,of natiraî. justice. The Respon- dent having con'inued the petitioner for a pjriod of aîmost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Heuce ihe said action araounts ,to violation of privision under Sec. 25F.of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the pjtitioner is the senior mos't employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though torminated services of the petitioner contimwd the wo'rkers who are jimiors to the pctiiioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts'to discrimination.

7. The pstitioner is uneducated inspite of his hsving made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is cr.îy earning membor of the family and in view of ilbgal termination it has bxome difficult for him to a.k ov.t his livclihcod and mainte- nance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may bj pleased to set. aside the oral termination order datcd 4-12-1978-of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the patitioner inlo service with continuity of service with back wages ànd ail other attendant bjncflts and pass such other orders as are just zr.â recessary in thc intefest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a comraon comter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. Tlie petitioner againapproachcd the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as if is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employé? in Food Corporation of India at any point oftime, Thereforc Sec. 2A(2) is.not attractad.

2553 10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted, that the respondent used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgfains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same and she was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those con- tract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-opera- tive Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as she was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an indœtrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by lctter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondsnt. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any docu- mentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefôre, the Central Govt bas decided not to26é4 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : NÏARCH 9, 20Ô!T/ PHALGtîNA 18, 1923 {PART II—SEC. 3(0)] refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any documsnt showing that he re:eive any amount from the corporation. After 1978 he worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V* Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally R.am Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any W.P. against the said proceedings of ALC(C). ne denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they them- selves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(Q.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manage", M:chanical et the District Office of the FCI, Vipya- wada depased as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he workod as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mi 11. The Régional Office of .he FCI ir.ed to award H&T work to private conractors by calling tendors. The contractor used to b'ing labmxvrs for the mirpose of doing the Works unde:takcn by him undor H&T contrat. The contractor was bilng paid as psr tha scheduled rates fixed for H&T confacts depsnding on the wo *k donc by him. FCI has nothing to do w'th thi engage- imnt of kbaurjn and work done by the lab:mrers was not siwrvised or controliod by any of tho officiais of the FCI. The contracter used to get the work done as de^irod by them. During the peûod from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract wrvs givm to A.P. Transport Workers O>op;rative Society, Hydorï.bad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. S?Jyanr.rayana Roddy. Hc can not ray whother the petitioner was employed by the sa'd contracta.'. Tnsre is no prrxtice of engaging casual labîu: for H&T works in FCI. He nev;r work ;d du-ing January, 77 to Décerner, 78 as casual labour undar FCI. Ex. Ml is îhe copy of th.3 tente: a .d tho contre.ct dated 1-3-1974 wh;rein the work was aw.irded to A.P. Transport Worke:s Co-op ;rativj Society for H&T Works at MRM, Miryalagma. Tho potiûorier was one of the 256 work.rs who raised industriel dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report. Ex. M2 is the copy of th> minutes of coi .ciliation p;ocoîdings held on 4-4-95 bîfors tho ALC(C). EK. M3 is tho btter dafed 17-6-97 issued by tho Govornrmnt of India expres^ing that tho industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of Ihe labDU-orj Worc engagod di;ectly by FCI nor th^y work;d for 240 days or more. This order has not b.en qujstioned in the High Coût by the con- ceraed workman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by FCI. In. tho cross examination he deposjd that he med to look after the maintenance and repairs of tht: machinery at MRM unit for handling and trans- port used 1O engage a contracter. Ail the oîher orki wsre carrigd tbxough contector. They havç 14. Sri. Md. Yesudani examined hirrself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and r.dded that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the regis- ter. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation sub- mitted atter.dance register to ALC(C)-I1 at Vidya- nagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC(C)-1I subsequently their services were con- verted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regu- larization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no a ùcable settle- ment Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. \V4 is the reprsentation made by ihe ynion to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is îhe crder in WP No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. \V6 is the attendance register maintained by the FCI. Fe could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register, etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government Corporation. He has net filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corpo- ration. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. Hs has not fiîed any représentation or letter addrcssed to the Respondent corporation alîe- ging that they worked in FCI and they were termi- nated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denid that only 26m

£96 (3J ALD page 955 wherein. i]t was held tha*

potitioner was appainted- on tenurc basis giving arti- ficial breaks. Pcridoner's services terminated refu- sing renewal and another. porson appointed. It was- held that the pjtitioner is entitled, to protection under Soc. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Sup:emo Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty. by a spjcific date but when attempled to join duty was prevented uoing so. Held the said standing order would not bo used to effect automatic termi- nation. of service. Tlic/efore prays the potitioner to, bo reinsiated.

not filod any license bjfore this Court. He is not. the concerned mau to appoint a contracter. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was bjing looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy . who was the Asstt. Manager. He dcnied that those contractors were not therc du:ing the said period. It is truc that ail thèse workmen havo raised the dispute bsfore the ALC(C). He has.not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence patitioner is one such. That S/Sâ V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filcd a Writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed bifore the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in FCI at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that FCI used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains. The con- tractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contracter.. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contracter. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed iir the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has oot appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Judge- ments : 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original docu- ment was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service can not be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government Department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after compîe- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment can not be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse emp- loyées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it ^as held that contract labour working as Hamali Eradjôyee contraeters ef Stogareai CôlUeries Ce Ltd., 16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the pstitioner that this is a case where this pjlitioner has bien made to run from pillar to post. The psti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th Decem- bsr, 78. That constantly they hâve baen put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) abaut conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepors that is for the month from Octobcr, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminot\s évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the FCI, who go against theni saying that they hâve raised the dispute bjlatedîy. They were working directly uuder the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised, by more than 250 workmen, the patitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by sp:aying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is tru-î that ail thèse workmen who worked in dopot and other centres hâve raisd the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that pjtitioner is to bs reins- tated. with ail back wages etc. The p*,titiouer relied on a Judgement in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the potitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the pstitioner did complète more than 240 days of senrice, that Sec. 25F was not coroplied with, the termination. was thsrefore bai. Ha also relied an

6Q4 GI/2002—251666 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARÏ-II—SEC. 3(ii)] they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers undcr Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dis- missing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court— Deprives them remedy available to them in law— Loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no con- nection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amend- ment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October, 77 to January, 78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/ 2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they

were made over to contractors without fcllowing Sec. 9A. Therefore they did not approach the con- ciliation offîcer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates pro- duced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has come in évidence thaï they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonable- ness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Losrdships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950 83 Page 152 64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grar.t reinstate- ment. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on dai.'y wages'jn a Governmenta! Department is not a retrenchment. That their djs- missal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He s!so relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15. years deprives of them of the remedy avai!ab!e to hâve and in law îoses their right as wel!. No doubt, Learned Counse! for the petitioner tried to disîin- guish between those who produced service certifi- cates and those who did not produce service certi- ficates. I ara afraid that a!so wiJ] not do cny good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states tbat the petitioner in that case worked onJy for three montha îwo days, the others arc Xerox copies w/îhout fijing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certjficste is fi.'ed although he himsclf did not file his service certificate. 19. In conclusion, pefitioners hâve not proved by any reliabJe documentary évidence that they worked under the FCI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For exampîe as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/ 2001 (t.D. 98/98 of Labour Court No. III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simpjy brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the FCI. Otherwise, al! thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for FCI no doubt pe/haps under différent cont/actors and moreover they say that they worked til! 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to themanagement for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direc- tion of FCI asfcing them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for FCI although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked direct'y at the F.C.L Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there as dclay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some cont- ractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer canno* be granted because as sated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.L But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitîed for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he îs free to employ any person as casual labour wbo is working earlîer to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only "for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award. Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me en this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for Witness examined.for the Petitioner the Respondent WW1 : Sri Md. Yesudani MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 1Q-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Failure of conciliation'report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4 Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 Order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

,Ex* W6 Copy; of the atten.ea.nce résister of Hdpers & Sweepers of FCI.

2667 Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 •" S.O. 889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Iflrtustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. ) 49/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-H)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERMNENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated, 31st December, 2001

Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 149 of 2001 (I.D. No. 83/98 Transferred from Labour Court-HI, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri G. Yadaiah, C/o F.C.I., MRM Miryalaguda-50820^.

. .. Petitioner.

ÂND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India.- HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Mariager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District

.Respondejt3,2668 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCS 9, 2.002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I - S E C. 3(ii)j APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

regard also the peAioner made several représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However no action was taken against the représen- tation. It-is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitionei's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

This case I.D. No. 83/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labotu-'s Order No. H-11026/1/2001-IR (C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbored in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 149/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradcsh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and. M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J Veera Swamy filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 koeping ail facts and circums- tances in view and basing upon the Judgcment of bstween Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corpo- ration of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessaiy relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, 77 to Dacembir, 78 with R2 without any break in service the psthioner repsated that after extracting work from pstitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transfer- ring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the pstitioner's service were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the ycar 1976 to Dccember. 1976. Subsequently, the Respon- dent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2n*d Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan., 1977 to 4th Dec, 1978. The petitioner was dirtctly under the control of the 2nd Rcspondunt. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminatcd in the month of Deccmbsr, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has bjen raaking représentations to the Roi pondent Coiporation. Ukimatoly the petitioner managed to get a job with the contracter in, Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same depot in the year 1984. The potitioncr made an application to the Respondent seeking appeintment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan., 1977 till Deeem- ber, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Refpondent intentionally instructed the contractor to rernove the potitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hor.cc, the action of Répondent in terminating the services of the petiLioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and wùhout assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the pstitioner without complying with the provi- sions of pnnciples of natural justice. The Respon- dent having continué the pstitioner for a psriod of almost two years continuously ought to ha-ve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of privision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the pstitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of fhe potitioncr eontinued the workers who are juniors to the pstitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application b^fore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. Tho conciliation p/oceedings were admittod by ALC(C) but that endod in fdluxe. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) cîosed the proceedings, but failud to rcpoit to the Government and the Govern- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate hii", the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earniiigmember of the family, 266$ and in view of illégal termination it has bxome difficult for him to eak or.t his livdihood end nyvnto- nance of family. The potitioner has not filed apy suit or case in any forum foi necessary relief.

among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industriel Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may bo pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent ar.d consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant b?nefits and pass such othor ordres as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainabie under the I.D. Au neither on law nor on facts. Th" potitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any poi it of time. Therefore Sec. 2À(2) is not attracted.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending, Government of India passed an order datçd 7*4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove tbat he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of allejed disengage- raent of his services by the management. He was also faited to give justifiable tessons for the inordi- natcdeîay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central ©pv£. has decided -not to •refer the above dispute for adjudication." Trje Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted tfae petitioner to approaçh appropria^ forum. Hençe, the -petitioner also has approached this forum.

13^'The petitioner was never engaged and was never ernpjoyed by the corporation, hence there is Mo question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and kp'ses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year T970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the food grains at Modem Rice Miil, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. Tha contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed *ind£r the H&T contract depending on the work "fone by him. It was his responsibility to as who^siiould be engaged and how many persons shoujd be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with tho^e matters. The corporation never cratrolled or super- vised the work done by the coptractor labour. The petitioner might be one of tjjése contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Gfe-operative Society Ltd.. was the contractor from^2-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Keddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to ll-lt-1979. The^"Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as/casual labour at any point of time. Therefore^the allégation that he was engaged as casuaLlabôpr by the FCI from 1(15*77 to 4-12-1978 is igéorrect and denied"

14. Sri G. Yaduah examined himself as WW1 and deposed faets stated in the pétition in the -chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along- with hîm there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance regis^er and wage register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah" obtained the attenda.nce register from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were conver ted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of cont- ractors. They worked till 1984. They made a rep- résentation to the management for repularizaiion of vtheir services for whieb. they were :.li terminale-', from services. The union raised the, said dispute whereiu î l. Union raised an iridustrial dispute in coa- aection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one2670 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI; II—Ssc. 3{ii)] his daim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993 Ex. W2 is, the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement Matter was referred to the Central Govt vide Ex. W3 Ex W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). dt. 16 8-93. Ex. W5 is the order in W P No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex W6 is the attendan- ce register maintained by the FCI Ex. W7 is the Xerox ccpy of Seivice ceitjficate fer the per.cd from 10-1-77 to 10-12-77 issued by the Asst. Manager (Dspot) Mr. Ratna Swamy. The original service cenificate was subir itted to the RLC(C). Hyderabad. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register, etc, during the conciliation period. In the cross exami- nation he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 conti- nuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in FCI and they were terminated fiom service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards He aenied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely S/Sri V Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri yeeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Mutthy eto. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relaiionship of emp- loyer and employée. That union has not filed any W P against the said preceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

of labourers and work done by tbe labourers was not supervised or controJled by any of the officia] s of the F.CL The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Sstyanaryana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of enga- i ng casual labour for H&T works in F.CI. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casua! Jabour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml i s the copy of the tender and the contract daîed 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transpoit workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryaîaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute ALC (C) submitted afailure report Ex.M2 is the eopy of the minutes of concilation proceedings heîd on 4-4-96 be- fore the ALC(C) Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence . As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6,was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance aad repairs of the machiaery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AU the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any licence before th's Court He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor They did not ma"ntain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that thOse contractor were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workman hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation, proceedings. In the said refeieBce petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkates- warlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that* copy of Order in WP No. 9008/92 is Wed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

1^6. It is argued by the -Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The peti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January 77 to 4th Decem- ber, 78. That constantly they hâve been p\it under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec, 9A of the 1,D. Act. No notice of termination was given as requjre* under Sec, 25 F or any wages paid. The petitioner 15. Sri Sîvaram Krishana, the Asst. manager, Mecbanica! at the District office of îhe F.C I Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to Jime, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Mirya- laguda Modem Rice MiH. The Régional office of the F CI used to award H&T work to private CGErtrac- tors by calîicg tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purposé of doing the works under- taken by hi ni' under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduJed rates fixed for H &T contracts depending on the work done by faira- F.CI. has nathing to do with the engagement 2671. has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC (C) about conciliation proceedings Ex. W2 is also served to the said efïect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC (C). Ex. W5 s the Xerox copy of the attendance register wh'ch shows tbat they are the beJpers and sweepers that is for the month from October 77 to January, 78. Hence,
certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the ab- sence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long piriod. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Judge- ments : 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfectorily that original docu- ment was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejocting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service can- not bi construsd as violation of Sac. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême C^U't Cases page 391 wherr.ïn thoir Lordships held dispensing with set vices of persons engaged on daily wages in a government riepartment therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Futther held that daily wagers disengagement after complc- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lord- ships firther held that concept of retrenchment can- not bî stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the pjtitioners are only daily wage employées and had no i-ight to the posts. He also¹ relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to bs absorbsd as badli fillers of the Company without their names foing sponsored by employment exchange. So firther held such workmen employed through a contractor does not bacome employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribs any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can bs exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been scttled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to bo no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in appro- aching the Court—Deprives them remedy available to them in law—Loses their rights as well. So the submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the peti- tioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

18. It may bs seen that this case has a chequsred history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case a.nd 43 other cases worked form January, 77 to 17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has ceme in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&Tcontract to priva te contracters for hand- ling and transporting cf foed grains. The eontrac- tors used to bring their labour for the purpese of doing the Works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contrac.tors during the said period. The F.C.I.-has no knowledge whettier the petitioner was enagaged under the contractor. The petitioner }s trying to project himseh* as casual labour with1672 THE GAZETTE OF INDU : MABCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] c - nnot be tioated- as rctrenchment. He alro reVed 01 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 yjars doprives 01 them of the remidy availabb to hâve aud in law lost-s their right as woll. No doub.", Loar'iod Coiuirol fo: the potitionca triod to distin- guish bjtw;en thosc who p:oducod service certi- fi:ates and tho-e who did not p/oduce service ce.lincates. I am af-aid that also will not do any good to p ;titionci"s and does not imp -ove their case b;cause the original cevtificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 status that the pjtitioner in that case worked ordyforthree months two days, the others' are Xerox cop.es without filing the original and in soms 4 or 5 ca:,es J. Veeraswamy's cartificate is filed although he himself did not file his service ceruficate. 4th DocCmbîr, 78. They havo approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 secking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they nave no con- nection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who app.'oachcd the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directod the p jtitioner to approach the Lr.baur Coift under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendmcnt under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I wculd like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industriel Tribmal-cum-Labour CoU"-t f.ni the amondraont of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govorn- msnt. However, as stated in the boginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Coirt by a Division Bench Judgom?nt held es the ara?r.dm?nt is assen- ted by the Président of India. thereforc direct appli- cations can bi entertaincd by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribinal-cum-Labour Coït "t. Accoidingly, this case was fiîed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much eluborcto disev^sions it is an admitted fact that they are casir.l lrboirors. Granted that the arguments of the Lcamcd Counseî for the poti- tionors arc- correct and \hc very attendanco regisie? which shows dr.ily rateù sweepsr atteridan.ee is fïom tho month of Ociob.-, 77 to Janui;y. 78, that is only for 4 months. And tlu>so who have p-odneod service certificates are ail xcrox copies excepi ono in L.C.I.D. No. 164'2001 whc.-cm th.; original certi- ficate filcd showing that he worked frora 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helpsr. No doubt, it is allcgcd that they continuod to work undor contractors as they were made over to con- tractors without following Soc. 9A. Thereforc they did not app:or.ch the conciliation office?. Evcn if that is taken as irui and ail tho Xerox copies of the service ceriificates p;odired in so many cases are also taken to bs tnr:. Docs it imp:ove the situa- tion ? It has com2 in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual kbou\ No doubt, no limita- tion iï p'oseribod iv.d-;r the I.D. Act, but, ail cases tho qUîSiion of i\.asoiu.bl ;ncss in approaching ths p"opj* c.uhoriiics also has to bo seen. They kept qu',.; ill 1988. Ar.d aflor ail the writs etc. ahnost 22 y.:. -s have pa?sed. Will it bo advisabte to direct ih; Food Corporation of India to take them back ? Ta. L an.cd Counscl for the respondent hâve refer- ••A .0 2000 (1) LU page 561. Their Lordships

r e fu • ;d ÏO c o n d o nc t he d e l ay of 7 y e a r s. He a l so

19. In conclusion, petitioner bave not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases wbere service certificate ÏS Ê'ed. For example :,i stated in L. CI.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98. of Labour Court-III) it is on3y for three months two days. But it cannot be simpîy brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to à® with the F.CI. Otherwise, al! thèse peîitioners filing writ in the Han'bla High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.Ï. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked tili 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regulari- zation of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the pefitioner bave fai.'ed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked direcîly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exbibits, it can safely beconcluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through con- tractors. More so in view of the exhibits fiîed by'tha respondsnt. which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay bat not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some contracter or other till 1984 aod they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence, the above-ciîed Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted bscause as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in al! thèse cases they are entitîed for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is rol; ;.l on Shalimar Works Ltd. and- their Workraon SCLF 1950—83 pago 152—64 whercin their Lord- sh;p ' h ;ld chat where there was Wholesale discharge of WJ'knun their Lord^hips held fou* years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Sup-om; Court Cases page 39-1 their Lord- shi'p: hvld that disp::i$\ag with services of persons engag.;d on daily wages in a Govemmental D"part- meat is not a retrenefmtent, That their disntissal

directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlieB to this petitionet. But once employment îs gifeiï to such persons. petitionei"'s services sbal! be taken as worker of January, 77 and he sha)] be gK-en préférence over others in tbe matter of employ- ï"°v.t or casuai labou*- even tbough ors (teily wages tiHr:^ b\° seivc-;fy as employée of January, 1977 C"V'r st MiïyH'agudr. or at Na'gopda District. i-)n"Tver, a word of caution that tbis shal! apply c¹!" fnr engaging fresh casua! labours from today and tbere sha!] be no retrenchment in view of îb;" award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced m the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Ki:m K. F'hani Gowri, Persona\ Ajustant, trarrcribed by ber corrected by me on tbis tbe 31 st day of December, 2001.

E. ÏSMAIL, Pi-esiding Office?

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for Petitioner : Respondent :

WW 1 : Sri G- Ya.'aiah MW 1 : Sri M Siva Rama

Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. W 1 : Conciliation order of ALC (C) dt. 10-9-93 Ex. W 2 : Lr. Of ALC (C) dt. 9-5-94

Ex. W 3 : Faihre of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide !r. No. 8(1) 1993-E3

257Î New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S.O. 890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disnute" Act. 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 151/2001) of the rentrai Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labiur Court, Hvderabad as shown in the Annexai e in the Industrial Dispute between'the employer* in relation to the management of FCI and their wnrkman. which was recçivad by the Central Govern- ment on 19-2-2002.

.[No. L-22025/l '2OO2-1R(C-II)1

N. P. KESAVAN, Pesk Officer

ANNEXURE

B " r n p i! TVfV PPNTR AT GOVCRNMFNT 1MF>T)CXPTAT. TRTBTJNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. Tsmail, Presiding Officer.

Dated. îlst December, 2001

Tndustrial Dispute L/C.I.D. No. 151 of 2001 (I.D. No. 85/98 Tran"fen-pd from Labour Court-ÏTT. Hyder.^ad)

BETWEEN

SW T Tai Singh. C/n F.C.I.. MRM Miryalaguda-508207

.. .Petitioner.

AND

1. Tbp Sr Kepionai Manager.

Fo"d r'omoration of India. H A r rA Bhavan, Hvderabad.

2. T*" rw*rîr;t Wxnaeer

F^"ri r"r.rT-r.r^;on of India. Naironda District.

. .. Respondents.

APPFARANCES:

Fnr the .Petitioner • M /s. Ci. Ravi Mohin.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G Ravjndra Reddy.

spT. WT. 890.—"Ûatfrff f*RK îrfaf^ïïTT, 1 9 47 ( 1 9 47 ^T 14) ¥T 9HT 17 % %F\piN îf, 604 GI/20a2—26?674 THE GAZETTE OF INDIÂ : UAMM % 20(132/ PHALGWA 18, 1923 [PART II—Sec. 3 $ )] of the I. D. .Act, 1947 in view of the juâge- raeïrt cf tbe HfH*bl<- High Court of Aodfara Eradesh reporetd in W, ?. No. "395 of 1S89 dat-d ?-
2. Brief avennents of the pétition are ; Th>at the Re"p rdr^t, Fcod Cor-orat: 0n of India, establnhed JVfRM MiHrg Oorr^ ions'Depcts/ Godow~> in 1970 o"rr''Lng on Mill'ng Opérations. Ifjtially tbe ptitioner was enrag"d as contract worker in -tbe year 1956 t© ©sceHi&er , 1976. Subsequcntlv, the Resnrrdent Ornoration did Jiot ""trust -anv w rk to tfee •cont >aeton. Tfcere- f^re, the petitiortr was dfrfctly er>gaged tty *ftoe 2nd Resoondettt namely, th" District Maia^er, Focd ©OTpniSEttion nf in lia, Nafecntia District. He worke-d frr m Jan'1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. Tfis petiticTier was directlv under the con+r 1 of the 2nd Resorndent. The Petitioner wTked conti- nucusly for the above saîd p:riod without any break in service. The services rf the pstitioner were termirated in the month rf Decmber, 1978. After ihe nlk^aÉl tefBriBï"ti:n ipeiità aier ner fr^m service. Thei^f^re, petitioner ws again oi't of em->lovm"nt. Tfenoe, the action rf Resp-ndert in t^minatbg the services of the petitioner wHh effect from 4-12-1978 witheut any nrtic^ "and sutb^ut assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrWy &ad 5unj"st.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application bef-re the ALC (C) on 12-4-1988 seekrtn absorp- tion. The conciliation .preoeeeïkigs were.adnTitt^d *y .ALC (C) but tint end-ed m :f.ailure. Consé- quent on failure cf the meetings ALÇ (C) closed the preceedings, but failed to report te the Govern- ment and *the Government in tum couW flot refer the ,disîvute. ÏP this regard ,also the .p&titioner made seVeral representatirns to ALC (C) n send the dispute to .the Government. HoweVer no actien was taken against the représentation. It is "ijib^mitted that %: ,§aid dispute was raised by the union on behaîf of .250 workmen. Ail the Wcrkmen were questicn.ing the sjmiîar issue pn .Sîmi^r jgrc.uc us. Th.e pçjittqn&r is one ,amo_ng tîicse 250 .workmen. An_d the petitipne*'s prayer ^.jlame a$ that of the otiisr wjr-
4. Apgrievesd fey the .actioa of ths ,ALC{C S/Sri V. Venkatesw%lu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy ffl^d W? No. 9008/92 that ornr to filing cf the W.P the e n t r ai G"vt. passed an crder dated 13r5-1993 rej-"ting the petitioner's claim on the gr^'uad that there is QO relatif nsh'n rf the emplrypr and eraplry^e. The Hrn'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 kcîiiig ait facts anl circumstairces in view and basing utjrn the Juge- ment of between Sri U. Chinnaopa and M/s. C tten Corporation cf India and two others reperted in 1977 AtT Page 556 dinoted the three petitioners to aoproach the Hon'ble Labour Court undex Sec. 2A (2) of tfas I. D. Ad. Hence, the oetitionex js also ccnsiyained to apprcacji the Hon'ble Court alcngfcj jiecessary relief.

5. retreatiog that he warked from January, '77 t0 December '78 with R 2- wifh>ut aiy break in service thç petitiDner repïatïd that after cx- •ts&cfittg s^rk frora petiéoner as c&smi labeur pl^ced him at the disposai of thî varias çQjifac- torsto perf"rms the same nature ofwork. At thstiaie .of iEaQ^errjag ta the f^ld of th? csmtract3r Ahe petitioner was jjpt given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I. D. Act since it related to change of st^viee spondi^aps. Su^se(}jufntly the petitioner's services were terminated by the PPJjt^tax ©n tyg. advise of ft? Rçsp 3"dent.

6. The Rsspondent is a model emplcyer. 'Henoe, Responcknt ought not "to ha"e teiminated the services cf "the petttijaar withjut complying with Jhe provisions of princjples cf natural justice,. Tbe Rçsppndent having çontinued the petitioner for a periLd of almcst two years continususiy ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said -iïction ani&unts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the T. D. Act. It is "ftteiUfd thpt ,J,he pejttioner is .the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since WTÏÏ. Tihe ccjpoiation ^hpugh terwà^ated iS§"vipes cf the petitianer continusd the wr,rkiers who are j,ixniors to the pititionçr in ^service. JHence, the jiction pfjths Rïspjn^?oJ atnaunts to discrimi- nation.

7. T.he petitioner is un^duçated inspite ,qf h> having made oral ^ryepsnt^tions to the Respon- dent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored •the same. The -petitbner is -enly.-eartting -mimber cf the fantly ".nd in .view of#l3fal .termination it has bsc m> diSiiult for him to eak out his liveliheed and maintenance of family. The petitioner ha^ snPt f,led .any suit or ^çase in a"y fprjim ,for necessary relief.

S. Th&refcie,- it i& prayfid that this ©oust m*y be pfeased ta set-aside ths osalte.rn%ta.atiau0r4"r date* 4-12-19?" of the Resp;nd*n,t and-conse- que&tly direGt the respoud©¹!* t© reinstate the petiticner i"t© service with contiouity of-ss^vice with back wages aad ail other attendant bîneêts and pass such other ©rders as are just aad nsce- ssary in the interest of jjstice.

9.; The respondent filçd a ccmiUen cpuntef stating tbat the pétition is net majntainable. un4er the I. D. Act neither en law, ncr on façis. The petitic ner again, appr ^ched the Labour Court under Sec. 2A (2) cf I. D, Act as it is an auendinent by tht S ate Goveinr-fnt. The pçti- tioner never w< rked as an emF| yee in Eççd Corporation of India, at a"y poin,t cÇ time. Theçe- Çore, Sec 2 A (2) is. no,t attracted.

10, M^dem Riçe MiU at Mifyalaguda W4S eitabl'shed *n tbe year 1870 aad-ÇçiarnissJcned frem 2grSrl97l. It is ane cf tke M dern R'ce Mills estabUsfeed ail OVCE the ccutttey. Mtmlly Raw Millmg f^eility was pxovided with a l:miteMj. nutnbex of casual w*tkers and subs°<|ueatly Parijoiled unitwas cemmissiened with the increase strength cf cas^ual w^rkess. It is submitted that the respondent used-to award H &T contract to private ccntpact©rs fer handling and transoTt- ing rf the feed prains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the fcod stora-re deo't at Miryalaguda en tender basis. The contracter used to bring his cwn labour frT the same and he was paid as per the schedulsd rates fixed under the H &T c'-ntract. depending rn the workdone by him. It was his resp n-ibiltty as to who shçuld oe engaged and how n"any per'on§ shqujd be engaged for his work. The PCI has nothing to d" wïth those matters. Tte corporation never controlled cr supervised the werk done c>y the contract labour. The petitkner mfght'be cnè cf those contract labourers. A P. Tr|nsDçj'rt Workers Cc-operative S. ciety Ltd., wâs tl|e contracter frem 22-4-1974 to 14^5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Cofnjrànx was the contractor fer the Period fr jgj Î2-Ï1-1977 Vo T1-11-1979. The Respon: çnt'hâs no knowledge as to the service pvjt in by tbe petitioner, as he was never engaged as cas^aï labLur at any point cf tiine. ï|ier\fore, the allégation that he was engaged, as casuâl l^b^ur by the FCI fam 1/1977 fo 4-12-1978 is i.ic^rrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 werkers and the petitioner w#s one am."ng them. The ALC^C) subœittsd hj§ report to t^[Mjn^tjy.Qt Labeur, fipv^r;iffl|nt. of Indja on 13-5-1996. The Gov-rnin^ of ,5.^.5

^ 75 H Wm 4 ^ t^ &.6'm7/l%W%7T oo.nv.3"e4 its dfci&i n ^k^k %s dispute is, aot ftt f r, Ejfaœace ïp t^" foéustriak TiifeuTisalî on VAQ SI uad that %exe iî no. m%teti$>\ shcwiig tha.t thare. was relatipnship of ePPï yei and ^wpl yee between thfe petitl oex and the Respandeat. Petliiantr has act choses, to questi n the abr ve décision cf- the- Ge.tral G,ve^ra^,t.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Aijiianh, J. Veeraswany andV-. V"nkateswarlu fiied a W? W. 9008/92 seekmç direct ins when the W.I was pending, G' verrmtnt cf Itidia passed an ^rder dated 7-4-19>3^ rijxtiig tjeir claim which r^ads as thus, "The workmen has Faikd to pr dUce any decumentary evicence to prôve that he h^d Wirked fer a perKd tf 240 da>s trm>re riuiin£ the peried cf"l2 menths precedug the dateof aÎLgèd disengag^ment cf his services by the management. Hë was also failed te give ju^ti- fiab.e reas^ns fvr the Widinâte delay\f m re than 9 y^ars in raisiig ths dispute. 'Tûir^fore, the Central G-vt. has decided nçt to refer the ab ve dispute for adjudication." The Hcn'ble High Court -f A. Vr i-i W? Ni. 9,008/^2 per^lt.ed the petiti-ner to approach appropriate fcrûni. Hence, the petiti&ner also has approic^îd tjis forum.

13. The petiti, ner was neVar e^^ig^d aid wa^ neyer emplcyed by th; çjrpjrati^n/heaçe thftr.e is na quqstbn of yiLla^n cf Sec. 2,5F ^v^n ot'^çr-r ^i|e the; petitioner has ap.p.ro|ched thg t|oi\'l% Court after a., ^pse cf 1^ years andtia P^titbn \s liablg. to Ue. disn^issed on ihg feoua^ cf ^êî^y a^ l^ses^. Hqnce, the petit on ÇÇay h^ disnjusei 14. Sri T. J^i Siagh eximtnîd hknsslf- as W'W* 1 and deposed facts s m e l ' ïi tliî pkition in the chief examinatien and addîd that he was s upervising the stocks fr m inspects by applying pesticides. Along with h m ther; w^rs 30 to 59 casual workers à"t Miryaliguda. That hs u.ei t> be paid montbly salary. He work= & coitmuôusly for twe ycairs. The respondent used to m ijitain atten- dance {eg',ster and w.ages regisîer aad hî usei to sign* on the registers. No àopointmsnt letters w^re issu^d. They wjrs oiii moïthly wages. The co poiatijn su^mittei attîadaic? regjs.t6ç ta ALC(C)^II ^t V ^ a ^ ar d p pg coricjiïftipp.' (3eîieral Seçrçt^çy lyjç. ^nja^iah, obt|: ineçj thç ^tten^liice r ^ e r ^ r o tn ^LG(C)-t( ,'§ubs4: qïiRptiytÛéic sévices ^er% çpp\^f4 ^. H %y .^ejee wprj^ng "m§ t'% . g p ^ a c^ Nq n_ptic,e. wasf s£|vçd a| the tigie p|:çhaygù^ h thç ÎQ^.Of çp^trajîtpi^2676 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I- S E C. 3(ii)l They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for régula rization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein has claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the service cenificaie issued by the Assi. Manager (dtpc!) dt. :9-lT-77. The petit;onei depcseci :hat he v^iked as a daily rated casual helper to that effect he has produced a copy of service certificate where in it is stated that the petitioner worked as a daily rated casual labour for the period frûm 2-1-77 to 29-12-77. Ex. W 5 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC (C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination he deposed that the respon- dent corporation is a central government corpo- ration. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respon- dent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corpo- ration. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représenta- tion or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation afleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onw- wards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanara- yana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC (C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated and there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC (C). He denied that Ex. W 5 is forged and creat;d. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W 5 before the RLC (C).

H & T work to private contractors by calling tendsrs. The contractor used to bring labo rers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the en- gagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.Ï. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H &T works in F.C.I. He ne ver worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. M 1 is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A. P. Transport workers Cc-operative Society for H &T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers whô raised industrial dispute. ALC (C) submitted a failure report Ex. M 2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC (C). Ex. M 3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W 5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AH the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint as a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denisd that those contractors were not there during the said pariod. It is true that ail thèse workman hâve raised the dispute before the ALC (C). He has not attendej the concilia- tion proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W 5 is filed before the RLC (C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mecharifcal at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW 1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mi]]. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to award 2577

of service. Tnerefore, prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where thls psti- tioner has been made to run from piîlar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years conti- nuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under orte or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisagea under Sec. 9A of the I. D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. W 1 which is addressed to Ànjaiah by ALC (C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W 2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W 3 is the failure" report of the ALC (C). Ex. \ty 5 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this volu- micous évidences the irere fset that thèse helpîess illiteraîe persans wbo were again working liîl 1984 under conti-actors after. having woïked with the F.C.I., who go sgainst them saying that tfcey hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They wc-re working directly under the contic! of second Respc-ndeni. However the said dispute was laiîed by more than 250 workmen, the petilicner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was lookir;g after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW 1 admitted in the cross examiDa- tion he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true-lhat alJ theie wcniren wbo worked in depet sod other centres ha\e raised the dispute bei'ore the ALC (C), . This shows that they worked in îhe dépôt. Further he is not connected wilh the said work hence, it is submitted tbat petitioner is to be reinstated witb al! back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Jugement in WF No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A. F. Higti Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders cf the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ pa£e 201 wherein it was he!d that the petitioner did complète more tban 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the ten-ainstion v"as therefore bad, He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that, petitiener vas appointed on tenure basis giving arlificial breaks. Petiiiner's services terminated refusing reneval and another person appoint d. Itwas held that the petitiener is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases Page 61, where it was held that tbe absentée workman was required to join duty by a spéci- fie date but wben attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held tbe said standing, order would aotbs mei to eSôit autojiatic termination -

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.L at any point of time. That it has cône in the eviderce that F.C.I. used to award H & T contact to private contractors for handling and transpertiog of foed grains. The coniractors used to bring theii labour for the purpose of doing the wctks under taken by the contractor. The corporation never cen- trolled or supervise the work of the labour of tbe contractor thaï there was two différent contrae- tors during the said period. The F.C.L bas no knowledge whether the petitioner wasengaged under the contiactor. The petitioner is trjing to project himself as casua! labour with certain xerex papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is fiîed in the yesr 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the follcwing Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to expîain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot daim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be con- strued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherem their Lordships held dispensing with services of persens engaged on daily wages m a government department therefore is not a re- tranchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wa^ers disengagement after completion of work hâve no rigbt to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage emplo- yées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Ha a ali Employée contractors of Singareni Colli- ries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be ab- sorbed as badli fillers of the company without their iïames being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such workmen em- ployed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Loidships he'd Law does not prescribed any time limit for thç 2 6 7| T HE G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : M A ^ C f l U" 2 Q ^ / P H 4 t G WA 1 8, 1 9 23

[ P A RT I J ^ S E C, • > ( " )] appropriât? Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since beea settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be n@ rational basis on whjch the central government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (6?) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over J5 years in approaching tbe Court-Deprives them remedy available to them in law-Loses theinights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the lighj is lost by efflux of time.

true apd :;31 the Xerox copies of the service cerîificates pioduçed in so many cases are aJso taken. to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has corne in évidente that they worked as dajly rated casual labour. No doubt, no limi- tation is presciibed under the I. D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in appvo^- ching the proper authoriîies also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And, after ail Jhe writs etc. almost 22 years hâve pa^sed. Will jt be advisable to diroct tho Food Cqrpa atioq of In lia to take them back ? The Learned Çosunjei for tb.2 respondent hâve referred to 2Q0Q {{) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refusé to caadofle tbe delay of 7 years. He also relied on, ShaUnrîF Works Ltd and their workman SCLF 1953-83 page 152-64 wherein their Lordships beJd that where there was wholesale disçharge of workm^il their Lords'iips held four years dîhy is si^ffhient not to grant réinstallent,. Further 0977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages jn a governnjçnts! department is not a retrenchment. Thst tbeir dismissal cannot be treated as retrençhment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : Japse pf over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as weîl. No doubt Learned Çounse! for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I a m afraid that also will not do anv good to p2titionîrs and does not improve their case becausa tha origi- nal certificate marked in cà$e of LÇID No. 164/23^1 ID No. 98/98 States that thg petjtionsr in that case worked only for thras mjatha tvvp duji, the cther cases they are X;<.-ox cDpjîs without filing the original and in som: 4 or 5 cases J. Veera3"va ny's certifiçate is filed aJtho i|h he himself did not file his service certifiçate.

18. It may be seen that this case has a ehequered history. The allégation is that the pctitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. te say that they bave no connection what se ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the [email protected] to approaeh the Labour Court under Sec. 2A (2) of A. P. State Amendaient under Industriel Disputes Aci, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Centrai Govt. Industriel Tri- bunal cum Labour Court and the amendment ef Sec. 2A (2) is of the State Government. How- ever, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore, direct appli- cations can be entertained by ihe Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accor- dingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is aa admitted fact that they are casual labourets. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October 77 to January 78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in LCID No. 164/2001 ÏD No, 98/98 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they conti- nued to work under contractors as they were rnade over to contractors without foHowing Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did aot appioaca tfae coaciJiation officer. Even if that is taken as

19. In conclusion, petitionsr hâve not proved by any rejiable docoumintary eyideijçe that they worked under the F.Ç.I. eyen in cases where service certificate is filed. Fpr examp^le as stated in the cass, that" is in L.C.I,D. No. 164/2001 (ÏD 98/98, of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed asicle that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc wouïc} be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked tilj 1984 unJer various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regulari- zatjon oj their services for which agaia they wera un

Ex. W 3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC (C)

vide lr. No. 8(1) J993-E3

Ex. W 4 : Ccpy cf service ce tificate dt. 29-12-77

Ex. W 5 : Copy of the attendance register of Hel-

pers & Sweepers of FCI

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M 1 : Copy of the teader &n& the- contract dt.

1-3-74

Ex. M 2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and faflure report of ALC (O)

Ex. M 3 : Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour

Dt. 17-6-97

removed by conîracîors uadc. tb
~~Ex. M 4 : Notice under Arbitratjjon Ac| and Arfoitration Award dt. 25.-J-89 90. In the -result, the "sondent No. 2 is~~

directe^ rkej of Jflwary, J977 and be -shal! j>e given jprefejence over others in âhc ^a-tter of- employ- fip®atrot casuaJ Jabour even thougb on
Award passed accordingly and pronounced in

the open Court. Transmit

Dicta-ted to Kura. K. Phani G0"wri, Personal Assistant, transcribed hy her corrected by me on tbis the 3Jst day of Decembej-, 200,1.

Naw Djlhi, ihc i9th F^b-uaty, S002 E. ISMAIL, Presiding OfBcer

Appendix tof Evidence

Wftness "EaHiwed for 4he ^Witoess exarained for EetittQner : Respondent :

WW 1 : Sri B. J^i Singh MW 1 : Srj M. Siva Rama

Krishna

S. O. ?j&94 ,rrln pirsuance of Section .17 of the Industrial ©ispute Act, 494-7 (14 of 1947), the C -i+ral fijvommnt hn-efy/ piibîishns the awad (R-jf. No. 174/2001) of the € ntral Gov^-nm-snt Industriel-T ife-'.-aal-cuin-LC, Hyd- -i.\rA as shown in the Annexirc in
•Documents marked for the PetitioDer/Union

ENo. L-2-2O2^/l/3002-.IR (€<">] p x . W l: Cpnciliation prder of ALC (G) dt. 10-9-93

Ex. W^ :Lr. of ALÇ,(C) dt. 9-5-94

W. P. SES/MAX. X)£sk Officer2680 THE GAZETTE OF 1NB1A : MARCH 9y 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3;n)J ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TNDUSTRTAL TRIBUN A.L-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Proscrit

Shn E. ISMAIL

P/esiding Officor

Datcd 31st D-crmbs-, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L C.I.D. No. 171 of

2001

(ID No. 211/98 T"a"sfor-od fr-om L r . bw Coirt-

III. Hydoxbr.d)

BETWEEN :

Hfcnce, tho pjtitioner is abo constrained to app;oach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary r&fief.

5. ELetreatang that he^ worked front Januarys 77 to Dseembef, 78 wiftb R2 witliout any break w service t&e- petitio-neB ispeatei that after estracting work fbom petéLioner as. casua-l labour- placeci him at the disposai of the variàvs e^ntraetws to- p^rform the same nature of weric. Àt thfi time of transfcr-riag to the f©ki of tbfi contractor the- p^tétioner was not given any notice a& roqiwed- usder Sec 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to çJWngg of service condi- tions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were tewttiaated by the contacter o® the advise of the Responéent.

6. The Respoadenjt, is a mode] employer. Hence, Jfeesgoadent ougti ttettohav^ termiaated the services of th& potitKWier without cemfîlying with the provi- sions of principes of naturaA justice. The Respon- dgnt haviug continued the petitioner for a period- of alew&t, two years coatinu©usly ought to hâve given notice pay.. Hcnee the said action amounts to violation, of provision uudsr Se.c 25F of the LD. Act. It is sjjjbmitted that the petitio^er is the senior most employés of Corporation who worked since t977. The, corporation tbough tesminated services of the p"tUJtQBes coatinued the workers who are juniors t
7. Ttttî patitk>aer k uaeducated taspi^ of her havmg matf" osairep?es&Ht"tio3*sto- the- Respondçnt to reiwstate ïàfà, the Re&poadeat ignoee4 tb#- sa"ine. The pittt'ioae* is only earatag mefflib^j of \%o famâly and m vkw of illégal teïminaten it hss, b^c"wne diffiCHk for him to eak "ut him Hvelihoo4 a"4 majnte- nane© of fomily. Thé peùJÉwmt* bas ®M fited any stiit op eâ-se in any fo^uai for necessary F"4kf.

S. Theïc-fore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleassd to set aside the oral termiaation order rtated 44 24 978 of tke Respondent and consequently direct ths r"bpai"urient to reinstate the petitioner into service with co"tkiuity of service with back wages and ail other attsndarP.t benefits and pass such other orders as. are jvist and necessaiy in the interest of justice.

9. The re-spe"d©nt fited; a common ceuntêi stating that th" polhie" is net maintainable vmàet the^ I.D. Act ne-ithef o" law n"F cm facts. Th® peJitioner agate approâcbed th© Labaw Cw.rt und®? Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it ie an am^ndineirt by the Statç Govern- ment. Th© potitiowr nevef worked as m employée in Fooé CotpOïation of In'lia at any point of time. Thorefore Soc. 2A(2) is not attfacted.

10 Modern Rice Mill at Mîryalaguda was esta- blished in th^ v e ar 1970 and commissîoned from 2&44971, It is Qne of the Modem Rfae Mills esta- bUsfaed. alï over ïhe çountry. Initially Raw Mîlfing 604 GI/2OO2—27

2681 facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H&T contract to private contraetors for handling and transporting of the food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as tc" who should be engaged and how many persons should be engagçd for his work. The FCI has nothiag to do with those mattets. The corporation never controlled or super- vised the work done by the contract labour. The petkioner might be one of those corrtraçt labourers A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. There- fore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11 Union raised an industrial dispute in con- necti©" wita 256 workers and the petitioner was one anaong the.m. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour,. Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-r997/î5-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showmg that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veera&wamy arjd V. Venkateswarlu filed a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejeeting their claim which re"ds as thus, "The workmen has faikd to produ.ee any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a pe,riod of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inwdi- nate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has deçided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hott'ble High Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.
2682 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART H - S E C. 3(ii)î
13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even othcrwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence. the pétition may be dismissed.

After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Rcddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of emp- loyer and employée. That union has not filed any W.P. against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied ihat attendance register is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of attendance register before the RLC(C).

14. Sri Md. Siddique examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along- with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maint ain attendance register and wage register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C>-1I at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtaincd the attendance register from ALC(C)-TT subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of cont- ractors. They worked till 1984. They made a re- présentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terrninated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. A représentation was made by the union of the ALC(C). The attendance register maintained by the FCI which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register, etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross exami- nation he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 conti- nuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. H is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in FCI and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any dodument showing that he received any amount from the corporation.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mechanical at the District Office of the FCI, Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryala- guda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the FCI used to award H&T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the Works under- taken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. FCI has nothing to do with the engagement of labo- urers and work done by the labourers was not super- vised or controlled by any of the officiais of the FCI. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was emp- loyed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T work s in FCI. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under FCI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded 10 A.P. Transport Workeri Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expres- sing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by FCI nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Attendance reg'ster was not maintained by the FCf. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AU the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any licence before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers 2683

sing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termi- nation of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and .T. Veera Swamy filed a Writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is emitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where tliis petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The peti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January. 77 to 4th Decem- bër, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or anothèr contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. Attendence registet is the Xerox copy of the atten- dance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the FCI, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working direçtly under the control of secon . Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among t-hese 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that aïl thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). T^iis shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the tepminatiofl was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving arti- fiCial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refu-

17. The respondent Counsel arguod that peti- tioner never worked in FCI at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that FCI usort to award H&T contract to private contractors for han- dl ing and transporting of foortgrains. The cont nictors used to bring their labour for the purposo of doing the Works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the cona*actor that Ihere was two diffeient contractors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge whether the potitioner was engaged under the contractor. The patitioncr is trying to project herself as casual labour with certain Xerox papors which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. Whcn the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hernce, the petitioner is not ontitlcd for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Jr.dgomrats. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held faiiu:o to explain saîisfactorily that original document was kw: o: that it is r.ot in a position to havj the same. Court rejecting pormisbion to file Xerox copy of docurnsnt as secondary évidence justified. He also reliod on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wago employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also reliad on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government department therefore is not a retrenchment Furthe: held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengag:;ment after completion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships furi-he; tuld that concept of retrenchmsnt cannot bo stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Sinca the pjtitioners are only daily wago employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 42 Division Ber.ch it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée con- tractors of Singarcni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to bo absorbjd as badli fillcrs of the company without their names baing sponsorôd b/2684 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDJA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI 11—SEC. 3(ii)] Employment Exchange. So further held such work- men employed thiough a contiactor does not bscome employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships he4d Law does not prescrib; any lime limit for the appropriate Governmeirt lo exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exorcised at any point of lime and to revive matters which had since bien settlcd. Power is to be exercised reason- ably and not in a rational manner. There appeais to us to be no rational b:isis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respon- dent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 whurein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court Deprives them remedy available to them in law loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clcar rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

that is tajsea -as twe iaad aH the Xexox copies of th service certâficates preduced in so raany cases are also tak-en £o he true. Do.es it improve the situation ? It bas cosag in évidence that they worked as .daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescrib^d under itho I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question ©f reasionablaness in approaching tho proper autttoroties also has lo hs seen. Tkey kept quite tïll 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. WU1 it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve refered to 2080 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Ixwéships refused t@ condone the delay of 7 years. He afc© relied oa Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workenen SGLF 1950—83 page 152—64 whereia their Lordskips taeM that wbere tbere was wholesate discharge "f w
19. In conclusion, pjtitioaers hâve "ot proved by

any ireliable docxvmcntary évidence that tkey worked

under the FCI even in cases where service

certificate is filed. For exam^le as stated in i&e

case that is in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001

(I.D. 98/98 of Labour Cowt-Ml) it is otdy

for three mo"ths two days. But it canaot be simpfy

bruKhed aside that petitioner has motking to do

with the FCI. Otherwise, ail tèiese p&titMaHers Hliag

writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. woufcl be a futile

exercise. They did work for FCI ao dosët p ^ b a ps

under différent contractors and more ©ver they say

that they worked till 1984 under various contractas

that they made a représentation to the managemefit

for regularization of their services for Which again

they were removed by contraotars uader fche dicectioa

of FCi asking thei" n&t to engage them. So it can

satfely be co"okade4 that thèse persems éid worft for

FCÏ although under various ctmtractors but the 18. lt may be seen thaï this case lias a chequerod history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this cas; and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Decemtor, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no con- nection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioners to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 1 would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, the refore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998 Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of Octoter, 77 to January, 78. that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (I.D. N o. 98/98) wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily reated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they werc made over to con- tractors without following Sec. 9\. Thercfore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if

petitioner hâve failed lo prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked direetîy at the FCt. Sceiftg the evkknce on record it can safety be oesetadeé tfeat they did woric for tbc FCI atthoagh tfeirocgh coTïtractors.. More so m view of the exhibits ffled fey the rêspo*?$ewt whidi siiows that they were corrtractors durmg the retevaiït pïrtod. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten yeats. Bccause, Iticy corrtïnueà werking i"iéer some con- tracter or otrier till 1984 and they appro&ched tfee ALC
20. In the rosult, the respoattettt No. 2 is directeé that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. Btit orrce employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall b; taken as worker of January, 1977 awi he shall bi given préférence over others in the mattftr ®f "mployment of cas"al labour even though on da% wages talrisg his seniority as employée ©f January, 1977 either at Mityalagttda or at Nalgonàa District. However, a Word of caution that this gfa&U apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from to"toy and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Âward passed aceofdmgly and premaumeed in t&e open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Perseaal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2@0i.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding OflScer Appcndix of Evidence

Witoess ewani"cà for Witness exa"ined for the Respottdent the i>G"ti@ner

MW1 : Sri M. Siva WW1 : Sri. Md. Siddique

Rama Krishna DoctKncnts marked for the Petitiouer

25*5 Documents marked for the Respondeni Ex. Ml Copy of the tender fené tîte conCract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of ' minutes &f conciliatien proceecV ^.s dt. 4 4-96 and failurc report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 L-. FT-OWÎ
Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Ad and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 892.—In pUTstiance of S;cttoft 17 of thfe Industriaï ÏWsTfjUte Âct, 1947 (!4 ©f 1947), "te C"tt- traKjaveTBrûttrthîTeby puft^sh été award (&èff. Nb 172/2001) of the Central Governmétft Vnâtstml Trib"n"l-cuffl-Labo"r Court, Hydsabad as shown in tl" Aftsexure in the la&ustrial Dis^te between the traipleyes-s in réfrtkm to the manageiiaeot of FCI aad ttoeir worionan whfch wa^ re^ivedby the Central Govc^"n"ér" 0" 19-02-3002.

[No. L-22025/1/21002-^
N.P. itESAVÀft, Dêsk 'Officcr ANNfiXURC

BEFORE THE CENTRAL tîOVËRNIVfENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR CbURT ATHttŒRAfiÂD

Preseat

Shri E. ISMAIL

Ptêsiding ©ffiew

Dated - 31st Ikcember, 2001

ÏNDUSÎRIAL DISPUTE L.'C.iJ> No. 172 "f 2ÔÉ1 2686 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)l
Between :

Smt. Kamaramma, C/o 16-9-749/41/1, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36.

...Petitioner

AND

ber, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contracter to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation cf lndja, Nalgonda District. .. Respondents

Appeararces :

Fer the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan

For the Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and the Govern- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représenta- tions to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However no action was taken against the représentation. Tt is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. AH the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

This case I.D. No. 212/98 is transferred from Labour Court-IlI, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-11O26/1/2OO1-1R(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 172/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No, 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Centra IGovt. passed an order dated 13-5- 1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that she worked from January, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in ser- vice, the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed her at the disposai of the various contractors to perforai the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respon- dent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. She worked from Jan., 1977 to 4th Dec, 197*8. Thê petitioner was directly ùnder the cont'rol of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contracter in Food Corporation of India. She worked in the same deppt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of her tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan.s 1977 till Decem-

6. The E^espondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- sions of principles of natural justice. The Respon- dent having continuée the petitioner from a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to vio- lation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. : L is Lubmitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of her having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate her, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for hei to eak out her livelihood and main- tenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief. - 8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back vyages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just ar.d ncces?ary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec.'2A(2) is not attracted.

10.. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and she was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by her. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those con- tract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-opera-

2687 tive Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as she was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that she was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and . employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question, the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a W:P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any docu- mentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of hîs services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P, in W.P. No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of -violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Smt. Kamalamma examined herself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that she was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with her there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That she used to be paid monthly salary. She worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and she used to sign on the regis- ters. No appointment letters were issued. They26gg THE GAZETTL OF 1ND1A : MARCM 9, 2002/FMAt-GUNA 18, 1923 [PARI I I- S E C. 3(ii)] 2689 with the corporation from Jairaary, 77 to 4th Deeem- bef, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contracter without giving any notice of change as envrsaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W4 is the Xerox copy of the attendançe register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contraetors after having worked with the FCI, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belàtedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not flled any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by thé orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving arti- ficial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refu- sing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitiner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61; where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termi- nation of service. Therefore, prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

the works undertaken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervised the work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contraetors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge wheîher the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitionêr is trying to project herself as casual labour with certain xerox papers winch hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 yea?s which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the peti- tioner is not entitled for any relief what soever. He relied on the following Judgements : 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satis- factorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejec- ting permission to file Xerox copy oï document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be cons- trued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government Department theref oie is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after comple- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lord- ships further held that concept of retrenchment can- not be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées, Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contraetors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by Employment Exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not preacribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exeicised reasonably and not in a rational manner There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dis- missing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court- Deprives them remedy available to them in law- 17. The respondent Counse! argued that petitioner nsver worked in FCI at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that FCI used to award H&T contract to private contraetors for handling ind transporting of foodgrakis. The contraetors nsed to bring their. labour for the purpose of doing

604 GI/2002—28"2690 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I - T S E C; 3t(ÏÏ)] Loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this claer rulings the petitioner even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

Jhips held that where there was whoksale discharge of workmen their Lordships held foui years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court CaSes page 391 their Le rd- ships held that dispensing with services cf pers( ns engaged on daily wages in a Gcvernnïental Depart- ment is net a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He aise relied on 1993 FLR where said ; lapse cf ever 15 years deprives of them cf the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. Ne doubt, Leam- ed Counsel for the petitioner tried to disfnguish between tbPse who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any gecd te peti- tioners and does not improve their case bscause the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case w°rked only for three months two days, the oihers are Xerox copies without filing the original and as in seme 4 cr 5 cases J. Veerf s\un:\'s certificate is filed althcugh he himself did net file his service ceitificate.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but theree amcng thèse workrnan approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lord- ship directed those petitioners to approach the Labour Couit under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applica- tions can be entertained by the Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the monlh of October, 1977 to January, 1978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certiScates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. There- fore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limita- tion is presci'bed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Leamed Counsel for the respondent hâve refer- red to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152—64 wherein their Lord-

19. in conclusion petitioners hâve not preved by any reliable d^cumentary évidence that they worked under the FCI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (I.D. 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed as,ide •that petitioner has nothing to do with the FCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filling writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for FCI , no doubt perhaps undef différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of FCI asking them net to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for FCI although under various contractas but the petitioner hâve failed to preve by any satisfactjry évidence that they worked directly at the FCl. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely bc cencuded that they did work for tho FCI although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that, they were contracte rs during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not cf ten years. Because, they continued working under some contracter or ether till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above- cited' Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer canaot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked undêr the PCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any perscn as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employmem is given t0 such persons, peîitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and she shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employaient of casual labour even though on daily wages taking her seniority as employée cf January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda oi at Nalgcnda District. However, a Word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Ccurt. Transmit.

Dictated t0 Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Persenal Assistait, transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined for Witness examined for the Petitioner: the Respondent:

WW1 : Sm. Kamalamma MWl : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna D jcutnînts. marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex.Wl

Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Lr. of ALC(C)dt. 9-5-94.

Ex.W2

Ex.W3

i

FaiHire of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1)199 3-E3.

Copy of the attendance register of Èx.W4

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents niârked for the Respondent Copy of the tender and the contract Ex. Ml

dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the (minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Lr. from Govt. ôf India, Min. of Ex. M3

Labour dt. 17-6-97. '

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

2691 New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O.893—:In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref No. 173/2001) of th,e Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cUm-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT

Shri E. ISMAIL Pesiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 173 of 2001 (ID No. 213/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III

Hyderabad)

Between :

. .Petitioner Sri B- Narasimha, C/o. 16-9-749/41, Race Course Road, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan

For the Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy2692 THE GAZETTE OF INDTA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHÂLGÛNA 13, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] AWARD

250 workmen. AH the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the peti- tioner's prayer is saine as that of the other work- men.

This case I.D. No. 213/98 is transferrd from Labour Court-Il I, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H- 11O26/1/2OO1-IR(C-I1) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbired in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 173/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgernent of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinneppa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-199.3 rejecting the petitioner's claim on the ground that thèse is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'bie Court along for ne.:essary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I. D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions Subsequently the petitioner's. services were terminated by the contractor on the advise bf the Respondent.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, es- tablished MRM Milling Operatior. s/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976, Subsequently, the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work tu the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respcndent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corpora- tion. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contracter in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeing appointaient on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan' 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the peti- tioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contracter to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal , arbitrary and un- just.

6. The Respondent is model employer. Hence, Respondent oxight not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the pro- visions of principles of natural justice. The Res- pondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec.25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior mosf employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate hiitn, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and main- tenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that tbis Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order 3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorp- tion. The concil'ation. proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but thrt ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the pro- ceedings, but failed to report to the Government, and the Government in turn could not refer the dis- pute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However, no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct tbe respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.î>. Àct neither on law nor on facts. The peti- tioner agaïn approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2À(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and commissioaed from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills es- tablished âll over the country. Initially Raw Milling facih'ty was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parbpiled unit was com- missioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for hancfiing and transporting of the food grains at Modem Rice Mill? Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt àt Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates, fixed under the H & T contract depending on the work doue by. him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many per sons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those màtters. The corporation never controlled oi* supervised the work done by the con- tract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co- opérative Society Ltd., wâs the contractor frora 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Réddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Res- pondent has no knbwledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at aïiy point ôf time. Therefore, the allé- gation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and de- nied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 *workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Res-

2693 pondent. Petitioner has not chosén to question the above décision of the Central Government. 12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjajah, J. Vee: aswamy & V. Venkateswarlù filed a WP No. 9008/ 92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Go- vernment of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 re- jecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagemerit of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudi- cation." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hénce, the petitioner alsa has approached this forum.

13. The petîtîonef was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hencethere is no question of violation ôf Sec. 25F èven otherwise the petitioner hâs approached the Hon'Ble Court àfter à lapse of it years and the pétition is fiable to be dismissed on the ground of delay -and lapses. Hence, the" pétition rnay Be dlâmissed.

14. Sri B. Narasùnha exainined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was super- vising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Àlohg with; hîm there were 30 to SOcàsuâl wdfkers at Miryalaguda. That he usexl to bé paid môâthly salary. He worked confinuoùsly fôï twd years. The; respondent uâed to maintam attêndanée fëgister and wages règister and hë used t'b sîgnon thWrègisters. No appoîntmelït letterâ were îssued. Thëy were paid monthly wages. The corporation stibmitted attendance règister to ALC(C>II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secrètary Mr. Ànjaîah, obtained the attendance fegistef from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were cïonvértêd as if they were working with the contractors. Nd notice was served at the tirrie ôf changing to thé old Of Con- tractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for régularisation of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also încluded vide Ex.Wl dated 1-9-1993. Èx.W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referfed to the CentralGovt. vide Ex. W3. Ex W4 is the représentation màde by the union to the ALC(C). Ex.W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/ 92 dated fi 6-9-1997. EX.W6 is fhe attendance nsgister maiùtairied by the F.C.I. Hé cotôd get the copy ôfthîs fitrâ'the RtC(C) whîCfhwSsfiiéd by theF.Ç.%2694 -THE GAZETTE OF IKDIA : MARCH 9,.2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. ,3(ii)î during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant re- cord such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross examination he deposed that the respondent corpora- tion is a central government corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he vvorked for two years from January, 77 con- tinuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directiy by the corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Res- pondent Corportion alleging thaï, they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 on- wards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any docu- ment showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not fiîed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex.W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

the work was award to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H & T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a faiJure report Ex.M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex.M3 is the îetter dated î 7-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the îabourers were engaged directiy by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex.W6 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. Ail the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed an Jicense before this Court. He is Bot the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being Jooked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said refsrence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy' filed a writ No, 9008/92. It is incorrect tbat Ex.W5 is fiJed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from piJJar to post The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuons service with the corporation from January, 7 7 to 4th D> cember, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec.25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex.W2 is aJso served to the said efïect. Ex.W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex,W4 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in View of ail thjs volurninous évidences tha msre fact that thèse helpiess illiterate' persons who were again wofkjng till 1984 under contractors afte? having worked with the F.C.I., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. JThey were working diractly under the contre! of second Respondent However the said dispute was raised "by more than 250 workmen, the petitionef was among 15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryala- guda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.I. used to award H & T work to private contra- tors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H & T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the la- bourers was not supervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Sdciety, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He càn not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H & T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Mi is the eopy of .i&e tender aûd the contraeî dated 1-3-1974 wheîein 2695 those 250 workraen. That tbe petitioner was look- ing after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is t.ue thaï ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence it is submitted that peîiîioner is to be reinstated with al! back wages etc. The petitioner reîied on a Judge- ment in WB No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointée by the oïders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied ou 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artifxiaî breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refus;ng renewal and another persoa appointed. It was held that the petiîioner is entitîed to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the ab- sentée workman was required to join duty by a spéci- fie date but when attempted to join duty was pre- vented doing so. Held the said standing o/der would not be used to efïect automatic tenuination of service. Therefore prays the peîitioner to be reinstated.

daily wage employées cannot daim regular employ- ment, their disengagement from service cannot be construed as viobtion of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daiîv wages in a govemment department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held thaï right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after comple- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse emp- loyées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitîed to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company wiihout their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such work- men empîoyed through a contractor does not be- come employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wheiein the Lordships heîd Law does not prescribe any time lirait for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this powe/ can be exercised at any poin o" time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the central government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also reîied. on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 whereia it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court—Daprives lhem remedy available to them in law—Loses their right as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitteâ for arguments sake the right it lost by efflux. of time.

18. It may bs seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 1977 to 4th Decembsr, 1978. They hâve approachcd for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection whatsoever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who appro?ched the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordsh;p directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec.2A(2) of A. P. State Amendment under Irtdustrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one psotion that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Lobour Court and the a-mendment of Sec. 2(A)(2) is of the State Government. How- ever, as stated. in the begirming of the case itself the 17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H & T contracî to private contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains. The The contractors used to bring their labour for the pnrpose of dojng the works under iaken by the con- tractor. The corporation never controlled o; super- vise the work of the labours of the contractor that there was îwo différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitionar was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casua! labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not a'opointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petiîioner is not entitîed for any relief whatsoever He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to expîain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as îecondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein itwas held 2696 TIffiGA2ETTEOFINDM:Mi^€H&,2Ô€a/PHM^UNA 18, 1923 [PÀST- -H-SE*-a")]

' 19. In conclusion, p:titioners have not p-ovocl by any reliable documontary évidence that ihey workod und.jr the F.C.I. even in cases where service c.raficate is nid. For exampL- as statod in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Li.bnv Cou'i. No. III) ii is only for ihree months two days. But it cannot b; simply bruihod aside that p aitioner has noïhing to do with îhe F.C.I. Olh.;rwise, ail thèse p ;titio-tors filing w.it in îhe Hon'bL- High Cou-t etc. would be a fu'ile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt porhaps under différent contractors and moruover they say that they workod till 1984 undir various contractors that they mado a représentation to the management for regularization of thoir services for which a;>ain they wore removed by contractors utdcr tho direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely b) conchided that thèse pjrsons did work for F.C.I. although uider various contractors but the p^titioner have failed to p-ove by any satisf.ictory évidence that they work>d di- rcctly a: the F.C.I. S^eing the évidence on record the exhibits, it. can safely bo concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. akhough through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filcd by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the rebvant pjriod. No doubt, there is d-jlay but not of ten y ;ars. Bxause, they continu^d wo.-king under som ! contractor or other till 1984 and they approachei iho ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, tho ab->vo- cited Supr :m" Cou-t's cases are not complttoly applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot bî granted bacause as stated earlier therj is no p:oof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, hoWeve% in ail thèse cases they are entitled for somo ruli ;f.

20. In the; resuit, the rospondent No. 2 is di -ected that he is fr so to employ any pirson as casuT.1 lr.bjur who is workiig earlier to this pjtiuoner. Bu" onco employmen;: is givon to such p;:sons, pititioier's services shall b i taken as workor of January, 1977 and he shall b s giv>;n p-efei*ence ov.ir others in the matter of emnîoym snt of casual lr.bw even 1 hough on daily waT^ taking his senio.'ity as umploy ;.) of January, 1977 oithor at Mi-yalaguda or at Nalgonda District. H >wjvor, a word of caution that this îhall apply only f."r engaging frjsh caiual labiu's f-om today and th ro shall b; no ictronchmnt in vijw of this award.

Award p-.'.sed accordingly and p\>nouncjd in

the opsn Cou-t. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowi, Personal Assis- tant, transcrib;d by her cor.vcted by m-; on this the 31st day of Doccmbjr, 2001.

Hon'blc High Court by a Division Bench Jivigemont held as the amcndment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can b3 cnter- taincd by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribuual-cum- Lt.bour Cou'-t. Accordingly, this case was fiLd on 11-3-1998. Without geing into much elaborate discussions it is an adraitted fact that thcy are casual labou--ers. Granted that the arguments of the Learn- ed Counscl for the pstitioners are correct artd the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is frora the month of Octobor, 1977 to January, 1978, that is only for 4 mohths. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filod showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is allcged that they continued to work under contractors as they wsre made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore they did not app-oach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as truc and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to te true. Does it imp-ove the situation? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No do\ibî, no limitation is p-escnbsd under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seèn. They képt quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordihips refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 where- in their Lordships held that where there was Whole- sale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court cases Page 391 their Lordships held that dispsnsing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental depart- ment is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot bs treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years dep-ives of them of the remedy avaîlable to hâve and in kw [oses their right as well. No doubt, Learn- ed Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish bîtween those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to peti- tioners and does not improve their case bscause the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the potitionër in thàt case worked only for three months two days,, the others are Xerox copies without filîng the original and in some 4 or 5 cases ], yeeraiwatny's certificate îs fiîed aîthougn he HiîHself dïd not ffle his servîcë certificate.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for tlv Potitioner : Respondent :

WW1: Sri B- Narasimha MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex.Wl : Conciliation ordcr of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93 Ex.W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94 Ex.W3: Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No.8(l)1993-E3

Ex.W4: Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93 Ex.W5: Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97 E\.W6: Copy of the attendance register of Helpers &Sweepersof FCI

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.Ml: Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74

Ex.M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceed- ings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C) Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt. of Jndia, Min. of Labour dt. 17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitration Act and Ab.'itra- tion Awarddt. 25-1-89

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Govcmment hereby publishes the awaid (Réf. No. 17412001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between tl e emplojers i" îeïatiop to the management of FCI and their workman, which wa> received by Ihc Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IRIC-ID1 N. P, KESAVAN, Desk Officer 604 GI/2002—29

2697

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT H\DERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Ofricer.

Dated :—31 st December, 2001 Industrial Dispute L.C I.D. No. 174 of 2001 (I.D. No. 214 98 Trcnsfeu-ed from Labour Court-III. Hydeiabad) PETWEEN : Sri K. Narasimha, C|o 16-9-749(41, Race Course Road, O!d Malakpet, Hyderabad. Petitioner.

AND

1 The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Kyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. . . Respondents.

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner.—M/s. G. Ravi Mohan. For the Respondent.—Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 214/98 is transferred from Labour Court-IIT, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-U026/1/2001-IR (C-TI) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 173/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Tnitially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respon- dent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan , 1977 to 4th Dec, 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were2b% THE GAZEUE 0$' 1NDIA : MARCII 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1023 IPART II—SEL. 3fii)J given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on tbe advise of the Respondent.

terminated in the raonth of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making présentations to the Respcndent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan., 1977 till Decem- ber, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- sions of principles of natural justice. The Respon- dent having continued the petitioner from a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to vio- lation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and main- tenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure, Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALCfC) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to Ih^ Government and the Govern- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représenta- tions to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However no action was taken against the représentation. It is svibmitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. AU the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar ground?.. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner*s prayer is same as that oi' the oiiier workmen.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as a re just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendaient by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach thv Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Miirmg facility was provided with a limited number of casual worksrs and subsequently Parboiled unit was comi-aissioned. with the increased s-trength of casual workers. It is suhmitted that the respondent used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the 5. Retreating that he worked from January, 77 to December, 78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeatsd that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not 2699 same and he was paid as per the scheduted rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work doae by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons shouïd be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do wîtfe those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those cont- ract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. was the contractor frem 22-4-1974 to 14-5-î977and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Com- pany was the contractor for the period from Î2-Î1 -1977 to II-l 1-1979. The Respond'ent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

IL Unioïî raised an mdus-trial dispute in con-

nection witfr 256" workers and" the petitioner was one among- them. The ALC(C> submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, GoveïWnîeat of Tndia on l ï - S - l ^. Tne Government of India by letter d&ted* 12^é-19W/l;5-7-199-7conveyed'its décision that thef dispute is not fit for refewnce t© 1?he Indusfrial Tribunal en the ground that there is no material sftowing* that" there was reïationsMp of employer and employéefeetweeit£he petitiener aad the Resporafent. Petitiomr Mas not chosen to question the above decisio" of- the Central Goverament.

K. It is, submitted. that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and' V. Veakateswarlu liled a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was peadiugi Government of îndia passed an order dated 7-44993 cejectimg their. claim which reads as thus, "Ihe- m>rkmen has- failed to produce any doeu- mentery évidence t© prove that he had worfeed for a pesiod* of 240 days or more during the period of 12 Montas preeedings the date oi alîeged disengage- meat of Ms serviras by the management. He was also' faifaiS to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- natedslay of m o i e t h "9 yearsinraising the dispute. Thereftwe, the Ceirtraî GovU has. decided not to refeï the afeove dispute for adjudication." The Hoa'ble Bigh Court of A.P. in W.P. No. 9008/92 pesmitted the, petitioner to approach appropriate fonmi. Heace, the petitioner also has approached this forain.

14. Sri K. Narasimha examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendante registcr and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They wcre paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-I1 at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of cont- ractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from- services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his daim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the atten- dance register maintained by the FCI. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payaient regisier, etc. during the conciliation period. In the cross examination he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January. 77 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is truc that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation allegiflg that they worked in FCI and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely, S/'Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapaliy Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation oificer rejected the réfé- rence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. ThPt union ha-ï not filed 13v Th© petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is n@ question of violatioa of See. 25F even otherwise th* ptetitioner has- approached the Hon'bîe Court alter a la$se ©f 18 years and the pétition is liable tôt be disraissed on the- gïound of delay and lapses. Heoee, the pétition may be dismissed.
?700 THE GAZHTTH OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SUC. 3(ii)]
any W P against thc said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex W6 k forged and created. That they themsehes fiied original of Ex. W6 bel'orc the RLC(C).

hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. [n the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a Writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been ma.de to run from pillai to post. The Petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the coiporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That canstantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceed- dings. Ex. W2 is also serVed to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W4 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the FCÏ, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute beia- tedly. They were working directly under the contrql of second Respondent. HoweVer the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the peti- tioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitio'Aer was looking after stock by spraying pesti- cides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross exami- nation he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in W.p. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner. was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protec- tion under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where- it 15. Sri Sivarani KtUhna, the Asstt. Manager, Mechanical at the District Office of the FCI, Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to Junc, 1991 ho worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryala- guda Modem Rice Mill. Thc Régional Office of the FC] used to award H&T work to private cont- tractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers for the purpose of dcing the works undertaken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the schedule rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. FCI has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervisée! cr controlled by any of the officiais of tke FCJ. The contracter used to get the work done as desired by them. During the pedod from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the coniract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of enga- ging casual labour for H&T works in FCJ. He never wOrked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under FCI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 where- in the work was awarded to A.?. Transport Workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government oflndia expres- sing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As no ne of the labourers were engaged directly by FCI nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not main- tained by the FCI. in the cr^ss examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage acontractor. AU the other works were carried through contrac'.or. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned nian to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain an\ register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work rela- tmg to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that those contracta r-, were not there during the said Period. It is taie that all thèse workmen 2701 was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to joifl duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect auto- matic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

Governrnint to exercise its powers under Sec. !0 of the Act. IL is not ihat this power can be exorcisée! at any point of time and to revive tnatier.- which h?.d since b^en settled. Power is to b; cx^rcLed rca&on- ably and not in a rational îtianner. Trnre app;-ars to us to bs no ratior.al basis on which the central Government has exercised powers in ih's case afte; lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respan- dent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it wa" held : lap:c of ovur 15 yoars in approaching the Court—D,.prives them rermdy available to them in law—Loses thoir rights r.s well. So he submits that in lieu of thh ebar rulings the pctiîioners uven if they hr.d any right and if i! is admitted for arguments sako the right is lost by efflux of time.

17. The respondent Counsd a-gird Iliat p*ti- tioner never worked in FC1 at any poiiit of tint". That it has corne in the évidence that FCI v.ed to award H&T contract to private contractors for han- dling and transporting of foodgraiiis. The contractors used to bring their labotr for the purpose of doing the Works under taken by the contracter. The corporation never controllcd or supervise the work of the labou" of the contractor that, ihere was two différent contractors during the said pjriod. Tue FCI has no knowledge whethor the petitioner was engaged under the contrac.or. The pjtitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour vvith certain Xerox papors which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long p^riod. And that there is no relationship of employer r.nd employée. Whc-n the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hjnce, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsouver. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held faiiure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the sain?. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service car.not bj construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wheivin their Lordships held dispensing wi'.h services of persons engaged on daily wagos in a G:>vernm;nt départiront therefore is not a rctrenchment. Further held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengager: jnt after complction of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchmont cannot bz stretched to such an extent as to covar thèse employées.' Sincc the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench il was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée con- tractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to bs absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by Employment Exchange. So futthei held such woik- men employed through a contracter does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ page 561 whereïn' the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time lirhit fur tlie appropriai

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequored history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Dccember, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is v.iry easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitionor, but he is one of the condidates who approaclied the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioners to approach th.- Labour Coût under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendnrmt under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I w^uld likc to clarify one position that this is Central Govi. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govsrnment. Howcvcr, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Be-nch Judgement held as the amendment is asse'ited by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Coun. Accoidingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going irito much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labou-ers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance registci which shows daily rated sweep.T attendance is from the month of Oc.obsr, 1977 to January, 1978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certifkates are ail xcrox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original ceitificate filed showing that he worked fiom 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual holper. No doubt, it is allcgod that they continued to wo/k under contractors as they were made over to con- tractors without following Soc. 9A. Therefore, they did not app/oach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? It has corne in évidence that they worked as daily erated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is2702 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2042/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)j that they \stexe coatcactors. durisg the relevant period. No, dû'ubt, tlwre is dekiy but not ©f ten years. Recause, they contimied working under some con- tractor oe other till 1984 and they approaclHÙ the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence* the abovu-citcd Suprême Court's cases are not comgletely applicable to the facts of those cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot bo granted tweause as ststed earlier there is no-proof that they w,orkcd under the FCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are cntitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is direeted that he is frec to employ any parson as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But ence employment is given to such persons, petftk>iîei?'s services shall be taken as worker of Januaçy, 1977 and he shall be given proference over otlters in the matter of emptoyment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his sereiority as employé© of January, 1977 eithor at Miryalaguda m at Nalgonda District. Howevor, a Word &C caution that this- shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours fr"m today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the

open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowji, Personal Assistant, tranîiccib^d by her, corrected by me on this the 3lst day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Fresiding Officer

Appondix of Evidence

Witncss examincd for Witness examined for prescribjd wjder the Ï.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reaso^abUauss in approaching the propjr authorities also bas. to- be seen. They kcpt quite till 1988. And after aU the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. WiJl it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to. take them back ? The Lqarned Counse-1 for the respondent have referred to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Tbcir Loïdsfeips refused to condome the delay of 7 years. He also rciied on Shalimar Works Ltd. aud their workinen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein thei- Lordships held that where there was Wholesale discharge of work- men their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant rcinstascment. Fuithei (1977) 4 Supteme Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dis- ponsing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a GoVvrnmcr.tadcpartmcntlisnotaretrench- ment-. That their d'smissal cannot bc^ treated as retrench ment. Ho also relied o" 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to have and in iaw losses their right as welt. No doubr, Leamcd Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish fotween those who produced service cortificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I an* afraid that also will not do any good to pjtitioners and does not improve their caso bjeau^e the original cei'tificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three montfes two days, the others ace Xerox copies, without filing the original and in some 4' or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificato is filod although he himself did not file his service certifia.te.

the Petitioner the Respondent WW1 : Sri. K. Narasimka MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna

Documents marked for the Potitionur/Union

Ex. Wl Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94. Ex. W3 Failure of conciliation report of

ALC(C) vide L'. No. 8(1)199S-E3.

Ex, W4 Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93. Ex. W5 Qid.er in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97 Ex. W6 Copy of the attendance register of

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract

dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96- and failure report of AL€(C).

Ex. M3 i-r. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dt. 17-6-97. Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and 19: In conclusion, p^titioners have not proved by any refeble documentary évidence that they worked under the FCI evea in cases where service certifteate is fited". For example- as stated in L.G.I.D. No. 164/2061 (1,D. 98/98. of Labour Court-ïïï) it is oaly for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that pctitioaer has nothing to do with the- FCI. OUtefwlse, ail thèse petitiooeus filiag writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. wouM, bs a futile exorcise. They did work for. FCI no doubt p
Arbitration Awarà tir. 25-1-89.

Nsw Delhi, the 19th Febroary, 2002 S.O. 895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industiral Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 175/2001) of the Central Government Industiral Tribunal-cum-LC. Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betwe^n the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2000.

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR
ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Présent

Shri E. ISMAIL

Presiéing Officer

Date : 31st December, 2001 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 175 of 20(H (ID No. 215/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderahad)

Between :

Sri N. Nagaiah, C/o 16-9-749/41, Race Course Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad,

..Petitioner AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corpotatkm of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hydefabâé.

2. The District Manager, . .Respondent Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District,

2703 APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s G. Ravi Mohan

For the Respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 215/98 is transferred from Labour Court-IU, Hyderabad in view of the Gov;rn - ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-l 1026/1/2001-IR (C-Jl) dated 18-10-2001 and re- nuiabered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 175/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) oi" Aa I.O. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the fion'ble Higfa Court of Andhra Pradesh r-eported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, esîablished- MRM Milling Oparations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was cngaged as cont.*act worker in the year 1976 to Decembe r, 1976. Sub ;equcntly, the Respon- dent Corporation did not er.mtsi any work to the contractors. Therefore, the peîitiomer was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager. Food Corporation of india, Nalgcmda District. He worked from Jctr.., 1977 to 4th Dec, 1978. The pefitioner was directly imder the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuous-ly for the ab>ve said p.^riod withottt any break in service. The services of the pîtitioner were terminated in the month of Dxemb:r, 1978. Aftei the illégal termination p^titioner has b^en making représentations to the Re .pondent Corporation. Ultimateîy the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He Worked in the same dépôt in tho year 1984. The petitiouer made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the b?.sis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan., 1977 till Decem- ber, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petîtioner was again out of employaient. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason. is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. Tiie p:titioner Sied a conciliation application bsfore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceeding , but failed to report to the Government and the Govern- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this • " 7 04 T HE G A ZC HE UV I N D iA : M A R CH 9, 2 0 0 2/ P H A L G U NA 1 8, 1 9 23

regard also, the peti'.ioncr made several représenta- tions to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. Howfivcù no action was takcn against the représentât ior.. Ii i'. submitted lhat the nid dispu'c was niised by tho v.-\ion on behalf of 250 workmen. AU the workmen we questionir.g tho similar issue on similar ground . The p.titiop.cr is one iimong those 250 workmen And ihc pjtitionc ''s prayor is same as that of tlv. other workmen.

4.. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu. N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed W.P. Mo. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the W.P. the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners.' cki'm on the ground that there is no relationship of ihe employer and emp- loyée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in W.P. No. 9009/93 kxping ail facts and circunr.tanc.es in view and basing up'Mi the Judgcmont of b.tween Sri U. Chinnapp'i and M s. Cotton Corpoi&lior. of Ind<"a ar.d twv> oikcvs reportt-d in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the ihrce petiiioners to cppror.ch tho Hon'ble Labour Cou a v.-.dr is nlso cons'rairtcd to approach the Hon"blc Coi.-t rlong \'or necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked front January, 77 to Decembar, 78 with R2 withoui any break in service the pjtitioner re-pjated. that after cxtvacting work from p:titioner as casual labour placcd him at the disposai of the various contractors 1o p.rform the same nature of work. At the time of transforring to the fold of the contrf.ctor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act sin.ee it relr.ted to change of service condi- tions. Si'.bsequently the petitior.er's services were tcrminalcd by the contracter on tho advise of the Responçlent.

6. The Respordenl is a model employo". Hcncc, Respondent cn'.ght not to hâve lerniinated the services of the p;titioner without complying with the provi- sions of p.inciples of r.rturr.1 justice. The Rcspon- dent hr.ving contini'.cd the potitioner for a period of almost two years contimioi'.sly oi'.ght to hf.ve givjn notice pay. Hence the tcjil action amounts to violation of proviior. under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corpjiation thoi.ah terminatcd services of the petitioner continu\-d tho wo'"kors who are juniors to the potitioner in str\i>:^. Hence, the action of ihe Rcsponduiu amounts lo discrimination 7. The petitioner i> uneducated inspicc of his having made oral rep/exntations to the R spo-zl/it to rcinstate him, 'tho Respondent igno;ed th-j sr.mo. The pjLitioner is only earning munbor of the fumily aud in view of illégal termination it has bicorne

I P A FI I I —S E C. 3 l u )]

diflicult for him lo eak eut hi> livclihooil anr¹ rv !:>'• - nance of family. The petitioner has not filed ai-.y su't or case in any forum for neve^sary relief.

8. Thertforc, it is p ayed that this Court may b.. pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of ihe R sporident and consequently direct the respond&nt to runstr.tc the petitionc; ir.to •-. 'ivice with con'inuity of set vice with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interust of justice.

9. The respondont fil;-d a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of Tndia at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was esta- blished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills esta- blished ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissiov.ed with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent u"ed to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foodgrains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda,and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. tt was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never con- trolled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those cont- ract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd. was the contracter from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Com- pany was the con tractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as h e w as never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 11977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and, denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that 2705 the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industriai Tribuna! on the ground that thère is no rnaterial showing thât there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Rèspôhdent. Petitioner has not choséh to question the above décision ôf the Central Government.

12. It, is submitted, that, S/Sfi. N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamv., and V. Venkateswarlu filed. a W.P. No. 9QÇ8J92 seeking directions wj^n. the WyP- was pending, Goyejnnient ofjndja, pas,sed an order dated 7-4-1991; rejectin^ their claim wljich.reads as thus, "The. workmerç, has failed to produce any dqcur m,entary evjiden.$j to prove that he had^ worjced for a perjqd of,24Qi,days or more during the period of 12 mon,|hs, preceding.thfjXlate of aljegçd diseqgagç-, ment,,of, his services by.the m)an,agçm,en|. He was aûo faijed tq giy(ç justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate defe^ of.mqrs than 9 .years in raising the dispute. Tjhérefore, the Central, Govt. has decided not tq refcr the abqye dispute for adjudication." The Hon'blç Higb Court of A.P. in, W.P. No. 9Q08/92 permitted thç pelitioner to approach appropriatg forum. Hençe, the pe.titioner also has approached, this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, heriee there is no question of violation of Sèc. 23F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of dèlay and lâpses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the atten- dançe register maintained by the FCI. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was flled by the FCI during the conciliation periqcl. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The . management produced the relevant record such as attendançe register, payment register, etc. during the conciliation period. In the cross examination he depo?ed that the respondçiU corporation is a Central Government corporation He has not filed any document beforetho Court showing that he worked for two years from Janaary, 77 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. Jt is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in FCI and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contraetors used to pay hjm. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he reeeived any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under the contraetors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALQC) and conciliation officcr rejected ihe réfé- rence on the ground that the dispute raised by the. union was belated, And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any; W.P. against tlje said proceedings of ALC(Ç). Hç dçnied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That th^ey themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

14. Sri N. Na^ajah examjngd himself, as WWI and degp,sed facts sta|ed in the pétition in th^c^jçjf examina^ion,and addg^l that he was.sugervisii]g the.s stocks from insects by applying, pesticide^- ÀJf>n^ with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used tq be paid mpnthly salary. He worked cqntinuousîy for two years. The respopden|; us(ed to maintain attendante register, and wages register andhe usedto sign on the reg'Sjters. No appointment letters were issued. They wete paid mqntbîy wages. The corporation submitted attendançe résister, to ALÇ(Ç)-H at Vjdyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained tne attendançe register from Â^C(C)-ÏI subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with, the contraçtors. No notice was servsd at the time of changing to the fold of cqnt- ractors. They worked till L9J84. they made a représentation to the management for regularizafion of their. services for which they were ail tçrminated from services. Tlie union raised tbe said, dispute wherein his claim was also incjuded vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Èx. W2 i^ the letter datted 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicàble settïemeftt. Matter was refefred to the Centrai Govt. vide Ex.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mechanica! at the District Office of fhe FCI, Vjjaya-'" wada deposed as MW1 and statcd that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 hë worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mi!l. The Régional Office of the FCI used to award H&T work to prîvate " contraetors by caHing tenders. the contractof used to bring labourers for the purpôse of d'oing the works undertakeri by him under H&T contract The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T eontracfs depending on tbe work done by bim. FCI has nothing to do with ihe engagement of labourers and work dône by the labourers was not sùpervised or cont.-ollèd by any of the officiais of the FCI. Tlie contractor used to get the work done as désired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 io 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-opérative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79. it was given to Sii V. Satyanarayan?. Reddy. He can nof say'whéther the petitioner was employed by the 604 ài/zoài—30:ÏÏ:6 THE GAZLT1T. Or ÎNP1A : MARCII 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPARV II - S t c. 3'ii)] who were again working til! 1984 under contractors after having worked with the FCI, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute be!a- tedly. They were working directly under îhe contre' of second Respondent. However, the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the peîitioner was îooking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt, Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in W.P. No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the crders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not compHcd with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was he!d that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis givirg arti- ficial breaks. Petilioner's services terminated re- fusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that ihe petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases pag; 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a specific date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said stan- ding order would not be used to efïect automatic termination of service. Therefore prays the peti- tioner to be reinstated.

said contracter. There is no peactice of engaging casuaî Jabour for H&T works in FCI. He never worked during January, 77 to Dcccmber, 78 as casual labour wnder FCI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work vas awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryaîaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 worker.-, who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Er.. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing lhat the industria! dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by FCI nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not main- taincd by the FCI. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handliiig and transport used to engage a contractor. Al! the other works were carried îhrcugh contractor. They hâve not filed any license before tbis Court. Heis not iheconcerned man to appoint acontractor. They did not maintain any ïegister of the workers who are empioyed by the contracter. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He denied that those contraciors were not there during the said period. It is truc that a!! thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proccflings. In the said référence petitionci is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy fiied a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never worked in FCI at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that FCI used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of foodgrains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the pui-pose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The FCI has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the yoav 1998 after a lap;e of 22 ycar.; which i> a. long period. And that there !.> no rolauonship of employer and employée. Whwi the respondent has not appointed thoro i; no question of dismissing. Hence, the pjtiiioner is not entitled for any relief 16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to pest. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from Jami2ry, 77 to 4ih Deccmber, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any no+ice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the LD. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proce- edings. Ex. W2 is also served îo the said efïect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of al! this ïoiuminous évidence the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons 2707 what so evor. Ho relied on the following Judgo- ments. 1992 2 ALT page 171 whsrein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original docu- ment ,was losf or that it is not in a position to havo the samc. COÛT, rejecling permission îo file Xurox copy of document as secondary cvidcncc justifiod. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employmont, their disengigemont from service can- not b3 construed as violation of Sec- 25F. Hc also relied on (1997) 4 Sup'ome Coirt Cases page 391 whercin their Lordship". held dispensing wiîJi services of pcrsor.s ergaged on duly wages in a governmcnt dopartment therefore is not a rctrenchmcni. Fu ther, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disenragoment aficr coinplc- •tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lord- ships fiFther held that concept of ivtrcnchmont çan- not b^ stretched to such an ex:cnt as to cover thèse employées. Since the potitioners arc only daily wage employées ar.d had no right to the posts. • He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contiactors of Smgareni Collieries Co. Ltd., thoy arc not entitled to b^ cbsorbed as badli filiers of the company withoi:t their names being sponsored by omployment exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contracte r does not bocome employées of the compnny. Ho also relied on 2000 (1) LLJ pige 561 whe-ein tho Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limil for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power cen be exercised at any poird of time and to revive matters which had since boen sottlod. - Power is to bo txorcised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to bî no râtional basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. Hc also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in appro- aching the Court—Deprives them remedy available to them in law—Loses their rights as well. So he svibmits that in lieu of this clear rulings the psti- tioners evon if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

undor Suc. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendimnt uncîer Indust/ial Disparu. Act, 1947. I would likc to clarify one position that ihis is Cent rlal Govt. Industi'ial Tribu lal-cum-Labou" Court and the amsndment of Soc. 2A(2) h of tho Sîalc Govern- ment. Howuvor, as sir.iod in iho- boginning of the case itself the Hon'bi,; High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as_ the amondment is a;sen- tcd by tho Président of India, therefore direct appli- cations eau bj enter (ai; icd by the Contrai Govt. Indir-trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Withouf going into much claborate discussions it is an aûr.iilted fact that they are casual laboirors. Grantcc! that the arguments of the Lca:ned Counsel for Iho peti- tioners arc correct and the very attendance regis-ler which show.; daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of Octobîr, 77 to January, 78, th.'-J is o;iiy for 4 months. A'id those who have p-odv.ccd' service certificates arc • ail xi.rox copies excupi one in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 whereln the original certi- ficatc filcd showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casud hcîpj.-. No doub", it is alleged that they corttiruvjd io work under contrrxtors as they worc made ov.,i to con- tractors without following Sec. 9A. Thcrefore they did not approach the conciliatio.n officer. Evcn if that is taken as trui and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates p,-odurcd in so many cases arc also taken to ba true. Does it innrove the situa- tion ? It has conn in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limita- tion is pL-escribed under the I.D. Act, bv.t, ail ci-.sus the question of rcasonr.blene ;•; in app.-oacLing the proper authorities also lias to b; seen. Tivjy kept quite till 1988. And afte cil tho writs etc. r.lmo.->t 22 years have passecl. Will it bo advisable to di.v.ct the Food Corporation of India to tt.ke them back ? The Learncd Counsel for the respondont have refer- red to 2000 (1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordship-; refused to condone the delay .of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and thoir workmon SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lord- ships held that whero- there was Wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held fou>" years delay is suffleient not to grant reinstatemr.it. Futher (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lord- ships held that dispensing with services of per or.s engaged on daily wages in a Govommontal Dcp:.r:- ment is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot b: treated as retrenchmeru. Ho also relied on 1993 FLR whero said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remody availablo to have and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the potiiionc; tried to distin- guish between thosc who produeed service certi- ficates and those who did iv'H p.\>ducc service 18. It may bo seen that this case has a choquered history. The allégation is that the pjtitionor in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the FCI to say that they hâve no con- nection what so ever with this potitiqner, but ho is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship diracted ihe pstitioner to approach the Lab.mr Court2708 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI II—SEC. 3(ii)] Award passétt accordingly atld pfaodunced in th ;

open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, tr^nscribeji by her, corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. KMAïL; Presiding Offîcer certificates. I am afraicl that aho will not do an good to petitioners and does not improve thcir case because the original ccrtificate markcd in L.C.I.D No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for thrcc months two days, the others arc Xerox copies, without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Vceraswamy's certificate is filed althoivïh he himself did not file his service certificate.

Appendix of évidence

Witriess exàmined for Witriess examined for

the Petitioner the Respondent

WW1 : Sri N- Nagaiah MW1 :. Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitio nier/Union

Ex. Wl Conciliation order of ALC(C)

dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Failure of conciliation Report of

ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8{Ï)1993-E3.

Ex. W4 Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 Order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Ex. W6 Copy of the attendance register of

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract

dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. Ml Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedihgs dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 Lr. from Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Açt and

Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

19. In conclusion petitioners hâve not proved by any reh'able documentary évidence that they worked under the FCI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (1D 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the FCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for FCI no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked tilt 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services forwhichagain they were removed by contractors under the direc- tion of FCI asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for FCI although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove;by any satis- factory évidence that they worked directly at the FCI. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits it can safely be concluded that they did work for the FCI although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed oy the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not often years. Because they continued working under some contracter or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Ccurt's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the FCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier 13 this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons pétitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

î 709 New Delhi, the 19th Febuary, 2002

This is a case takcn i.rdei Sec. ÎA(1) of tho I.D. Act. 1947 in view cf the judgcmcnt of the Hon'blc High Court of Andhra Pra^¹" h reported in *WP. No. 8395 of 1989 c'aicd 3 °. 1995 betWten Sri V. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotto Corporation of InJia and two others.

2. Bricf avermerts cf tho pJiti
|Wo.' £-22025/1/2002-^1' (C-II)]

N. P. KÈàAVAN, Deslc "Smcer

ANNEXURE

BEFÔRE fHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT 1N- DUéfRTAL f RiBÔNÀf-CUM-LABOTJR COURT AfTiYDËRAlBAD

PRïÈSEHT

"" Sri E. Ismial Presiding Officer

Dated : 31sfDecémber, 2001

ÏNDÙSTRiÂLrDlSPUTE L.dr.D. No. l'56 of l00l "(ID No.'90798 Trarisférred ffom Labour CotlrMlI, Hyderabad) BEJWEEN Sri Md. Yousuf Jani, Ç/o. F! C. I., MRM Miryalaguda- 508207. . .Petitioner AND Respondent. Food Coroor>\ io". of lr>'\k\, estr.blhhed MRM Millirg Op^rations-'Dcp->.s/Goc!owa in 1970 carryhg 0"{{^{{FOOTNOTE 1}}}} Miîli'ng Op rotions. Initially the peti- tioner WP . engaged ac c^rtract work^r in the ^eai 1576 to D-coWb.,, 19*76. Svh oqv. «Uy, the R^pbn- dont Cj'.poràtîon Ak\ rr Sor^, (li- p titioncr was rtiicctly cngagfd b'y fhf 2n l Rf-s^ond ^ namuly. the Di^c.-ict Ma^agi'r, Fcod Corpbiation of fnd'a, Nalgrrda Dîsuitt. Hc warked from Jan., 1977 to 4tlr Dfec.. 1978. Tn. p'iiticiiei was directly under th. control of the 2nd R «pondent. Th& pctitionei 'ttorked corti- p.i'.otisly for the" abovo sa.id period without arsy b vak in service. The sorviciîs of the p_titioner wore ter- rnina<"ed in the m^nth of D..comber, 1978. Afier the illégal termination paiitionoi has "bsen making r^presintations to the Répondent Corpbration. Uliimalcly the pcâLionei managed to gct a job wi;h the contAic(or in Foo4 Corporation of India. He woikcd in thî samc dépôt in th.) y^ar 1984. The petitioner mic'.c an application to the Resp'onden* sc&king appointm^nt on the bxsis cf hi3 tenu*e as oasual labour wlth effec. from Ja>i., 1977 +ill De^eir- be>", 1978 iastead of ab>oibing th^ p:titioner int^ service. The 'Ro^pondent in'cntionally irstructed the contracCor to itmovo th ; petitioner frorr. service. Thcjefo/,., p.titior«r was i↩

* im ruv r.ATFTTT. OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGÛNA 18, 1923 [PART II--SEC. 30i>]
9. Thc répondent filcd a common count.r staling that thc pétition is rot maintainable ui
4. Aggricvod by ihc ac'.ion of th? ALC(C) S/Sri V. Vcukatcswarlu, N. Anjdah and J. Voera Swv.my filed W.P. No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of thc W.P. tho Central Govt. passcd an order dated 13-5-1993 rojecting tho pstilioners' daim on the ground that ;here k no rolation'hip of thc employer and employ.j.'.. Thc Hon'blc High Court Bcrch in W.P. No. 9009/93 keeping D 11 facts and circumstances in view and basing inon th-> Judgeraent of between TJ. Chi^nappa and M/s. Cottor" Corporation of India and two others reportod in 1977 ALT Page 556 directod thc rhree p -titioneis to approach thc Hon'blc Labour Court v.-d-M Sec. 2A(2) of ihc I.D. Act. Hencr, ihc p ^litionci is also constiuin^d to approach thc Hon'ble Coivt alcrg for ne^ïssary relief.

5. Rc.rc::iing tha he worked from January, 1977 to Dccomb r. Î978. w.tl, R2 without any break in ser- vice thu pïtiiionc ivpcatcd that after extracting work from petitioner us casual labour pL.ced him at thc disposai of tho varions conuvxtcrs to perform the samc native of work. At the limo of transferring to thc fold of thc contracter ihc peiiiioner was not givun any notice as r>;q".ired under Sec. 9A of thc I.D. Act since it relr.-ed to change of service condi- tions. Sub.cqi'.cntly thc potitioner's services were terminated by th- contractor on tho advicc of the Respondent.

10. Modem Rice Mil! at Miryalaguda was esta- b'ished in tbe year J970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. Jt is one of the Modem Rico Miils estabJished al! over thecountry. Initially Raw Milling faci'ity was provided with a îimited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was com- missioned with the increascd strength of casual workers. It is submitted that thc respondent used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling aud transporting of thc foodgrains at Modem Ricc Mi)!, Miryaîaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryaîaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should bc engaged and how marry persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matîers. The corporation never cont- roî.'ed or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those con- traci labourers, A.P. Transport Workers Co- opérative Society Ltd. was the contractai from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contiactor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respon- dent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the alléga- tion that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and deniecl.

6. The ksspondent is a model employer. Hcncc, Respondcnt ought not to hâve terminated the services of the pstitioncr without complying with the provi- sions of pni.ciples of natural justice. The Respon- dent having eontnued the petitioner for a period of almost two yuars corAir.uously ought to hâve given notice p?.y. Hcncc the said r.ction. amounts to vio- lation of pMV'sicn vr.éy; S~e. 25F of the I.D. Act. lt is t.ubmittxd that the pstii ioner is the senior most employée ci' Corporation who-worked since 1977. Thc- corpoif.tion though terminated services of the petitioner continuod thc workers who are juniors to the petitiorer in service. Hence, the action of the Rcspondeni amounts to discrimination.

7. Thc petitioner is unedua.itd inspitc of his having nmde oral représentations to thc Rcspondent to reinstate him, the Rcspondent ignored thc same. Thc petitioner is only carning membsr of the family and in view of illégal terminaiion it lias become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and main- tenance of family. The pjtitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 8. Thcreforc. it is prayed that this Court may bs plcased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of thc Rcspondent and consequently
12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a W.P. No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the W.P. was pending. Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as 711 Unis,"The wcilmcn lias faiîed to produce any docu- mcniary évidence to prove that he liad worked for a period of 240 days or more during thc period of 12 months preceding the date of al'eged di^cngagc- ment of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordi- nate delay of more than 9 years in rais-ing the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt bas decided not to refer the above dispute l'or adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W P. No. 9008/02 permitted thc petivioner to approach appropriate forum Hence, the petitioner also lias approached this forum.

13. The petinoner was never engaged and was never empîoyed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner bas approacbed the Hon'ble Court after a bpse of 18 years and the pétition is 'iable to be dismis'ed on the ground cf delay and Jappes. Hence, the pétition may be d'smissed.

period. During tSe said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management pro- duced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register, etc., during the conciliation period. In thc cross examination he deposed that the ,-espon- dent corporation is a Central Government corpora- tion. He lias not fited any document beforc the Court showing that he worktd for two years from January, 1977 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true that he filed the present*case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in FCI and they weie ter/ninated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he receivcd any amount from the cor- poration. Afte.¹ 1978, he worked under the con- jracto/s namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veerahh and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejec- ted the référence on the gi-ounJ tnat the dispute raised by the union was biialc-J. And there is no relationship of employer and aaiployee. That union has not filed any W.P. against th: said px'ocejdings of ALC(C). He denied t'ul Ei. W6 is torgtd and created Tnat fuy t'uir^hjs filed original of Ex W6 before thc RLC^C).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, thc Asstt. Manager, Mechanical at the District Office of the FCI, Vijaya- wada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 h: workel as Aîstt. Manager at Miryal- guda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the FCI uied t^ award H&T work to private con- tractors by calling tenders. The contractai used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H&T contract. The contracter was being paid as per the schedule rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work doue by him. FCI has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work de ne by the labourers was not supervisée! or controlled by any of the officiais of the FCI. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given tj A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was givei t:> Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whethar the petitioner was empîoyed by the said confractor. There is no practice of enga- ging casual labour for H&T works in FCL He never worked during January, 1977 to December, 1978 as casual labour under FCI. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tsnder and the contract dated 1-3-1974 where- in the work was awarded to A.P, Transport Workers 14. Sri Md. Yousaf Janiexamined himself as WW1 and deposed facts slated in the petitien in the chief exanvnation and added that he was supervis;ng tbe stock from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him tbere were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid mcnthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted atten- dance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, ob- tained thc attendance register from ALC(C)-II subse- quently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the management for reguiariyation of theii services for which they were ail te/minated fiom services. The union raiscd the said dispute wheiein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Fx. W2 is the Ictter datec! 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there îs no amicable settlcnunt. Matter was referred to the Central Govt vide Ex. W3 Ex. W4 is> the représentation made by the union tn the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in W.P. No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the attendance register maintaioed by thc FCI. He could get the copy of this from RLC(C) which was filed by the FCI during the conciliation2712 THE GAZEIT1. Ol 1NOSA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923^ [PART 1 1 - S E C. 5(ii)j w^s raised by more than 250 workmen, the peti- tioner was among thdse 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesti- cides etc. That 1VCWU admitted in the cross exami- nation he has not filed any licence of the contractor and that il is tru; that ail thèse workmen who worked in deppt and other centres have raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the sa'd work hence, it is submitted that petit'oner is to be reinstated wjth ail back wages etc. The petitk ner. reUçdon a Judgement.in W,P. No. 28 of 19*3 of, th" Hqn'blç, A,P. High Court wherein, the petitioner. was appqinted by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on. 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 19% (3) ALE> page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner wag appointed. on tenure basis giving arti%iai, breaks. Petidonçi's services termirçated refusing renewal and anothpr person appointed. It was held that the petitiqner h entitled to protec- tion under Sec 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty.Wiis preVented doing so. Hi|ld Ihe said standing order. would not bs used tp effect auto- matic te,rmina.tion of service. Therefore, prays the petitipner to be. reinstated:

Co-opsîrative. Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalagwia. The petitioner was one. °f the 256 worfceçs wlto. raised industrial dispute. ALÇ(C) suhmitted a failurc report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation praceedjngs held on 4-4.-96. before the ALC
16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar tô post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corpe ration from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they have been put under one or another contracter withotit giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec 9A of the I.D. Act. No nStjce of termination wa$ giyen as required under Sec. 25F or any wages païd. The petitiener has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) abou,t conciliation prOcee- dings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effeçt. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xercx copy of the attendance register, whiph shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from Oçtober. 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail, this volumimous évidences the mère fact that thèse hetpless illiterate persons who were agajn working titl 1984 undçr contractors after hâving wor.ked with the FCT, who go against them saying that they have raised the djspute bela- tedly. Thçy wçrç wojrking directly under the contrçj of second Résonant HoweVer the saîd dispute

17. The respondent Counsel argued that peti- tioner never werked in F.CI. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.CI. used to award H <£ç T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of foed grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the con- tractor. The corporation never contro'Jed or super- vise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the, said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitione r was engaged under the contracter. The petitioner is trying to project himseîf as casuaJ labour with certain xerox papers which have no vahje in the absence of originels. The présent case is fîled in the year 1998 after a Iapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no, relationship of employer and employée. When the rçsponden.t has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on tha following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held faille to expîain satisfactonriîy that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to have the same, Cour,t rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary evicler.ee justified. He also 2713 relied on 200î 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employ- ment, their disengagement from service cannot be constnied as violation oï Sec.25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lrodships he!d dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a government departrrient therefore is not a retrenchtnent. Further, held that right tô postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after comple- tion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover^these emp- loyées, Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as HamaH Employée contractors of Singareni Collines Co. Ltd., they are not entilled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company withotit their names being sponsored employment exchange. So further held such work- men employed through a contractor does not be- come employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for fhe appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exersied at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which thé central governfnent has exôrcis&d powers in this casé after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held; lapse of over 15 years in ap- proaching the Court, Deprives them remedy avaiî- able to them in law-Loses their rights as well. Sô he submits thât in lieu of this clear rulings the petitio- ners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefôre direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual lâbourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve producèd service certificates are ail xerôx copies except one in L.C.T.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original cettificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-124977 as a daily rated casuàl helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continuèd to work under contractors as they were màde over to con- tractors without followmg Sec.9A. Therefôre, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates producèd in so many cases are aîso taken to be tfue. Does it improve the situa- tion? It has come in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonabîeness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs' etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisale tô direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Côunsel for the respondent hâve referred to 200(1) LLJ page 56l. Their Lordships refused to condone the deîay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 paga 152-164 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grânt reinstatement. further (1977)4 Sup- rême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held thât dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental department is not a re- trenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said; lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remèdy available to haVe and in laW loses their right as Well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the peti- tioner trîed to distinguish between those who pro- ducèd service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case becâuse thé original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three month^ two days, the ottiefs afé Xerox copie? without fiîing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is fild although he ïiiffisélf dîé Gôt fifc his service certificate.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first ti"e oa 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the P.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what sô ever with this petiticner but he is ôftê of the candidates who appfoâched the High Court aiïd gôt the order. Wherein his Lordship direcïed the petitioner tô approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. Stâte Amendment under Iffdustriâî Disputes Act, 1947. I woul4 like to clârify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the begiûning of the case itself the Hon*ble

$04 GI/2002—312714 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MA5.CH 9, 2002/ PHALGUS'A 1S, 1923 ?.".r H—SEC 3(iî)l Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examine for the Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Md. Yousuf Jani MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna

Documents mnrkcd for the Petitioner/Union

Ex.Wl : Concilalion order of ALC(C) dt. ÎO-9-93

Ex.W2: Lr. Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94 EX.W3 : Failure of Conciliation report of ALC(C) vide

lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3

Ex.W4: Union's représentation df. 16-8-93

Ex.W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97

Ex.W6 : Copy of the attendance register of Helpcrs &

Sweepcrs of FCI

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.Ml : Copy of the tend or and the contact dt.1-3-74

Ex.M2: Copy of the minutes of concilation pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 an
Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt. of Tndia Min. of Librmr

Dt.17-6-97

Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitration Act and A-bitration

Award dt. 25-1-89.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentry évidence that they worked under îhe F.C.I. even in cases where service certi- ficate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-No. III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed astde that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for sregularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to en- gage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under variou
New Delhi, tihe 19th February, 2002 20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this peritioner. But once employ- ment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of Jamtary, 77 and he shall bs given préférence over others in the matter of em- ployment of causal labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a Word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and thero shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the

open Court, Transmit.

S.O. 897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Acf, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 159|2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 19-2-2002.

Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, transcribsd by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-II)3 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail.—Presiding Officer.

Dated :—31st December, 2001 lûdustrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 159 of 2001 (ID No. 93|98 Transferred from Labour Court-Ill, Hycerabad)

BFTWEEN :

Sri G. Maisaiah, Clo F.C.I. MRM Miryalaguda-508207. .Petitioner.

AND

l.The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District.

. Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner:—M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent:—Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 96/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-11026/l/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 159/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the ID Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are: That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 •carrying on'Milling Opérations. Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Res- pondent Corporation-did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefbre, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely,the District Manager, Food - Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. . He worked from Jaa' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked contînuously "for the above said perîod without any break in sztv'As. *Tm services of-the-pîfttioner wsre

2715 terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the lillegal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The psti- tioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from Jan' 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the con- tractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner fiîed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several re- présentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However not action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'bîe High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sr. U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitiorfer repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perfbrm; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it rekted tochange of service conditions.
2716 THE GAZETTE OF 1ND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Subsequently the petitioner"" services were tenninated by the contractor on the advise of the Resppndent.

done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and haw many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labou- rers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Conpany was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the pro- visions of principles of natural justice. The Respondenr having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is ths senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amoutits to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioncr is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and'mainte- nance of family.The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the Petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submjtted his report the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribu- nal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Peti- tioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside oral the termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the E.espondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into ser- vice withcontinuity of service with back wages and ail other attendent benefit and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the ID Act neither on law not on facts. The petitioner again approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A (2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A (2) is not attracted.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seekjng directions when the WP was pen- ding, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any documen- tary évidence to prove that he had warked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of his services by the management. He was also faiîed to give justifiable re.asons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even other- wise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri G. Maisaiah examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising 10. Modem Ricc Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills es- tabîished ail over the country. Initially Raw Mill- ing facility was privided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and trausporting of the food grains a Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work 2717

was b^lated. And there is no relationship of emp- loyer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex.W5 is forged and created. That fhey themselves filed original of Ex.W5 bsfore the RLC(C).

the stocks from in&ects by applying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Mirya- laguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendante register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appoint- ment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance regis- ter to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanager during concilation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaih, obtained the atten- dance register from ALC-(C) II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of thanging to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the manage- ment for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the central Govt. vide Ex. W3 Ex. W4 W is the Xerox copy of the service certificate of the petitioner for the period from 2-1-77 to 29-12-77. The petitioner further deposed that the original service certificate was deposited befcre the RLC(Ç) Ex-W5 is the attendance register Maintaincd by the F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation poriod. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination he daposed that the respondent corporafioi? is a central govemment corporation. He has not .filed any documnt before the Court showing that ho worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practico of engaging casual labourers directly by the corpora- tion. It is tiue that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they werc terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied îhat only contrac- tors usod to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he

7

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stattd that 22-12-77 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to award H&T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labouvers for the purpose of doing the Works undertaken by him under H&T contract. The contracter was teing paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controlîed by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-op&rative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to lî-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the pstitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T Works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex.MÎ is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A. P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T Works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was ©ne of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(G) sutmitted a failure report Ex.M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C) . Ex.M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As nonc of the labourers were engagea direetîy by F.C.I. nor they worked foi 240 days or more. Tbis order has not been quastioned in the High Couit by the concerned w&rkman. Ex.W5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the mainte- nance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a con- tractor. Ail the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workeîs who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager, He denied that those contractors' were not' there duriag the said period. le Is txue liia ail iht-se work- worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veer&ih- and Chsrlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is truc that ALC(C) and conciliation officer jejected the référence on îhe ground thaï the dispute raised by the union2718 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 LPART II—Stc. 3(u)J it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempled to join di-ly was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not bs used to effect auto- mitic termination of service. Thereforc prayi the, pstitioncr to b? reinstated.

men hâve raised the dispute bsfore the ALC(C). He has not attended ihe conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is on such. That S/Sri V. Venkatcswarlii, N. Anjaiah and J. Vcera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that order copy of that writ isfibd b-îfore the RLC(Cj. He denied that he is ontitled for any relief.

16. It i? arguud by thx L;arned Counwl for the pstitionar that this is a case where this petitioner has bien made to run from pîllar to post. The psti- tioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th Deccmb^r. 78. That constantly they hâve b^en put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The pstitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex.W2 is also served to the &aid effect. Ex.W3 is the failu:e report of tac ALC(C). Ex.W5 is the xerox copy of the attendanco register. which show* that they are the help^rs and sweepers that is for tho raonth from Octobar, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this columinous évidences the more fact that thèse helpless illiterate psrsons who were again working till 1984 under contractors* after having worked with the F.CI. , who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute bolatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the potitionur was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticide" etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross excniination lie has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute bsfore the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Furthr ho is not connected with the said work hence. it is submltted that p^tiiion^r i-> to bs reinstaed with ail back wages etc. The pjti- tioner reliod 02 a Judgenwnt in VVP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'bls A.P. High Cou~t wiierdn the pjti- tioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 whercin it was hsld that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F wa3 not complied with, the termination vfos the refore bui. He also rehed on 1995 (3) ALD page S>35 wherein it was hdd that petitioner was appjiuroa on texmro bdsis givmg artificial breaks, Peuiuouer's services terminated refusing rsnewal and another pprson appjinted. It was held that the p.;titioner is entitled to prot- toction under Soc. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Coyrt Cases page- 61 wherc

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains. The contractois used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said periods. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour witheertain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to the file Xerox copy of docu- ment as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot be cons- trued as violation of Sec. 25K He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordbhips held dispensing with services of perons engaged on daily wages in a government department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not cvailable. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after completion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordshipu further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Smce the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamah Employée contractors of Singareni Colliries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fil 1ers of the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held ,^ucJi workmen employed through a contractor does nol. become employées of the company. He also rehed on 2000(2) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships ùàU 271 9L

dence tbat they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonabîeness in aprrcachirig the prcper guttoiities also bas to be scen. They kept quite till 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordship refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appro- priate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the central government has exercised powers in this case after lapfe of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He aîso relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held: lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Deprives them remedy available to them in Îaw-Loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments saké the right is lost by efflux of time.

years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental department is not a retrenchment. That their dis- missal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to peti- tioners and does not improvs their case because the original certificate marked in case of LCID No- 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days. the others are Xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the pctitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-98. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in LCID No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing .that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation ofiîcer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has corne in évi-

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they woiked under the F. CI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.Ï.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is cniy for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the FCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futi!j exercise. They did work for FCI no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they sav that they worked till 1984 under various contracta that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direc- tion of F.C.I asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I although under various contractors but the petiticner ha.c failed to prove by any satis- factory évidence that they worked directly at the F. CI. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits it can safely be concluded that they did work foi È72Q lïXE GAZETTE Or 1M)IA" : lâ&RgM% lOft^PHAiGUMÂ -18, 1923 [PARS B—iée. S(*)J

Ex. M3 Lr. frora Govt. of Iadia, Miâ. of Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 Notice under Arbitration Act and

Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

the FGI although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respomdeot which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under soine contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be gratited because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the FCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 20. In the resuit, the respondent.No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ aQy person as casual labour who is working earfier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall bs 110 retrenchrnent in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the

open Court. Transmit.

S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Scetion 17 of the In- du-îtrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 160/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tributtal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Anne- x ée in the Industrial Dispute between the emplô- yers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was îeceived by the Cential Govern- mant on 19-02-2002.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 31 st day of December, 2001.

{No. L-22025/I/2Ô02-ÎR (C-H)] N. P. Kesavan, Dssk Officer E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

Appendix of évidence

Witness exami.icd for Witness examined for

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ÏN- DUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD the Petitbner the Respondent

WW1 : SnG. Maisaiah MW1 : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna

Présent Shri E. ISMAIL Presiding Officer

Dated : 31 st December, 2001 * Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 160 of 2001 Ex. W! Conciliation order of ALC(C)

dt. 10-9-93.

(ID No. 94/98 Transferred from Labour Court-IH, Hyderabad

Ex. W2 Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 Faiîure of conciliation report of

ALC(C) vide lr. No, 8(1)1993KE3.

Ex. W4 Copy of service certificate dt. 29-12-77.

Between : Sri Md. Subhani, R/o. 7-4-186/15, Bangarugadda, Nalgonda. Petitioner AND

Ex. W5 Copy of the attendance register of

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml Copy of the tender and the contract

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhawn, Hyderatad

dt. 1-3-74.

2. The District Manager,

Ex. M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. Respoodents.

report of ALCfC).

APPEARANCES :

For thc Potitioncr : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan For thc Répondent : Si B. G. Ravindra Rcddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 94/98 is transferrcd from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view ofthe Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-11026/1/200l-lR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 160/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the 1D Act, 1947 in view ofthe judgement ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are: That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations Initially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Res- pondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractors. Thereforc, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Jan' 1977 to 4th Dec' 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation, l/ltimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He workedin the same dépôt in the year 1984. The peti- tioner made'an application to the Respondent seeking appointaient on thc basis of his tenvrre as casual labour with effect from Jan, 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The, Respondent intentionally instructed the con- tractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrary and unjusf.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before thc ALC(C) on 12-4-(988.seeking absorption.- The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on faiîure ofthe meetings A LC(C) closed the proceedings, but fuiled to repojt to the Government and the Government -iji^ lurn could not refer the dispute. in this regard aiso the petitioner made .^cnerâl re- présentations, to ALC(C) to semj thé dispute to the Government. .. However no action was tâken agàin'st ' } 604 GI/2Ô02—32

2721 the représentation. !t is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of.250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. Thc petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner s prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by thc action of the ALC(C) S/Sn V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J- Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to ftling of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners" claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench m WF No. 9009/93 keeping ail tacts and circumslances m vïew and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation ot Tndia and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services ofthe petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuosly ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the werkers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family ând in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livclihood and mainte- nance of family. The petitioner has not filed : any suit or-ease in any forum for necessary îelief, ..
2722 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ FHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
tioner has not chosen to question the above decù ion of the Central Government.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with baek wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and nescssary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent fîled a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the ID Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A (2) of I.D. Act as it an amendaient by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A (2) is not attracted.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pen- ding, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting there claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any doeumen- tatry évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengage- ment of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. There- fore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hoii'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the peti- tioner to approach appropriate forum. Hênce, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation hence there is no question of violation of Sec, 25 F even other- wise the petitiener has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse cf 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice tnills es- tablished ail over the country. Initially Raw Mill- ing facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labou- rers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor form 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was enagaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

14. Sri M!d. Subhani examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with him there was 30 to 50 casual workers at Mirya- laguda. That'he^ned to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maiatain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appoint- ment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendence regis- ter to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanager during the conciliation General Secretary Mr. Anjaih, obtained the atten- dance register from ALC-(C) II subsequently theïr services were converted as if they were working with the contractors No notice was served at the tinie of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the manage- ment for regualarization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. 4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the service certificate issued by the Asstt. Manager (dépôt) dt. 2-12-77. The petitioner deposed that hé worfceé as a daïly rated casual hèlper to that efffect he has produced 11. Union raised an industrial dispute in con- nection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of [ndia by letter dated 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dis- pute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Peti- 2723 a copy of certificate marked as Ex. W6 wherein it is steted that the pctitioner worked as a daily rated casual labQur for thc period from 7-12-76 to 2-12-77. Ex.W7 is the attendancc registcr maintained by tho F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. During tbe said period the Depot Manager wa;> one Mi. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced jtho relevant record such as attendance register, payment registei etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination he dcposud that. the respondent corporation is a Central Govornment corporation. Ht; has not filed any document before the Court •"Mt>i.\i¹¹;: \]\a\ W worked for two years fr(om Januiry. ~~! ".'OiiiinuMi^y under thc respondent. He donied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corpora- tion. It is truî ihat he filed the prosent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contrac- tors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. Aftcr 1978, he worksd under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyunarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraihah and Clicrlapally Rr.m Murthy etc. It is true that ÀLC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by thc .union was belatqd. And there is no relationship of emp- loyer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex.W7 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex.W7 bofore the RLC(C).

can not say wheîhcr the petitioncr was employctl by the said contfactor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 77 to Decembsr, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. Tho petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex.M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C) . Ex.M3 is the htter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers wore engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not bsen questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex.W7 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that the used to look after the mainte- nance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a con- tractor. AU the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before his Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager, He denied that those contractors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail the se work- men hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W7 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

15. Sii Sivaram Krishna, thc Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-77 .to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.CJ. used to award M&T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H&T cqntract. Tbe contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed foi H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was gîven to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsolf for the petitioner that this is a case wlure this petitioner has bsen made to run from pillar to post. The peti- tioner has put in alomst 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they hâve bcen put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex.W2 is also served to the said effecï. Ex.W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex.W7 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 77 to January, 78. Hence,2724 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J in view of ail this voluminou. évidences the me;o fact that thèse hdpcless illiterate p.rsons who were again working till 1984 uncler eontractors aftur having work. d with the F.C.T. . who go agaiusl th'jm saying that thcy havo raiscd ihu dispute belaiudly. Thcy wer,: wurking directly uuder the control of second Répondent. Howevcr tlie said dispute was ruised b; more than 250 workmen, the pçtitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the pjtitioncr was looking aftur stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination hc lias rot filcd ;.ny liccn.se of the; centractor r.nd that it is lir.c that ;J1 theso woïkmeu. who worked in dépôt and other c:-mres haye niised the dispute belbre the ALC(C). This shows ihat thcy worked in the depot. Furthc." he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is lo bs reinstated wtth ail back wages etc. The peti- tioner relied on r. Judgmcnt in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'blc À.P. High Court wheroin the p--ti- tioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relit d on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the putitioner did complète morj than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was thereforc bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it wv.s held that petitioner Wis appointxl on tsmre b.isis giving artificiel breaks. Pclitioner's services terminated refusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the pjtitioncr is entitlcd LO p.'o- tection under Su:. 25F and 25H. île also relied on (2001) 1 Sup/eirn Coût Cases page 61, whore it was held that the ab;entee workman was requLvd to join duty by a spocific date but wben attempted to join duty was p/cver.ted doing so. Hi-ld the said standing order would not hs used to effect auio- raatic terraination of service. Thoixfore prays the petitioner to bc rcinslatcd.

petitioner is not entitled for any relief who so ever. He relief on the following Judgments. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failuré to explain satisfaetorily that original document was lost or that it is not,in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to the file xerpx copy of docu- ment as secondary évidence justified. He also' relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengagement from service cannot bë cons- trued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein 'their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages iii a government departme'nt the refore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that righ to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after completion of work hâve no right to post. Thdir Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to theposts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singarenï Colleries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. Sô further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appro- priate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point ôf time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in. this case after lapse of about 7 years of oriièr dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was.held; làpse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Deprives them remedy available to them in law-Loses their rights as well. So he subfnits that in lieu ôf this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by effiux of time.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.T. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private eontractors for handling and transporting of food grains. The eontractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contracter. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contracter. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent ca-c is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. Ànd that therc is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent lias not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hcnce, the

18. It raay be seen that this case has a çhequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner'in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 1977 to 4th Deceniber,-1978. They hâve approached for the first time on. 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is < very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they bave no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but_ he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship

2125

am afraid that also will not do çiny good to peti- tioners and does not improve their casebecause the original certificate marked in case of LCID No. 164/2001 (ID No. 98/98) status that ihe petitioner worked only for three mon* , two( days, in other cases they are xerox copies \v.* iout filing the original and as in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veera swamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

19 In conclusion, p-titioncis havo ir>t p ovod b; ar.y ,-oliable documentry evidenec that they worked under the F.C.I. evén in cases where service certi- ficate is fiU d. For examplc as statrd in the cfsc, that is in L.C.I.D. No. 164/20(>l (ID 98'98 of Labeur CoiîfMU) it is only fo- three months two days. But it cannot to simply b-i'srrd aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Ofherwise ail thc"e pstitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Cou't etc would to a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I r o doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over that they say they worked tiU 1984 u-vier varions contractors that they made a représentation to the management for reguterition of their services for which again they were removed by contractors undsr the director of F.C.I. asking them not to en- gage them. So it can safely to concluded that thesc pesons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failct! to p-ove by any satisfacftôry évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits. it can safely to concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although ihjough contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which showi that. th^y were contractors during the relevant period. No doub\ therc is delay but not of ten years. Becau->e they contiinrd working und^r somo contrectors or other till 1984 and they ap- proched the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above- cited Siip.'emi Cou"t"s cases are not completely appli- cable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt. their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there.is no proof that they worked under tho F.C.I- But, however. in ail thsse cases they arc entitled for somo relief.

directed thîe *petitroner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P." State Amendmcnt .under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one posifion that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal çum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginnin" of the case itself the Hon'ble Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendmfcht, is assênted by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-98. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel , for the petitioners are correct and the \eiy attendance register which shows daily rfted sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to Januarj '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in case of LCID No. 164/2001 (ID No. 98/98) wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daiîy rated casual helpcr. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the xcrox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has come in évi- dence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act. but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd and their workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordship s held that where there was wholesale dischârge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reînstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a government department is not a retrenchment. That their dis- missal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said: lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the pétition tried to distinguish between tHose who produced. service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I

20. Inth -c^ult, the respondent No. 2 is dîrected that he is free to cmpîoy any p^rson as casual labaur who is working earlier to this poritioner. But once em- ployment is given to such po ^ons. petiti-oner's services shall to taken as worker of January, 77 and lie shall b? givon p •ef"^1-e-ice over others in the matter of cm- ploynrnt of casual lab>u- even though on daily wages taking, his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalagxida or at Nalgonèa IDistrict. However, a word of caution that tîiis shall apply only for engaging fre>,h casuil labours from today and there sh'ill be no retrenchment in view ôf this award.
2726 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCB 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 WARJ II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Awafd passcd accordingly and pronounced in the

open Cowt, Transmit

in relation tQ th© management ©f FCI and their w""knian, wJii<4i was reeeived by the Centrai Gover- nmtnt on 19-02-20^2.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR (€*O)J Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowvi, Personal Assis- tant, transcribed by hcr corrected by me on this the 31st day of Decemtor. 2001.

N. P. KESAVAN, Dcsk OBkter E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

Appendix of évidence

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IN- DUSTRIAL TRtSUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT Witncss examined for the Witness examined for the

AT HYDERABAD Pctitioner : Rcsponrient :

Présent

WWl : Sri Md. Subhani MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Shri E. ISMAIL

Krishna

Presiding Officcr

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

Dated :-31st Dccembor, 2001 Ex.Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 161 of 2001 Ex.W2: L>. Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94 Ex.W3 : Failucc of Condition report of ALC(C) vide (ID No. 95/98 Transferred f.om Labour Cotirt-III Lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3

Hytlcrabad

Ex.W4: Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93

BETWEEN :

Ex.\V5 : Oder in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97

Sri S. Mohan, C/o. F.C.I.,

Ex.W6 : Copy of service certificate dt. 2-12-77

MRM Miryalaguda-508207 PetitioBer Ex.W7 : Copy f>f the attndance register of Hclpors &

AND

Sweepers of FCt

Documents nwked for the Répondent

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

Ex.Ml : Copy of the tendor and the contract dt. 1-3-74 Ex.M2: Copy of the minutes of conci illion pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)

2. The District Manager,

Ex.M3: Lr. From Govt. of India Min. of Labour

Dt. 17-6-97

Food Corporation of Tndia. Nalgonda District. Respondecits Ex.M4: Notice under Arbitrr.tion Act and Arbitration

Award dt. 25-1-89.

Appearanccs : For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan For the Respondent : Sri B. G. .Ravindra Reddy Hf fewfî, 19 %X*rf!t, 2002

spT. îîT. 899.—sffëîtfiraî fèrerç srf#pw,

AWARp

1947(l947 SRT 14) O\ SIRT 17 % VFglWI îf,

%ïstïr ffH'K ^. s t. "rrf. % ^m% % 4%%

|5Trar5 % R^T3 (q?v| ?jwr 161/2OOI) ^i>

a^nfer w*& t, ^> %ïs^r ÇR^H ^t 19-02-2002

[É. q^r.-22025/i/2002-în^fT!: ("t-îtl)]

This case I. D. No. 85/98 is traa^ferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the the <3ove,rnpaent of India, M,mistTy of Labour's order T^o. H-1I026/1/2001-IR (C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and î^num-beçed in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. ,161/2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A ,(2) of the I. D. Ac,t, 1947 in view of the judge- ment of the Hon'bl High Court of Andjtira Pradesh reported in W. P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3.8.1995 beteeen Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotfon Corporation of India itid two others.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

2. jBrief averœents of the pétition ar" ; That the Raspoodent, Fqcd Corporation of Jndia, est^bjished MRM Milliog Ope^tions/jpepots/ Godown in 1970 car,rying on Millîng Opérations. Initially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1^76 to DeceïQbeï, 1976.

S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Indus- trial .Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) th-j Centrai Government hereby publïshes the award (Réf. No. 161/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cura LC, Hyderabad as shovvn in ths Anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the cmployers 2727

Cotton Corporation of Inéia and two others îsported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the threi petitioners to approaeh the Htfn'bk Labour Court Bflder Sec, 2A (2) of the I. D. Act. Hence, the petîtioner is also constfaincd to approach the Hon'ble Court along fOr necessary reiief.

5. Retrcating that the worked frétëî Jaiiuary, 77 to December '78 with R 2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after ex- tracting Work froi" petitioner as c"stt"J labour piaéud hlm at the disposai of the varteus e©itf fae- tors to perform the satne nSture &î Work. At tfce ittne of transfefrbg to tîie f
Subséquent^, the Respondtnt Corporation did not entrtfêt &rty werk to the cofltractors. Tbere- fore, the petitioner was directîy engagea by tbe 2nd RespOfldtnt nameîy, the District Manager, Fefod Corporation of India, Naïgonda District. He werked from J"T 1977 to 4tfc Dec' Ï978. Thè petitidnet w&s direôtly under the" centi-ol of the 2"d Re$portdei". The Petjtkmer werked conti- ttuotiisjy fdf thë àb"v" said period wfthout a"y break in sériée. Thé sériées cf tfte pêîitiotter were tèwniaatèd irt *he moath of Déce"ler, 1978. Aft"r tbe fljégai teffflfnation petitioner hfcs tase*¹ fttàking repf^tftatjotls i& the R.esp'onde⁰* Cor- poration. Uitmiately the petitioner m""agid to gel a jo% witfa the "©ntraetor in Fotsd Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tcnure as casual labour with effect ffom Jan' 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitionfir into service. Tle Respon- dent intentionâtly itastmcted the contracter to remove the petitioner frem service. ThereTore, pètitioher was agajn out cf employaient. tïc"ce, the action of Respcnc'cm in termiflefing tre services rf the petîtioner with effect fréta 4-12- 1978 without any notice and without assignfng any reason is illégal, arbitrarj ard unjust.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Rtspondent ought not to liave terminated the services cf the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natuta justice. The Respondent having continued the petitbner for a perbd cf almost two years continuously ought to luve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F cf the I. D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is ths senior mest employée of Corporation who worked sinee 1977. Tke corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the .petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amaunts to discrimi- nation.

1. The pstitioner is uneducetcd iflspitt of his having made oral représentations to the Reâpott- éent to reinstate ftirn, the Respondent igftored the same. The petitioner is ottly earnkig member of the family and in view of illégal terminatkm it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and maiatenance of family. The petitioner has sot filed any suit ©r case in a"y for"m fof necessaty relief-

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seèking absorp- tion. The conciliation proceedings, were adrrtitted by ÀLC (C) but that ended in failure. Consé- quent on failure of the meetings ALC (C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Govern- ment and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this, regard also the petitioner made several représentations to ALC (C) to send the dispute to the Gdvernment. Hcwev&r no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that thë said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. AH the worknien were questtening the simjîar issue on siiftilar groundSi ÎTie petitk>ner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.
^S THE C\7TTTV OV 1MTHA rMARCH 9, -2Q02/ PHM.GUNA 18, 1"23 IPAFT TT—SEC. ?ûi->l
The petitioncr agam approached tlio Labour C->urtunderSec. 2À(2) of T D. Act as it is an a'nendmirdt by the State GoverniTent The, petitioner never w irked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any .point of time. Thereforc, Sjec. 2 A

(2) is not attractid.

pending, Gover-nment o'" India p^Ksed an (•rder dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus. "The workmen lns f-ilcd to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he hvâ vvtrked for a penod o'f 240 days'or more during the period of 12' months prcceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also fajjed to give justi- fiable reasons for the inordinate delay ofmore than 9 yeaIS in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to" refer the abovedisouteforadjudication."The Hon't>Ie High Coujrtof A. P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach apprdpriate forum. Hènce, thê petitioner also has approached thjs forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by th; corporation, b^ncs there is no uuestion of violation cf Sec 25Feven ot|ier. wise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble ;Cour-t after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and lapses. Hence, the petit on may be dismissed.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguia. was established in the year 1970 -and commissioned from 28-5-1971. ]t is one of the Modem R ice mills established ail over the country Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and ^ubsequentlj Parboiled unit was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submttted that the respondent usée¹ to award H & T contrart to private cpntractors for handling and transpe n- ing of the food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and :t the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the mairie and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under trfe H &T contract dependfng on the work done %' him. It was fvs responsibility as to who s'ioull be e.igag^d and howmany persons• should bz eng'aged fer lus w< ik. The FCI ha-, mtbing to do with those matters. The corporation never controlled or supervieed the work done by the contrat labour. The petitibner might . be cne of those contract labourers. A. i'. Transport Workcrs Co-operative Sccjety Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 a"d Sri V.' Satyanarayana Redd> and Company v>as the ccnuactcr f("r the peried frem 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner, as he was never engaged as casual labour, at a"y P°int of time. Therefore, the allégation that hc was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1M977 to 4-12-1978 is.incorrect and . .denied.

11. Unicn rai^ed an indtfctriafc dispute " ift connection ''with 256 workers' and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC (C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government cf India by lcttcr datcd 12-6-1997/15-7-1^97 comeyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there wa's relationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petjtio.nèr has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 14. Sri S. Mohan cx->minid him elf as WW1 ;rid "deposejd f;.c's stafed in tin pc.-ition in the chief examination and added thr.t he was supor- visingj the stocks from insects by -applying- ôesti- oid'-s. Along with him the.'e were 30 to 50 casu'il workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. Hc worked continuoudy for two yea's. Tnc respondent usod to maintain attendance repister and wages register and hc used to sigfl. on the registers. No appointment lettcrs were issuod. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation, submitted attendance registçr to ALC (Ç)-ll at Yidj/aiagar du-ing conciliation. GcneraJ Secretary Mr Anjaiah, ob .,i:ied the attendance register from ALC (C)-II Htl>>equ;'nÛ> th i: /ser- vices were corwr.ed r.s if they wero. wqfking with the cont "i.ctorv No notice was -evod at the linv of ch?nging to tlv fokl of contrector . They woii. d till 1984. They madî a rep'espnta- tion t-o the mmagom-nt for rv'giriari^.'iop. of |heir se^iVce-; for which they w^-e Jl'wminaicd from si.rv.ce-s, The unio-\ i-i^cd ih« s> \>\ di-^iîc wfycrciu hisi cK-i'H was ti^o mcli'Jxi vi'J Ex. W l datcd 1-9-1993. Ex. W 2 is th.- htUj da^ed ô-5*1994 of ALC (G) tlut th-<;- is.-no um cable sctU-çnuni. Matter, ,w&s refcn>tl to4 t,ho Central G(ovu vide Ex.. W 1,3... Es,' W 4^ ^ ^ulthc order in/ WP No. 9008/92 dat*d • 16-9-1997. 12. It is submitted that- S/Sr N. Anajiah, j/Veerâswanîy and V. Venkatcswarlu ftlfed «"W-P l>jo. 9008/92 seek'ng directions when the Wpî Was ↩

2729 Ex. W 5 is tin af.tendance register raam- taiwd by tho F.C.I. He coukl get tîic copy of Ihis fmm tho RLC (C) which w?> filod by the F.C.I. diring the conciliation pirioù. Diring rhn sa'd p-riod tho Depot Manager WAS om M". S-inivasa .Rao. The management pro- tiii^ed tho relevant raco'd sw.h as attandance registor, pp.yrmnt rogfrta" etc.. divins: the conciliation p"!iod. Ex. W6 is the letter from >LC(C) to Sri N. Anja:ah dt. 99-5-89 and Ex. W7 is also the letter from ALC(C) to Sri N- Anja;ah dt. 5-4-89 regret letter regardi'ig tak'n.s up of his case. Ex. W8 is the • letter dt."i 8-9-89 from ALC(C) to the Dist. Ma- nager F.C.Î. Miryaludga for his cornments regard- ing représentation of Sri N. Anjaiah Ex. W9 is the htler di. l?-9-89 from Sri Samaj Mukherjee. M.P. to the ALC(C) Ex. W! 0 is the copy failure of con- ciliation report dt. 15-1-93 In the cross-oxam'r.ation lie deposed that the respond^nt corporation is a Central Government Corporation. He lias not filod any document b'rfore the Court showing that he worknd for two years from January, 77 continuoirJy unde' the respond-mt. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual lp.boivors directly by the corporation. It is truo thet he filod the présent case after 20 years. He lias not filed any représentation or lettor add.resscd to the Rnspondent Corporation alloging that they workod in F.C.I. and thoy were terminated from service p.t any point of time dun'ng the pnriod from 1977 onwa^ds. He dnnied that. only contractors used to pay him, He admitted that he did not file any document showing that. he ree^iv^d any amount from the corporation., After 1978, he worked nadir the contractors namely, S/Sri V. SatyanaT.yana Reddy, Kondiri Vesraiah and Ch^lp.nally Ram Mirthy etc. It is true that A.LC (C) and conciliation office rejoefed the référence on the ground that the di"pi'/c raisod by the union was bilatnd. And there is no rclationship of employer and employée. That union has not filod any WP against the said proceedings of ALC (C). He denied that Ex. W 5 is forgnd and crost.od. That rhey th^mselves filed original of Ex. W 5 tofore the RLC (C).

of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to gct the work done as desired by them. During the peried from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A. P. Transporrt Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabadand from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the pstitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H &T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January 77 to Dccember, 78 as casual labour under, F.C.I. Ex. M 1 is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 3-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society for H &T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC (C) submitted a failure report Ex. M 2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on . 4-4-96 before the ALC (C). Ex. M 3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not- fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.T. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W 5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AH the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work reîating to the dépôt was being looked aftôr by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said period. It is .true that ail thèse workman hâve raised the dispute before the ALC (C). He has not attended the concilia- tion proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one suck That S/Sri V. Venkateswarîu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No; 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W 5 is filed before the RLC (C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learaed Counsel for the petitioner that this h a case where this petifioner has been made to run frorn pillar to post. The petiîioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4 b. Dc- cember, 78. That constantly they hâve been . put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec.9A o£ the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as 15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW 1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to award H & T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contractor was beine paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the en- gagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controlled by any

604 GI/2002—332730 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MA&CH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART ÎT--SÉC 3(U>] rsqaifel u i i ;r SÎC.25F or aiv wiges piid. The

petitioner has marked Ex.Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proeeedings. Ex.W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex.W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex.W5 is the Xèïox copy of the attendance register, which shows thât they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month frora Oetober, 1977 to January, 1978, Hence, in View of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thesa helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractes after having worked v.ith the F.C.I., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute beJatedly. They WÈPÊ working directly under the contre"! of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was amomg thèse 250 workmen. That the petitioner was îook- ing after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any Hcense of the contracter and that it is true that ail thés e workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows thaï they VvOrked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, h is subraitted that petitioner is to be remstated witb alï back wages etc. The petitioner reiied on a Judge- ment in WP No.28 of 1993 of the Hon'bîe A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appôinted by the ordèrs of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was heîd that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sac. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He aîso reiied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was heîd that petitioner was appoirtted on tenure basis giving artificiel breaks. Petîtionei^s services terminated refusing renewaJ and another perso" appôinted" It was heJd that thè petitioner is entitîed to protection under Sec, 25F and 25H. He aîso relied on (2001) 1 Sapreme Court Cases page 61, where it was heJd that the ab- sentes workman was requived to join duty by a spéci- fie date but when ottempted to join daty was pre- vented doing so. HeJd the said standing order wôuld "ot be used to effect automatic tenniaation oi service. Thsrefore prays the petitioner to be reiastated,

engaged under the contractor. The potitioner i<> tying to project himself as casual labour v ith certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originaîs.Tlîe présent case is filed in ths year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appôinted there is no question oî dismissing. Hence. the petitioner is not cntitled for any relief v" ho sb ever. He relied on the followin? Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was. held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to the file Xerox copy of docu- ment as secondary évidence justified. He ako reiied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daiîy wage employées canoot cîaim regular employment, their disengagsnient from service cannot be cons-- trued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships heîd dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a government departmeni therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after corapletion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lord&hrps further held that concept of retranchaient caitnot bc; stretched to such an' extent as to cover tfeese employées. Since the petitiorrers are only da% wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also reiied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hàmali Employée contraetors of Singareni Colliries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli filters of the compaay withoat their^names being sponsored by employmeht exchange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not becoms employées of the company. He also relted on 200(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appro- priate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can he exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- cised reasonably and not in a rational raanner. There appears to us to be no rationaî basis on which the central government has exerdsed powers in thk case after lapse of about 7 j'^ars of order dismissina the respondent from service. He aîso reiied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held; iapse of ovet 15 ycars in approaching the Cou'.t-Deprives them remedy availabie to them in law-Loses their rights as weJl. So he submits that in lieu of this clear ruîiags the petitioners even if they had any jight and if it is admitted for arguments ?ake the right is lost by effiux of time.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award¹ H&T contract to private contractors for îiandling and transporting of food grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise ths work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was 2731

of persons engaged on daily wages in a goveramental départaient is not a retrenchment. That their dis- missal cannot be treated as retrenchment, He also relied on 1993 FLR where said: lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy availabïe to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to dîstinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to peti- tioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in LCID No. 164/3001 states that the petitioner in that case worlced only for three months two days, the others are Xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although hc himself did net file, his service certificate.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from Ja.nuary, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection whatso ever with this petitioner, but lie is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approaah the. Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes, Açt, 1947. I would like to clarify one, position that this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itseîf the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. Accordingly this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Withcmt goiog into much élaborât© discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learaed Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows dafly rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October 1977 to January 1978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one im LCID No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showiiig that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helpter. No doubt, it is aileged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contraetors with-out foîlowing Sec. 9A. Thererore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true ané ail the Xecox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has come in évi- dence that they worked as daiîy rated casuai labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D* Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite tiU 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back? The Learned Couasel for the respondent hâve refe-rred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the dealy of 7 years. He also relied on ShaUmar Worits Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 where in their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years deîay is sufficient not to grant reinstatcment. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documenter^ évidence that they worked under the FCI even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (I.D. 98/98 of Labour Court^-M) it is only for three moûths two days. But jt cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothiag to do with the FCI. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hoa'ble High Court etc. wo'uld be a futile exercise. They did wOrk for FCI , no doubt perhaps under différent coatraetors a"d more over they say that they worked till 1984 under varions contractors that they made a représentation to the management for Teguiamation of their services for which again they were removed by contraotors under the direction of FCI asking them not to engage them. So it çan safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for FCI althuugh under v.arious contractors but the petitioner havc failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked dkectly at the FCI Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concuded îhat they did work for the FCI although through contractors. More so in view cf the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that, they were contraetors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten ye"rs. Because, they continued working uader some contractor or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the abQ.Ve- cited Sapreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt. their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no prCbf th%t they worked under the FCI. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are "ntitkd for some relief.
2732 THE GAZETTE OF INDïA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART II—-SEC. 3(ii)]
20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free lo e-nploy any person ascasuallabour who is working eariier to this petitioner- But once employaient is, given to such psrsons, petit.oûer's services shall be taken as worker cf January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even th^ugh on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Na gonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall • apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retiench lient in view ol this award.

Award passed accordingiy and prcnounccd in

New Delhi, the l'Jth February, 2002 lu jpji Ojiri:. lXiastfiit.

S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Jn- Dictaud tj Kuni. K. Puani Gowri, Personal

Assistant, transcnbjd by her, corrected by me on this Uie 3 Ut day of D^cembjr, 2001.

P. ISMAIL. Preùding Ottîcer

Appendix of Evidence

dustrial Disputes ACI, iy47 (14 ot 1947), tue Central Governmeat nereby pubushes tne av/arci (KOI. No. 162/2u01) ot the Centrai Government Inuustnal Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shovm in tlie Anne- xure m ttie industriai Dispute between the empioyers m relation to tùe management oi FCI and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

Witmsss cxdmiiicj for VVjtnpss examined for

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-II)] the Petituner : îhe Respondent :

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer WW1 : Sri S. M^han MWl : Sri M. Siva

Rama Krishna

ANNEXURE Documents markcd for the Petitioner/Uniou

Ex. Wl Cjucili-ition oruer of ALC(Q

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMLiN ï IIxfDUSrRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOU'R dt. 10-9-93.

COURT AT HYDERABAD Ex. W2 L/. cf ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

PRESENT :

Ex. W3 Faiiuro of conciliation report of

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Oiïicer.

ALC(C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Dated : 31st December, 200!

Ex. W4 Order in W.P. No. 9308/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Ex. W5 Cjpy of ths auendance register cf

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Industriai Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 162 of 2001 (ÎD No. 96798 Transferred from Labour Court-IIL Hyderabadj

BETWEEN Ex. W6 Lr. from ALC(C) N. toAnjaiah pt. 29.5-U;> Ex. W7 Lr. i, ;,u ALC(C) to Anjaiah cit. 5-4-89 Ex. W8 Lr. i rom ALC(C) to the Dist. Manag. r

FCIdt. 18-9-89

Sri Ch. Yadaiah, C/o F.C.I.,, MRM MiryaIaguda-508207. . . . Petitioner.

ExW9 Lr.from M.P. to the ALC(C) dt. 12-9-89 ÉxWlO Failurof conciliation report of ALC(C)

AND

vide lr. No. 8(^)/90-H3 dt. 15-1-93 Documents marked for fhe Respondent

1 The Sr. Régional Manager, Ex. Ml vJopy of the tender and the contract

dt. 1 -3-74.

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Ex, M2 Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceeJings dt. 4-4-96 and failurc report of ALC(C).

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. .. .Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

Ex. M3 Lr. from Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dt. 17-5-97.

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

Ex. M4 Notice u.ider Arbitration Act and

Arbitraticn Award dt. 25-1-89.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

Ihis cabe i.D. Ho. 96/98 ït> uanslerred irum Laboui Court-iil, Hyuerabad m view 01 tne (jovenmient 01 inuia, Minusuy 01 Labours Urder JNO. i t - n u 2 o / l/ 2001-lRi.C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renuinbered in this Court as L.C.l.D. No. Ib2/2OU1. inis îs a case taKen unaer Section 2A(2) ot tùe I.D. Act, 1947 in view ot the judgment of the Hon bie High Court of Andhra Praûesn reported in W.P. No. "395 of 1989 aated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and tv\o others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are: That the Res- ponucut, roou ^oijjoiauon oi inuia, e&iaouMieu ivictivl ivxiiuug opeiauoiia/iJcpois/Vjouowa in i y /u cairyiug on iviiuiiig vjpeiamJMa. imuauy uie peuuoner wua en- gc'geu as coiiuaçi woi*.er in tue year i y /o to jjeeember, 19/o, Subsequently, the Kespondent Cor- poiauon uiû not enirusi any worjc to tne comractors. iûereioie, tne peuuoner was curecuy engagea oy tne 2nu Kesponaent nameiy, tne District Manager, tooû Corportaion ot Inuia, iNaigonda District, tie worked trom January, 19/7 to 4m December, iy78. ine peti- tioner was airectiy under the control ot the 2nd Res- ponuent. ine peuuoner woricea conunuousiy lor the above said perioct witnout any breas in service. Tne services ot tne petitioner were terminated in ine monta of December, i978. Atter the inégal termination peti- tioner has been making représentations to the Res- pondent Corporation. Uitimately the petitioner manag- ed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of Inaia. He woiked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Kes- pondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from January, 1977 tili December, 1978 instead of absorbkig the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petiuoner trom service. Theretore, petitioner was again out ot employment. Hence, tùe action of Responûent in terminatmg the services of the petitioner with effect Irom 4-12-1978 without any noute and without assigning any reason is iliegal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitteçi by ALC(C) but that- ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceed- ings, but failed, to report to the Governmnet and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several repré- sentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However no action was taken against the représentation; It is-submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Aujaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 thaï prior to filing of ⁴he WP the Central Government passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejectmg the peiiiioners' ciaim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon"ble Higli Couiî Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and cîrcumstances in view and basing

2733 upon tlie Judgment of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/&. Cottoa Corporation of India and two others icuoncu *u vj / / s\L
5. Ketxeaung tnat he woiiced Iront Januuiy, 197?

to DcceuiDfcr, iyi6 wiui JKZ vvim.UL any DieaK in bervitc uie peutioner repeated taat atter cxuaci-m^ work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai ot the various contractors to penorm; the same nature of work. At the tune of transterring to the told ot the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A o£ the I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advised of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent hav- ing continued the petitioner for a period of ahnost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay . Hence the said action ampunts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though teiminaied ser- vices of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, fhe action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitiouer is uneducated in spite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the famiiy and in view of iliegal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of famiiy. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court r~ay be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate îhe petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the petitioner is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioncr again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendmeiit by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée In Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was estab- lished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills established ail over the counfry. Initialîy Raw Milling facility was provided vith a limited number of casual workers and rubsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned wi*h the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to aiward H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transportinp of the food grains at2 734 THL GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/FHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3tf01 Modem Rice Mill, Miçjr itegtjda and at .he food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda ou tender basis. The contracter used to bnng his o\\ n labour fur the sanu, and he was iMid as per the schediikd îates fixed under ths H àï contraci depcndiag on îhc woik dune by hîm. It vas his responsibdity i,s te who should be eugared and bow many perdons *-houk" be engaged for bis work. '!he FCI his nothm? to do with thèse mattcii. The corporation never coïUrolieJ or supcnised the work donc by ihe contrael labou,. The petitkmer nilght be one of ihose contidct i^bourers. A.P. Transport Vvorlirs Cç-opeiative S^vît". Lîd-, v>4s the conlj^çtor from 22-4-1974 to N-.5-W/7 u-d ?n. V. &4yanara- ^ fe ReJdy and Comp,jnv H as the contra;tor for the îvriod from 12-11-1977'tn II 11-1979. Ihe Kcs- posdi'nt has. no knowicd'-'f as tu tfo scixiee put in by tne peitioaer as hc was never engaged ts casua! J.jbour at aay point of aras. Therefore, "îhe allégation thaï h& was e-ngaeed a: rasual labcui bv the FCT f-ora 111977 to ^—12-1<>78 i
a 1. Unioix rytocd au inuu^ftiil steguU, u\ coqgec- Uoii Wi.n Z3b Vkuiacii 4fltt u:c pçiiuonçr vyas onc amung mena, lne AM~(,C) s"uetmm'vQ ûte ieport to ma iviiBiiiry ut Wmnti, uovçnunaû; oi iotua on ij-o-t*yo. lue uovei.'UUttuc oi inft.a t>y lctierd*ued u-o-iyy/|iD-/-iyy/ convayea itb qçe*su>n tùat the Uispute is oot &î ior reie^nçe Ip Uie Anuufe""M l n- ouucu on ite gïQund lhat awie ij, JIO iy,ai^rjal ^Mowmg Uiat ifc^rç was Klation^p oi enyiloye^ and çjjipiyye^ oetw^ien ttw p^unooçi atia Uie Ke^pondaiit. Fcjtiuoner bas not cjbo^ft tq qu^ Ma tlw uoove Uçcision oi the Cçnfral Gov©raweat.

'2735 •

the F Ct wlSrgb- against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. Tbcy werc werkmg dircctlv under the contre! of second Respondent. Howewr the said dispute was raissd by riîore thau ?5& workmen, the pe•itîoner .v.'as amonfï those 250 worknief!. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MtVl admitted m the cross examinatron he has not filed any liceme of the contracter and that it is truc that ail thèse workmen wbo wnrked in dépôt and other centres hâve rai?et' the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Furtltër he te not connected with the said work hence, it is sabttifted that petitioner is to be reirtstated with 'att bacîc wâ^cs etc. Ttie peti ligner relied on a Judçement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Cburt whèrein the petitioner was arroointe-i bv the otders of ihe Hieh Court. He alsô relied on 2 Ô 0 t - LO page 201 viîerein h wa< held that the netftîîînër d;d corrïpiste fnor'e than 240 day? of service, thât SèÔ! 25F was tiot co'mftlîed wïfh, the mrmînatîon was therefcre bad. He also relîéd on 1996 C3> ALD pai"e 955 whôtein it was lield thft tvittinner wa" 3t>rjoiftted on tennre basis eiv'n" àftirîciai breaks Pètitîonëfs Services tenrîinated refusine rerïewal and anôfhèr t>erson a&Bomted. It was held that the neti*iôTi>-r îs entittèd *n orotectïoi under Sec. 2 5^ nnd ? W. Hè siso refëd on f ? 0 hn 1 Sinr-emp rO"rf Cases oâee 61. where it was held that the ^Writee woricmnn w^s reftii'rpd tc i<">îr" d"tv bv a stvr:fîf "Wp bu* W1"*TI attcrnn'p^ to înîn diitv wn<î rx'Pvei^fH Hoîi" so. Hëlcî î te saM standin" onder would not be used to effect autoittatie termittatit". of service. Therefore pray"; the petitioner lo be reinstated.

schdeuled rates fixed for H&T contacts deperiUm" on the work donc by him. F.GI. K* ncthitig to do with the engagement of labourers and Work done by îl"e laboure"-s was not supeiviscd or côntroîîed by any of the officiais of the F.C.Ï. The contracter used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period frem 22^4-74 to 14-5-77 tbe contract was given to À. P> Transport Workers Co-eper?.tive Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was givea to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether tbc petiti'oner was emptoyed by the said contracter. The:e is no practice oï engaging caswal labour for H&T works in F . C I. He neVer worked during January,, 77 to î>eeefrtber, 7S as casual labowr under F.C.Ï. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender snd the eontract dated 1-34974 wher-eia the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Wôrkers Co-@perativ" Society for H&T werks at MRM: Mirvalaguda. The r>etitioner was one of the 256 wôrkers wko raised industrial dispute. ALCfQ submitteë a failure report Ex. NÎ2 is the copy of fbe minâtes of conciliation nroceedîngs held on 4-4-96 beîore the ALC(Ç). Ex. M3 is the letter d a t ë| 17-5-97 issaed by the Government of India ex- pressing th&t the in&ustriaî dispute is not fit for référence* As none of the labourers w-ere engaged diteetîy bv F . C I. tpyc thfcy worked fer 240 days or more. This Ofdter has not bfeea crwestSêtierf in f*>* Higfa Court by the concerned workm&n. B&. W6 was "@{ fliakttabed bv the F.CT. In the ctrass ex&mi* nation he déposée! that he usée to look after the ml"n*e"ance an€ reoa&s ôf the machiner^ at MRM "Bit for han^'m" and traftsoort vtseé t<* ew^ftte a "w^raettr. AH iHte other wortt Wftre- carned thr"fw"r! cm"t<^ctt)r. TT*ç hâve not f&eé a"v Hceme befaif tMs Cmn ?•* fe nrft +he concerned man to aoooîn* a contractor Thev ffiH tint m*Jnts'n ïiriv re*'îiJteT of **><*• w^fV^rj- who sre emnloved bv the cr"n*mc*tw. WnHf n"1"tjnfe to t te deoô+ was î*;ft" IOAI-W* siter- bv Srt Wffîws Stswnv' who wfts the Asst. Mandée*-. ïfe deti'ert tha* thrt^R con*ract<">rs were not there dsi^în*" th<* <&îA nefîfWI Tt îs tnie that ni' t^p"e wrvrlcin^r hnvn rawrl the (H"r>nte before the A?_/"Y'T'h He hss "i^ artmaHert¹ + hs C^neWn- tiôf" pff^eeéif<"^. ïtt the sâM retefcnee fxîtft!f>wet h OHC ruch, Thftt SWhH V. Vènîrî^ftswnr*.! KT A"'3""h f>rtâ J. Veera Swonw fiî^d a wi+ KT Q"r *•. RLC(t"). "Wf âemha that he is mtitffaè for anv relief.

16. It is ârgûed hy tfte Lèarneé C & t "^ for the

peitioner that this is a case VrJière this -pelititwîer has bfeen made to ran ftom piUar to post Th" peitioscr has pat ia aîmost 2 yeara "ontknjmw "ea^ice ^ tH the corporation ftom Jantratf, 7? to Wk ^ e è r r t ^ r, 1%. That constMttly thev lave bcen put unàsr one or another ^ofitractor Wiïîrout âs'Vitt£ anv notice of "Varice as envisa^ed under S"c. 9A of the IXk A^t. Kt" notice of terraitiâtfen was gin"ri *s requked URder Séc. 25F ot aay wasês paiff. Th* pètitiôïier has marked Éx. Wl which is addresset to Aftiaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the ?aid effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C), Ex. W6 is tfte Xetox copy oi the attendante r e g i ^ r, whieh slwws^ that tftey'arê the helpers and sweepers that Is for the îrKJfith fitwtt O""oher. 1977 to Jania&fy, 1978. tfaact in view t>f ali this voluM^rsws evjdettcêi tfte mt-te faet îhat tn"œ he^ptess illrtetate pewfms whô v,we agath *\mr1dng tîîl 1984 under contractors after having werked With

17. The respondent Counyel argued that petitienef never worked in F . C I. at any point of time. That it has corne m the evkknce tlbat F.C.Ï. used to award H&T contract to private contraetors for handling and trâasDoctins of foodprains. The contractors used to bring theîr labour for the parfxise of doing îhe works under taken bv the contracter. The cer- pcjrat;on never ooolrojlèd or supervise the work of the laboar of the contracter that there was two-.d'ffe,- rent contrâctors during *he said period. The F . C I. has no knowïedps whether the petïtioner was enaag- ed under ths contacter. Tbe oetitioner is trying to proiect frirnseît as casual labour with certain xerox oapers which hâve no value in the absence of origi- îals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 ïfter a lapse of 22 years vihich is a long period. And •hat there is no reiationship of employer and emp- loyée. Wîiea the ""pondent has not appointed there 's no question of disœiss'ng. Hence, the petitioner is not eotîtled for any relief whatsoever. He reîied on the following Judgements : 1992 2 ALT page Î71 whsrein it was held failure to expîain satisfac- tnr'ly that original document was lost or that it is not •n a po2736 THE GAZETTF OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] light to pc> t. ViS-.t I ordships further held that concept of retrsnchment cannot be stretcfed to such an extent as to rover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are cnly daily wa"e employées and had no r:ght to 1 contracter iers not become employées of the Company. IJe Ï'1*O :.'jicd on 2000(1) LLJ page 561' wherein th.? Lordsh'ps held Law does not ores- cribe îny time lirait for the aopiopriate Government to exercise ifs powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of t;me and to revive trr.tters which had since been settled. Power is to bz exercised reasonably and not in a ramonai manner. Tbere appears to us to bc no ration.il Hasis on which îlbe Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 y;ars of order d'f tlh's clear rul'ngs the pexi- tioner even if thev b/id anv rieht and if it is admitted for arguments "?ke the r ght is lost by efflux of lime.

Xerox copies oî the fervice certificates produced in so many case-> are also taken to be true. Does it improve the S'tuatîon? It has corne in évidence that fhey worked as daily rated ca"ual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed undei the I.D. Act, but, ali cases ths question of îeascnableness in approach- ing ths propir authorities also has to be seen. They kept quiîe till 19S8. And, after ail the writs etc. almost 22 ycars hâve passed. Wiîl it be advisable *o direct fha Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for ths respondetit have referred (o 2000(1) LLI nage 561. Their Lord- chips refused lo condone the delay of 7 years. He also rel'ed on Shal'mar Work*; Ltd. and their work- mcii SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lord^h;ps held th?t where there was wholesale dis- charge of workmen their Lord^hips held four years cîclav h sufficient not to grant reinstafement. Further (1977^ 4 Suprême Court Case* page 391 their Lord- ships hckl that dispens;ng vith services of penons engaged on daily wage-i m v çovernmental depart- tuent is not a rc*re*ichment. That their disoi'sval cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where soid : lap"e of over 15 years deprives of them of th-ï remedy available to have and in law loses their npht as well. No doubf, Learned Coims:l for the petitioner tried to distinguish bebveen those who produced service certificates and tbose who d'd not produce ser\ice certificates. T am afraid that alco w;ll not do any good to petitioner^ and does not imnrove îheir case because the orieinal certificats marVed in case of LCID' No. 164 2001 <7D No. 98'981 stntes that the petitioner worked only for three month
19. In conclusion, petitioners have not proved bv ruiy ••p'isb'e documentary évidence that thev worked under the F.C.T even in ca'îes where service cert;n>-irf> îs filcd For exflrnntîe as stnted in the case, that is in L CI D No. 16-1 '200! ITO 98./9R of Lobour Court-ITTI it is onlv for three montas "'.va doyi But >t cannot be simijiv brushod ii'îde that netitioner has nothine to dp with tî>p F f* T Oiherwîse. ni] thpvp r>etitinner" filine writ in the HonVe HiVh Court etc won'd be a futn" exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no Joubt perhaps under ditieieit contractors and more over thev s>ay that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made d lepresen- tation to the management for regulariation of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can

safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. aîthough under various contractors but the petitioner have failed to prove bv anv satisfacforv évidence that thev worlcecl directly at the F.CJ. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibit", it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. aitbnueh throueh contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, which shows that. they were con- tractons durine the relevant period. No doub*. there is de'ay but not of ten vears. Because, thev continneil v/orkinc imrfei some contractor or other till 1984 ami they approached the ALCfC) in 1988. Hence. the above-cited Suprême Court's. cases are not compfetely applicable to the farts of thèse crn<"s

N" d o n h t. t h e ir p r a v er c a n n ot be g n n f pi b p r " n "e PS " • ^ • " • (1

earlier there is no nroof that thev worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to çmploy any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shaîl be taken as worker of Januarv, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking bis seniority as employée of January, 1977 either ut Miryalaguda or at Naîgonda District. However, a word of caution that this sfiall apply on!y for engaging fresh casual labours from today and thsre sbali be no retrenclunent in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in thc opcn Court. Transmit

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by ine on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri Ch. Yadaiah MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of fiLC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Ex. W6 : Copy of the attendante icgister of Helpers & Sweepers of ECI.

Ex. W7 : Copy of service cerfificate dt. 7-1-78.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)- Ex. M3 : Lr. from Governmsnt of India, Ministry of Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

2 "7

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBIMAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding ûfficer.

Dated : 31st December. 2001 Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 183 of 2001 (ID No. 82/99 Transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad) BETWEEN

Sri J. Veera Swamy, C/o 16-9-749/41/1, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. >. . Petitioner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Naîgonda District. .. .Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This is a transfer case with I.D. No. 82/99 trans- ferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H-l 1026/1/ 200l-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 183/ 2001. This is a case taken under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'bîe High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of ïnd?a and two others.

rarrï™

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 83/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Anne- xure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

FNo. L-22025/1/2002-IR(C-II)] N. P, KESAVAN. Desk Officer 604 GI/2002—34

2. Brief averments of the pétition are: That the Res- pondent, Food Corporation of India, estabiished MRM Milling Opérations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initiaîly the petitioner was en- gaged as contract worker in October, 1976 te" December, 1976. Subsequentîy, the Respondent Cor- poration did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged bv tbe 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Naîgonda District. He worked from Januarv, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. Tbe peti- tioner was directly under the controî of the 2nd Res- pondent. The petitioner worked continuouslv for the above said Period without any break in service. Tho services of the petitioner were terminated in the rnontli of December, 1978. After the illecal terrnïnation peti- tioner has been makïng représentations to the Re<^ pondent Corporation. Ultimatelv the rietitior>er rnanag- ed to set a iob with the contractor in Food Corporation of Trjdia. He worked in the same d^pof in the yeat 1984. Tbe petitioner made an application to the Res- pondent seeking appointaient on thc basis ef h!° trpwe 2 7 3S T HE G A Z E T TE OF Î N D 1A • M A R . CH 9, 2 0 0V ~ HA L G U NA ! S, 1 9 23

[ ? / , S .T " î î —S E £ .~ 3 ' î H¹

7. The pefitioner is uneducated in spite of his having made oral représentations' to the Respondent lo reinstaie him, Ihe Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earn.'ng member of ihe family and in view of illégal terminaîion it has become diflicult for him to eak ou: his livelihood and maintenance of family. The petiriener has net fiîed any sui' or esse in any forum for necessavy relief.

as casual labour with efféct from Jannary, 1977 till December, 1978 in spite of absorbing the petitjoner into service. The Respondent intentioûaîïy instrtoed the contracter to remove îhe petitioner frora service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in tenninating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside ihs oral terminn'ion order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct, the respondent to re^ns'3.':: die oetilioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

2739 12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, V. Venkateswarlu and the petitioner tiied a WP No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Government oi India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejccting their claioi which reads as thus, ''ïhe workmen has failsd to produce any documentary évidence to pro\e that he had woriced ior a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months precedmg the date of alieged désengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate deîay of more than 9 years in raising ths dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not îo refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon"ble High Court cf A.F. in WP No'. 9008J92 permitted die petitioner to approach appropriate forum.

poration. It is true that he filed the présent case alîer 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation aiieging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminaled from service at any point of time during ihe period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under îhe contractors namely, S/ Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherîapaliy Ram Munhy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union _Jias not fiied any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C). He deposed that he has submitted R2 his service certificate that he worked for the period from 1-3-96 to 31-12-97 and the original certificate has been deposited before the RLC(C), Hyderabad but no xerox copy has been filed and marked as exhibit. 13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapss of 18 years and ths pétition is liabîe to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses, Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri Veera Swamy examined bimself as WW1 and deposed facts staled in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insecis by appiymg pesticides. Along with him tliere were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda., Thaï he used to bè'paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two^years. The res- pondent used to inaititain attendance register anc$ wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. Ths corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II a,t Vidyanagar during concilia- tion. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtianed the atten- dance register from ALC(C)-I1 subsequenlly their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractais. They worked tili 1984. They made .a représentation to the manage- ment for regularization of their services for which they were ail terrniaated from services. The union raised the said disputa wherein his claim was also in- çluded vide Ex.-Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 îs the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicablésettlement .Matter was referrèd to the Central Govt. vide Ex'.;.W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation roade by the union to thevALC(C). Ex. cW5 is the order- in" WP No,. 0008[92 dated I6-9-49#7. Ex W7 order in WP-,No. 9008/92 dated -, 16-9-1997. Ex: W6 is the attepdance • register maintaîned by the F.C.I. He couy get the cppy of this from the RLC(C) which' was filed bf the F.C.I.' durmg the conciliation period. •'During the said period the Depot Manager was'-one Mr. .Srinivasa • Rao. The management produced ,th&. relevant record such as af-fertdance register, paatëâérit* register etc.,; during the 'conciliation peridd. .fe* the ..,, cross-exajrnination he tfefMsed that the' respondent corporation is a centrai gôvëmmenî corporation. He ; has not filed any document" before the Court showitîg that he worked for two' years from January, 77 continuously under the Tespnndént. He denied that there is no oractice of engâ'gîûg --C3|ifél labourers, direetly by the cor-

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.I., Vijayawaia deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.I. used to avvard H&T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertsken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the schdeuled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervisée or controlîed by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor 'used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contracta was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 77 to Deccmber, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein ihe work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T w^srks at M RM, Miryalaguda.- The petitioner \was one of the 256 workers who raised industriel dispute. ALC(C) submitted a faïlure report Ex. M2 is thè copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedingï" heîd on 4-4-96 befqre the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the : letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government, of India ex- pressing that the inâustrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the îabourers were engaged directly by*;F.C.I. nor they worked for- 240 days or more.' "This order has not been qiœstiôped in the High Court by the concemed wjorkm^n. Ex. W6j was nof maintained by the F.C.I. In the dross exami- nation he deposed that he î used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery àt MRM unit for handling aad transport used to èngags-a contractor. AH the:i4U Y KL" GAZEÏfE Cv HsDiA : MARCR 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 25H. He aiso relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to joia duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to erîect auîomatic terminaiion of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

citer \rcrks wcrc ca.ned through contracter. They iiave not îued any iicense beîore this Court. He îs îiot me conceracû uian to appojn; a conîiactor. They UJU not înairuain aay iugisier of the worksrs who are lanployed by ihe cea<.ractor. Work relaiing to the ucpo: was being looked aiter by Sri Raina Swaniy wiio was the Asst. îvianager. He denied that those contraccors were uot thu"O Gunag nie said period. it is true thaï uil ihese worknien nave raisea the dis- yu\c before die ALC(C). He bas not aiîlended the eonciîiadon proceediu"s. In the said reterence peli- iioner in one such. Ir.iat tins pehlioner, Anjaiah and Venkateswarlu filed a. writ No. 9008|92. It is in- correct that Ex.. V>'5 is filed beîore the RLC(C). He denied that he is entùled l'or any relief.

io. ii Is uigutù cy Uis Liaiued Counsei îor the pc.itjGiior tiiat tins JS a. c*i>t vhere tins petitioner has oeen rnuue io ruii IXLHR piiiax io posi. me peUtioner ïiàh put in aiiijusc 2 yjdii" conuuuous service \vith the coipuiàu^u troiû jaaudiy, 77 io 4ih Dieeiaber, 78. iiiat constanuy uicy uave bten pjit unaer one or animer wuuuac-ior wnLout givmg &ny nouée oi enange ai Ciiv'iâuged unucr bec. ^A ox tue L.ù. Act. ]No nouce oi terimnaUon was given as requtred under bec. 25F or any wages paid. The peaaoner has inarked' E:i. VV1 Wiiicn is adûressed io Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceeûings. Ex. W2 is aiso served to the said eriect. Ex. YV3 is ihe failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W4 is a ïetter addressed by Anjaiah da-.ed 10-8-93. Ex. W5 is the Judge- inent of the Hon'ble High Court wherein petitioner is a party along With Anjaiah and Venkateswarlu wherein the Hon'ble High Court directed thaï in view of U. Chinnappa Vs. Cotton Corporation of India Judgement they can approach the Labour Court straight away without seeking reierence. Ex. VV6 is the xerox copy of the aitendance register, which shows that they are the helpcrs and sweepecs that is for the month of October, 77. Hsnce, in view of ail this volunmmous evidsuce tlic- mère fact thaï thèse helplesi illiterate persons who were again working tiil 1984 under ccmracîors aller having worked with the F.C.T., who go against theni saying that they hâve raised the dispute bciatediy. They were workrng direcîly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the p^itioner was among those 250 workrnen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides rie. Thaï MWl admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contracter and that it is truc that s}\ thèse workmen who worked in dopol and uther centres hâve raised Ihs ALC(.C). Tins shows [hit tbey worked in the dépôt. Fuilhci he is not connected with the said work hence, it is subrailted thaï petitioner is to be reinsated with ail bajk wages etc. The peîitioner reîied on a Judgemeut in WP No. 2$ cl 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court vh^rein tte pe'itioner v/as appointed bv ihe orders of the High Concl. He al'so relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherdr it was held that the petitioner did ccmnlcro more than 240 days cf service, that Sec. 25F was noî complice! with, the termination was thereforc bad. He aîso relied on 1996 (3) ALD pape 955 whjrcin it was h'eld that peîitioner was appointée' on feaare basis ?\v]nz artincial breaks. Petitioner's ser/icei îerminated refusais renewal and another person apposnted. IL was held thst^ the fciitianer ii enlitlsd to protection under Sec. 25r and

17. The respondent Counsei argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence diat F.C.I. used to award K&T contract to private conîractors for handling and transporting of food grains. The contractotrs used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the woiks under taken by the contractor. The cor- poration never comrolied or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two diffé- rent contraetors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engig- ed under the contractor. The petitioner is trying te project himscif as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of origi- nals. The présent case is filed in the year 1999 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no reiationship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appointed ihere is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relisd on the following judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wlierein it was held failure to explain satisfac- torily that original document was lost or that it is not in a po-ition to liavc the same. Court rejecting pei- mission to file xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He aiso relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées eannol daim regular emplojment, their disengage- meni from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. Hc aiso niied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensirig with services of persons engagea on daily wages in a governraent department therefore is not a reîrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after complction of work hâve no tight to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no rght to the posts. He aiso relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contraetors of Singareni CoHiries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the company with- out their names being sponsored by employaient ex- change. So further held such workmen employed through a contracter does not become employées of the company. He aiso reîied on 2000(1) LLJ' page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not pres- cribs any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not thaï, this power can be exercised at any point of time aed to revive matters which had since been iieitlcd. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rationaî manner. There appears to us to be no ratiooal basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this cese after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service.' lie aiso relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 whvrein it v/as bdd : iopse of over 1-5 years in approaching îhe Court-Deptiver, thenx iera£ay ayail- 2741

between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am ufraid thaï àlso will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in LCID No. 164/2001 states tha t the petitioner worked only for three months two days, in other cases they are Xerox copies without filing the original and as in some 4 or 5 cajses J. Veeraswamy's certifleate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under ihe F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is liled. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (1D 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Othcrwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and moreover they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that ihey made a représen- tation to the management for régularisation of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage thern. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent, svhich shows that they were con- tractors during the recevant period. No doubt, there is deîay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working nndei sorne contractors or other till 1<)84 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitl- ed for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondeat No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employaient of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labourers from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and prononneed in the open

Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gov/ri, Personal Assistant, transçrifced by her corrected by me on this tht 3ist day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAEL, Presiding OfHcer

Appendix of évidence Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent : WW1 : Sri J. Veera Swamy MW1 : Sri M.'Siva Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93. Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94. Ex. W3 : Faiîure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vido

îr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93. Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97. Ex. W6 : Copy of the attendance register of Helpers ci

Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marlcëd for the Raspondent

Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt 1-3-74. Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedinti

dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lr. from Government of India, Ministry ci

Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitratioa Act and Arbitrât"" able to them in law—loses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of îihls clear rulings the peli- lioner even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time. 18. it may bs seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in tiiis case and 43 other cases v/orked from January, 77 io 4th Deceniber, 78. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F .CI. to say that they hâve no connection whatsoever with this petitioner , but he is ons of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to epproach the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of A. P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I wouid like to clarify one position thaï this is Central Govern- ment Industrtal Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Section 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement heîd as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, theiefore direct appiica- cations can be enlertained by the Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal-cutu-Labour Court. Accord- ingly, thèse cases wers filed on 17-3-1999. Without go- ing into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact fihat they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of the Leamed Counsel for the peti- tioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweepei attendance is from the month of October, 1977 to January, 1978, that is onîy for 4 montfas. And those who hâve produc- ed service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in LCID No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation oflicer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of ihe service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation ? ït has come in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approach- ing the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. aîrnost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them. back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lord- ships refused to condom; the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their work- men SCLF 1950—-S3 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held lhat where there was Wholesale dis- charge of workmen their Lordships heîd four' years dslav is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lord- ships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wager in a govemmental depart- m'ent is not a retrench'ment. That their dismissal caftinot be treated as letrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them. of the remedy available to bave and in law îoses their riçht as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distlagulsh

Award dt, 25-1-89.
2742 THE GAZETTE OF iNDïA : MAR-CH 9 2002/ lîIALGUNA 18. 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(iiJ]
New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 â.O. 902.—In putsuùncj of Section 17 of the In- duslrial Dispute" Act, i947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government heteby pubiishes the award (.Réf. No. 184J2001) of the Cntral Government liidustrial Tnbunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Anns- xure in the Industriai Dispute deiween the empioyers in relation to the management of FCI and their work- man, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002

[No. L-22025/i /2OO2-1R(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Des,L Gfficer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAI. GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding OfScer.

Dafed : 31st December, 2001 Industriel Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 184 of 2001 (ID No. 96J98 franoferrsd from Laboui Court-IIT, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri Md. Jaffer, R|o Sitharampur, Mirylaguda-508207.

. .Petidoner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager.

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corpoiation of India, Nalgonda District. . . .Rjspondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohaa.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Rav'ndra lleddv.

AWARD

This case I.D*. No 227l

2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in tu s Court as L.C.l.Û. No. 184|2001. 'Ihis is a case taicen under Section 2 A ( 2) ot the LD. ^et, 1947 in \iew of the judgment oc tne non ble î-hgti Court oi Andhra rtauesù reported in W.P. No. oJ95 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sti U. Chmaappj and M/s. Cotton Corpoiation of India and twn otneis.

-. iinei dvermiats ol die psimon axe ; ïliai the R.;s- JJOÛUÊU, toca corpuiauoti oi lucua, establiaiied XVJ PCM ivJUiiing Upei ations/Dépôts/uodowa in 19/0 tanying on Muiiiig Opérations, imluiiy me petitioner was en- gaged as jontract vorker m me year 1976 to D<*cciubt,r, 197o. iuusecjcïenJy, the Respondem Cor- poration Uid noi emrust any woric to the conuacLors. inereioie, Uie petitioner v^as dnecuy eagdged b> the /na Respoodent narnely, the District Manager, tood Corporation oï India, Nalgonda District, rie vvorked iiom January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. The peti- tioncr was directiy under the conîrol ol the 2nd Res- pondent. The peticioner worked contmuously lor the above said penod without any break in service. The services of the pcationei were terminated m the montb ol December, 1978. Alter the illégal ternimalion peti- tioner has been making rcpiessntations to the Res- pondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner manag- ed lo get a job with the contractor in Food Coiporation or Inûia. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Res- pondent seekmg appointment on the basis of his te aure as casual labour with effect from January, 1977 till December. 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner inîo service. The Respcndent intentionally inslructed the contractor to remove the petitioner froro service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employaient. Hence, the tetion ol Respondenr in terminating the services of the petitioner wifh effect from 4-12-1978 wifhout any notice and without assigning ary rcason is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner nlcd a conciliation application bîiore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption, lue conciliation proceedmgs were adaiitted by ALC(C) but thaï ended in failure. Conséquent on faiiure of the meetings ALC(C) ciosed th*¹ proceed- ings, but failured, to report to the Govemment and îlu Government in lurn could.not refer tne dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several repré- sentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However no action was taken against the représentation. ît k subm^tted that the iaid dispute was îaised by the union on behalf 01,250 wc'kmen. Ail the Vïorkmçn were questionin^ the s/Sti ar i sus on c Jinilar grouids., The petitioner is one amon^'those 25Q workmen. And the petitioncr's pray,er h s.une as that of the other workmen.

petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'bls Court aiong for necessary relief,

5. Retreating that he worked from January, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perforrfl; the same nature of work. At the time of transfemng to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the I.D. Act smce it reîated to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petiiioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advised of the R.espondent. 6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve tenninated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principies of natural justice. Tfce Respcndent hav- ing continued the petitioner for a period oî almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay . Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision trader Szc. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the pefitiotier is the senior most employée of Corporation who worfced since 1977. The corporation tbough tctminated ser- vices of trie peîitioner conlimicd the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respor fient amounts to discrimination.

nm contract depehding on the wôrk" done by him. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persans should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matiers. The corporation never controlîed or supervised the work done by "lie contract labour. The petitioner raight be one of those cantract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operativs Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri. V. Satyanara:- yana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the peried from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Res- pondent has no knowiedgs as to the service put in by the peîitioner as he was never engaged as casuaî labour at any point of time. Theiefore, "the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by thé" FCI from 1)1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union "ra^sed an industrial dispute in connec- tion wi>'fa 256 workers and the petitioner was one ameng them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of îndia on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter da*ed 12-6-1997] 15-7-1997 ccnveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tri- bunal on the ground îhat there is no maierial showing that there was relatiohship of employer and employée between the petitioner and îhe Respondeni. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

:7$4.:T>:E GAZEZII Or IM^IA :;>^AÎoCH 9, ÇfiOV PHàLCl^A 1S, :Si3 IF.^r II—SEC S;i)j

any of tfce cfûcials of the F.C.I. The cop.tractor a&éd to sel the werk done as desired by them. During the period frein 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the eontnrct was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the pelitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender avnd the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T Works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India ex- pressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by îhe F.C.I. In the cross exami- nation he deposed îhat he used to look affer the main- tenance and repairs o' the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport use 1 to engage a contractor. Ail the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any licanse before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did net maintain any résister of the workers who are emoloycd bv the contractor. Work relatjng to the dépôt was beinc: loo'
services were convcrled .as if they wfre working v;;th the ccntractors. No notice was ssrved at the îune of changing to the fold cf contractois. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the manage- ment for regularization o: their services for which they were ail terminalcd from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also in- cluded vide Ex. Wl daîed 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALCfC). Ex. W5 is îhe order in WP No. 900SJ92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W7 is the copy of service certjficate issued by the Assl'. Manager (depdt) dt. 7-1-78. The petitioner deposed that he worked as a daily rated casual heîper to that effect he has produced an original certificate marked as Ex. W7 wherein it is stated that Sri J. Veera Swamy worked as a daily rated casua] labour for the period from 1-3-76 to 31-12-77. Ex. W6 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.r. He couîd ,aet the cnpy of tbis from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management "produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. Tn the cross-examination he deposed that the respondent corporation is a central srovernment corporation. He hars not filed aov document befcre the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respondent. Ha denied that there is no practice of engaging casuaî labourers directly by the cor- poration. *It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation nlleging that they worked in F.C.T. and they were t^rrainated from service at any point of time during îhe period from 1977 cnwards. He denied that only contractons used to psy him. He admilted that he; •Jid r.'M file nny document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After 1978, he 'vrrked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Sotyanarayana Reddv, Konduri Veeraiah and Ch^r] -rjyi'v Ram Vurthy etc. Tt is true that ALC(Ç) "!id corcili^tioi officer reiec'ed the référence on the rrrnnvi thnt fî-e dispute rcised bv the union was '""•Vi!e-i. And th^n? is no relationshm of employer "-il eron'nyee. Tbat un'on has not filed any WP ••^•mct -ilc ^.y proceedings of Al.CfC). He denied <"->it Rx. W6 h for<"ed a"^ cienfed. That they ''"TSI-'-ICS fiîcd original of Fx. \V6 beforc the RLC(C).

16. If is arpued by the Learned Counsel for the TJefifioner thrtt this is a cw*. where this petitioner has been mad^ to nm from pillar to post. The pefîtioner h^ tint ir) aitio^r 2 yenrs cnnt;nuon<; service with tT<" rrfmoratioTi f^oTn Tannnrv. 77 fo _4th December, 78. Thnf constnntiv fha^ h^ve b^en pnt unH?r one nr another confi-ncto' wifhnnf cnvinf t/'Tnvnnfidr! wa<; "îven ;"s reanîred under ^sc. ?5F or î^iv wnoe<5 paid TTIB pf^'iotr"* hns 15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. manager, Mcchanical at the District office of the F.C.I., \1iayawrrfa deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 *o June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at M
jrjq'-Vpr' F,x Wl Which i^ nrfflrpvcpfi fo A^inip^ trf>pr'inc ret"rrt of the ALCrC"). Ex. W6 is the Xerox cnpv of fhe pftendanc^ résister, which shows th^t thev sre the hei-oe^ and ^weepers that '•= for the month from Octob^r. 7^ to Jwtugrv, 78. Hence. in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless ilîiterate pensons vho \vere again wrrrkim; till 1984 nnder contractons after having worked witb the F.C.I,, who go ag?inst them sayins: that they hâve raised the dispute beîatedly. They were working directly under the central of second Respondent. However tbe said dispute was raised by more than 2745

an exlent as to covor thèse employées. Since the petifionsrs are only daily w≥ employées and faad no right to tâe posK He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labeur working as Hatnali Employée contractors of Singareni Cellules Co. Ltd., they are not entiîied to be abcorbed as badli Mers of the compaay w.'th- out their names being sponsored fcy empioyment ex- change. So further held such workmen- employîd through a contractor does n-oî become employées of t'he company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not pres- cribi ary time limit for the appropriate Government îo exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is, not tbat this power can be exercised at any point of lime and to revive matters which had since been settlod. Power i<- tri be exeicised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised pervers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. H<Î also relied on" 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Depri\er, them remedy avail- able to them in law-Loses their rights as welî. So submits that in lieu of this clear ruliogs the peti- tioner even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sak'e (he rght is lost by efflux of time.

250 vvorkmen, the peiitioncr was smong those 250 workmen. The peîitioner was footing afîer stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contracter and that it is truc thaï ail thèse workmen wh.o worked in dépôt and other centres hâve ra^sed the dispute before the ALC(C). Thj's shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected vith the said work hence. It is submitted (hat pelitioner is îo be remstated with ail badk wages etc. The petiîioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also reîied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein 5t was held that the petitioner did complète mofe than 240 days of seivice, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the terminaison was therefore' bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refusing renewed and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relisd on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempfed to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic terminarrion of service. Therefore prays the petitioner îo be reinstated.

18. It may be seen tint this case has a chequered history. The allégation is lhat the petitioner in this case and 43 o!her cases v.urked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve • approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking,absorption. It is very es>sy for the F.C.J. to say that they hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of ths candidates who approached the High Court and got the crder. Wherein his Lordstiip directed the petitioner to anproach the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of A. P. State Amendaient under Industriil Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clîrify one position that this is Central Govern- ment Indusirial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and tlhe amendaient of Section 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble H'gh Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is asssnted by ths Président of Jndia, tlierefore direct appliea- catioos can be entertaJned bv the Central Gov;rn- ment Industrie.! Tribunai-cum-Labour Court. Accord- ingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without go- ing inîo much elaborate déçussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual lsbourers. 'Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the peti- fioneî-s arc correct and the very attendance register which rhows d"ily rated sweeper attendance is from (he month of October, 1977 to January, 1978, that is only for 4 montihs. And those who hâve produc- ed service certificates are al! xerox copies except one in ca-e of LCID No. 164(2001 (ID No. 98J98.) wherrin the original cerîificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casuul helper. No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to conîrartors wifbout foliowing Sec. 9A. Therefore. they did not a'pproach the conciliation ^fficer. Even if tînt is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are aîso taken te be true. Does it 17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence tlhat F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private contractors far handiing and transporting of foodgrains. The confractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two diffé- rent contractors during the said periqd. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engig- ed under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of origi- nals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse cf 22 years wlhïch is a long period. And that there is no relalionship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for anv relief what so ever. He reli-îd on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfac- torily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the snme. Court rejeding per- mission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence jmtifïed. He aîso reîied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily W3ge employées canno* daim regular empioyment, thèir disengage- ment from service ranrot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page ?9! wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engagea on daily wages in a government depariment therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that risht to postïngs is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement sifter comoletion of work hâve no rigbt to pr^t. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such

604 GI/2002—3527-15 THE GAZE1TE Or ISD1A . 2AARCB. -?, 2002, PHALGITTA 3 8 1925 :F.vr.i II—3zc. 5 1;M casual labours from today and tïiere :h;ill be no rc'renchment in view of this award.

Award passée! accordingly and pronoimced in the open

Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowii, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. 1SMAIL, Presidiug Officer

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the

Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri Md. Jaffer MW1 : Sri M Siva R.ima Krishna

Doesments marked for the Petitioner/Union

Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-9."!.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide

lr. No, 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt 16-9-97.

Ex. W6 : Copj of the attendanca résister of Helrters &

Sweepers of FCI.

Ex. W7 : Copy of service certificate dt. 7-1-78.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings

dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)".

Ex. M3 : Lr. from Government of India, Ministry of improve the situation ? ft lias corne in évidence 1hat thcy worked as daiiy r'it^d casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prescribcd under the I.D. Act, but, al] cases the question of reasonableness in approach- ing the proper autliorities also bas to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And, piler ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct Ihe Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learncd Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lord- ships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their work- men SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held tbat where there was wholesale dis- charge of workmen tbeir Lordships held four 3'ears delay is sufficient. not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lord- ships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages m a governmental depart- ment is not a reirenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not impreve their case because the original certificate marked in this case states that the peti- tioner worked only for threa months two days, in other cases they are Xerox copies without filing the original and as in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed including in this caes although he himself did not file his service certificate.

Labour dt, 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitrntion Act and Arbitra lion

Award dt. 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th Februai7, 2002 T9. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is Bled. For examrie as stated in the case, that is in L.C.T.D. No. 164|2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-III) it is onlv for three months two davs. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner bas nothing to do with the F.C.I. Othenvise, ail thèse petitioners filinç writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile r':<*rc:se. They did wo>-k for F.C.I. no donbt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they sa.y that trmy worked *il! 1984 under varions contractors that they made a représen- tation tn the manacement for regulariation of their services for which atrarn thev were removed bv contractors under the direction of F.C.I. askins them not to enrape them. So it can safelv be concluded that thèse nersons did work for F.C.I. Mthouph ur>der various contractors but the petitioner bave fiiled to prove bv anv satisfactory évidence that thev worked direct'y nt the F.C.I. Seeine the évidence on record the exhibits, it fin pafeiv br concluded that they dïd v"-rk for the F C.T. nlthiuch throush contractors. More so in v'ew of the exhibits n'ed bv fie resrtondent, whîch shows that, thev were con- fractors dnrinr; the relevant neriod. No donbt, there is de'av but not of ten vears. Be"an"", tbev continned workine under S"TTIP r-ontractor or other till 1984 and thev "rroroached the AT.CCO ûj 1988. Hence. the abo-ve-citod Sunreme Court's ^ases rre not romn'etelv annlïcable to the facts of thèse cases. No douht. their rjraver cannot be srantcd liecause as stated porli'er there is no "roof that thev wnrked under the F.C.T. But. however, in ail thèse cases thev are entitîed for some relief.

S.O. 903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (R.ef. No. 185/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tri' buna!-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their work- marj, which was received by tbe Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-H)l N. P. KESAVAN. Desk Officer 20. In tte resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to eiTinloy anv person as casual labour who is workint; earlier to this petilioner. But once employment is çiven to such rersons, pet'tîoner's services s'ia!! be taken as worker of Tanuarv. 77 and he shal! be given préférence over others in the matter of employme.it of casual labour even thoush on daily wages taking his senioritv as en:o3o^'ee of J?,nuar>/, 1977 either at Mirvala-nida or at. Nalsonda District. However, a word of caution that this s>hall apply only for engaging fresh ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. ïsmail, Presiding Officer.

Dated, 31st December, 2001

Lidustrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 185 of 2001 (ID No. 228/99 Transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Smt. R. Narayanamma, R/o 34-227, Bapujinagar (FCI), Miryalaguda, Nalgonda Distt. Petitioner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. . .. Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

Thîs case I.D. No. 228/99 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/l/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 185/2001. This is a case taken under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Higfa Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-19,95 between Sri U. Cïiin- nappà and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and rwo others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Operations/Depots/Godown in 1970 Carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the petitioner was enga'ged as contract ' worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondent Cor- poration did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was, directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. She worked frorri'Janùary 1977'to 4th December, 1978. The peti- tioner was 'directly undef the contrôl of the 2nd Res- pondent. The petitioner" worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978.. After the illégal termination peti-

2747 tioner has been making représentations to the Res- pondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner man- aged to get a job witli the contractor m Food, Corporation of india. Sne worked in the same dépôt m tne year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent beeiing appointaient on tne babis of her tenure as casual laoour with eiïect lrom 4anuary, 197/ tiil December, 1978 instead of absorb- rng the petitioner into service. The Respondent uiten- tionally mstructed the contractor to rernove the peti- tioner from service. Tiiereïore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence the action of the Rtspon- dent in terminating the services of the petitioner With effecc from 4-12-1978 without any notice and with- out assigning any reason, is illégal, arbiirary and unjust.

3. The petitioner ffied a concilaition application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on lailure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceed- ings, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also, the petitioner made several représen- tations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However, no action was taken against the re- présentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were quesîioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And tne petjtioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy flled WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP; the Central Gjvernmem passed an order dated 13th May, 1993 rejecting the peîitioner's claim on the ground that there is no reîationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon tHe Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALI Page 556 direct- ed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Acî. Hence, the peîitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon"bie Court for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that she woiked from Januarj, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in ser- vice the petitioner repeated that after extracting werk from petitioner as casual labour placed her at the disposai of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transfsrring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subse- quently the petitioner's services were terminatcd by the contractor on the advised of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent fe a mode! employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent having conti'nued the petitiûner for a period of almost îwo years continuousîy • ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence îhe said action amounts to violation of provisionj-'.i TKE GAZETTE OF INEïA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALCUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

under Section 25F oE the I.D. Act. Il is submiited that the petitioner is tne senior most employée of Corporation wlio vvorked slnce 1977. Tîie corporation though terminaled services of the petitioner coruinued the workers who aie juniors to the peiitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amouats fo discrimination.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petiùoner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Minis- try of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. Tne Government of india by letter dated 12-6-1997/ 15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that tuere is no maîerial showing that there was reîationship or employer and employée between the peiitiojier and the Kespondent. Petitioner has not ciioien to question tne above décision of the Central Government.

7. The petitioner is unciucated in spite of her hav- ing raade oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate her, the Kespondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning xnembcr of the family and in view of iiiegal terminatioii, it has becoroe difâcult for her to eak out her JivîJihucd end maintenance of family. The petitioner has not fiied any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Thercfore, it is prayed that thïs Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and conséquent!)' direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuiiy of service with back wages and ah other attendant beneiïts and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in tîie interest of justice.

12. It is submitted that S/Shri N. Anjaiab, J. Veera- swamy and V. Venkatesvvarlu hled a \VP No. 9008/92 seekmg directions wher. the WP was pending, Gov- ernment of India passed an order dated 7-4-ly93 re- jecting thek ciaim which reads as thus, "The workmen. has iaiied to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 montas preceding the date of alieged aisengagement of his services by the management. He was aiso iaiied to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate deiay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govern- ment has décidée not to refer the above dispute for adjudication". The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forma. Hence, the petitioner also has ap- proached this forum.

9.The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainabie under the i.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Gov- ernment. The petiùoner never worked as an employée iii Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no ques- tion of violation of Section 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dis- missed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

10. Modem Rice Miii ai Miryalaguda was establish- cd in the year 1970 anù commissioued from 28-5-71. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills established a)l over the country. Inidaîiy Raw Milling faciliîy was provided with a iimited number of casual workers and subséquent!}' ParboJed irait was commissioned with the increased strengLh of casual workers. It is subrait- ted that the rejponiieui used to award H & ï contract to private contractons [or handiing and transporting of the feod grains at ^ïodsrn Rice Miil, Miryalaguda and at the feod storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to briiig his own labour for the same aud she vas paid as per the scheduled rates fixed uncer the H &. T coatract depen.'ing on the work doue by her. It was his responsibility as to who should be eng;*;_'2i aa
14. Smt. R. Narayanamma examined herself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that she was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with her ihere were 30 to 50 casual workers at Mirya- laguda. That she used to be paid monthly salary.She worked continuously for two years. The respondent us- ed to maintain attendance regisîer and wages register and she used toi sign on the regisîers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. Gene- ral Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services vslsre convei'ted as if ihey were working with the con- tracîors. No notice was served at the timt of changing to the foîd of coniractors. They worked tiil 1984. They made a représentation to the management for régula- risation of their services for which they were ail ter- rn:nated from services. The union raised the said dis- pute wiierein her claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-93. Ex. W2 is the letter datea 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amlcable seulement matter was referred to the Central Government vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is tlie représentation made by the union to 2749

Coopérative Society foi* H & T works at MFtM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. AtC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India express- ing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers Were engaged directly by F.C.L nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concernée workman. Ex. W6 was not main- tained by the F.C.L In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handîing and transport used to engage a contractor. Ail the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work reîdt- ing to the dépôt w"as being looks after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contrsetors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmén hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the conciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that she is entitled for any relief.

the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is thc order in WP No. 9008/ 92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W7 is the copy of service certined for the period from 1-3-1976 to 31-12-1977 issued by the Asstt. Manager (Depoi) dated 7-1-78) WW1 deposed that she filed the original service certi- ficate before the RLC(C), but, actualiy Ex. W7 is the copy of service certiâcate of Sri J. Veera Swamy. Ex. W6 is the copy of attendance register maimained by the F.C.l. She could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was fiîed by the F.C.l. during the concihtaion period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance regis- ter, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination, she deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. She has not filed any document before the Court showing that she worked for two years from January, 1977 continuously under the respondent. She denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true tbat she filed the présent case atter 20 years. She has not nîed any représentation or letter addressed to the Res- pondent Corporation alleging that they worked in JK.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period frora 1977 onwards. She denied that only contractors used to pay lier. She admitted that she ûîû not file any document showing that she received any amount from the corporation. After 1978 she worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and emp- loyée. That union has not nled any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). She denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original ot Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mecha- nical at the District Office of the F.C.l., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.l. used to award H & T work to private contractors by caîling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contracter was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H & T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.l. has nothing , to do with the engagement of labourers and work doue by the labourers was not supervised or controiied by any of the officiais of the F.C.L The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contraei. was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operaîive Sccieiy, Hyderafead and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say wh'ether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is not practice of engaging casual labour for H & T works in F.C.L Ske never worked during Jamiary. 77 to Dscsmber, 78 as casual'labour under F.C.l. Ex. Ml is thc copy of the tender and the contract dated î-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A, P. Transport workers

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel fbr the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner lias been made to run frôin pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuons service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor wïthëut giving any notice of change as erivîsa-ged under Section 9A of fhe I. D. Abt. No notice of termina- tion was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. WÏ which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) abeut conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said èffect. Ex. W3 is the faiîure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the atten- dance register, which shows îhat they are the" hel- pers and sweepers that is for the month from Octo- ber, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this volurninous évidences the mère fact that thèse help- less illitèrate persons who were again working tiîl 1984 under cbntractors after having worked with !he F.C.L, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were work- ing directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more thati 250 wbrkfnen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admit- ted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that îhey worked in the dépôt. Further he is not conneeted with the.said work hence, it is submîtîed that petitioner is to be reïnstated with ail • - hn t HR G A Z E T TE OF I N D IA : M A R CH 9, 2 0 0 2/ P H A L G U NA 1 8, 1 9 23

[ P A RT I I —S E C. 3 0 i )j

change. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordshiips held Law does not pres- cribe any lime lirait lor ihe appropriate Government to exercise ifs powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It ib noî that this. power can be exercised at any point of îime and îo revive maiteis whiclh had since been s^itkd. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. Theie appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 years of order disrnissing the respondent from oervice. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherdu it was held : lupse of over 15 years in approaching ;he Court-Dcprives them remedy avail- abie to them in law-Losses their rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the peti- tioners even if shey had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

bflck wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A. P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of ser- vice, that Sec. 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was hcld that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving arti- ficisl breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refus- ing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection trader Sec. 25F and 2511. He also relied on (2001 ) (1) Suprême Court Cases page 61, wheie it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty Wss prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be usedtoeffect automatic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be rein- stated.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this cese and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They lhave approached for the first time on 12-4-33 seeking absorption. It is very ecsy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connec- tion what so ever with this petitioner, but three among thèse workmen approached tlhe High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed those pe^itioners to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this .is Central Govern- ment Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the iimendmeiit of Sec. 2A(2) is ol the State Govern- ment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case :tself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held. as the amendment is essented by the Président of India, therefore direct applica- tions cm bc entertained by the Central Government Indusirial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Wiflhout going into much eiaborate d^cus^ions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. Granted that the arguments of ihe Learned Counsel for the petitioners aie correci; and ihe very ettendance register which shows duily oied sweeper atîendance is from tbe mont h of October, 1977 co Jûnuary, 1978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are ail xerox copies éxeept one in L.Ç-I-D. No. 164|2001 wherein the original certi- Î\(\-Js filed showing that lie worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-J977.as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, ii is alkged thnt they continued to work under con- tractors as they werc.inade over to contractors wîth-' o'it following Sec. 9A. Therefore, they did not' approa.cn the conciliation oflicer, Even if tlhat is tfjken 5s true and ail the Xerox copies of the service criifica'e.-, produed in so mar,y~ cases are - also

• " t i k en to be t r r e .v. D O CK it i m p / o ve t he s i t u a t i on ? It 17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to privai e contractors for handling a-nd transporting of food grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two diffé- rent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain Xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originale. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no qoestion of dismiising. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfacto- rily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve tlhe same. Court rejecting per- mission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence iustified. He aîso relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily waee employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengage- ment from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He aiso iclied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily Matjes in a Government department therefore i* not a retrancÏÏment. Further held that right to postings is not avail.able. Further held that daily wagers dis- engaoemént after comnietion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of refrenchment cannot be stretched to such an ex- tent a? to cover thèse employées. Since the jpeti- tioriers ara only daily wage emploj'ees and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench-.it was held that contract labour workjrg as Hamali Employée Contractors of Singareni Colîieries Ço. Ltd., they are not entitied to be absorbed as badli fdïers of die company witliout their nam;s being rpeasored by employaient' ex-

has come in évidence that they worked as di'ily ratcd camal labour. No doubt, no limitation is pre-cribed under the l.D. Act. but, ail cases the ques- tien of re"aaongb!encss in £:pnroaching îfie projper- aiîthonties aîso 1;ns to be seen. They kept quite till" 19SR. And after a!! the writs etc. ahnost 22 years îiave passed. Wlii it be advisabîe to direct thï Footf Corporation ci Ir.dlr. to :ake ilicra back? TJÎC Lcarnei Coun;:cl for tfcs répondent liave referred to 20CG (1) LU page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone fhe deîay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950- 83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held that wherc there was wijolesale discharge of workmen theii Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatemsnt. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held fhat dUp^nsing witlli services of persons engaged on daily wages in a govcrnmental départaient is not a retrenchment. That îheir dismissal cannot be treat- ed as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy availabîe to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioncr tried to distinguish between tlhose who produced service cartifkates and îhose who did not produc^ •-ervice certjficales. î am afraid that also wiiî not do any good to peîilioners and does not improve tHieir case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164(2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the o'Jhers are Xerox copies without filing the original and like including this case in some other 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed aîthough he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable dccumentaiy évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certifi- cate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164J2001 (ID 98[98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Othcrwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. Tlhey did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they sav that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for whidh again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. a'-king them not to engage them. So it can safelv be conchided that thete persons did work for F.C.I. aîthough under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked direct- ly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can ?afeîy be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. ' aîthough through contractors. More so in view of the exhibîts filed by the respon- dent whidh shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt,, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some contractor or cïher till 1984 and thay arïproached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Sunreme Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot bs pranied because as stated earller there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ?11 thèse cases they are entitled for some telief.

20. In tbe recult, the lespondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ ary person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons. petitioner's services shaîl be takeo as worker of January, 1977

:?5i and she shall be given préférence over others in the malter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking her seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda Disîricî. However, a word of caution that this shall apply oniy for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, îranscribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Petitioner :

Witncss examined for the

Respondent :

WW1.—Smt. R. Narayan&mma. MW1 —Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna.

Documents marked for the Petitioner(Union Ex. Wl—Conciliation order of ALC(C) dated 10-9-93.

Ex, W2.—Lr. Of ALC(C) dated 9-5-94.

Ex. W3—Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4—Union's repiesentation dt. l<6-8-93.

Ex. W5-—Order in W No. 9008(92 dated 16-9-97.

E.\. W6—Copy of the attendance register of Helpers and Sweepers of FCI.

Ex. W7—Copy of service certificate dated 7-1-78.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml—Cooy of the tender and the contracî dated 1-3-74.

Ex. M2—Copy of ilhc minutes of conciliation proceedines dated 4-4-96 and failure repor* of ALC(C).

Ex. M3—Lr. From Government of India.

Ministry of Labour dated 17-6-97.

E.x. M4—Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dated 25-1-89.

'752. Î'ZL GAZEÎÏL 0I-' IXD1A: : MAS*ai, 9,. 2002/ 'tmùX^HA 13, 19Ii IPASX ÏJ-.-S&;. Syi)]

liîis is a case takcn under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. A c, ib-r? in view ol trie juûgment ot tne Hon'ble Hjgh Court OÏ Andiira Pradesh reponed in W.P. No. 85y5 ot 1989 aated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and ivijs. Cotton Corporation of India and two o hers.

New Delhi, the I9th February, 2002

S.O. 904.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government' hereby publishes Ihe award (Réf. No. 186|2O01) of the Central Government Industriel Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025!li2002-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUN AL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT, AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Olhcer.

Dated : 31st December, 2001

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That Ihe Reàpondent, iHood Corporation of india, established MluVi Miiiing Opérations!DépôtsjGodown in 1970 carrymg on Miiiing Opérations. Imtially the petitlcner vsas engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to Deceiiioiï, i9'/ô. Uibseuueniiy, the Respondent Cor- poration did not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respoudent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. She worked from January 1977 to 4îh December, 1978. The petitioner was directly undsr the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for ihe above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were. terminated in the monih of December, 1978. After the illégal termina- tion petiiioner has been making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contraptor in Food Cor- poration of India. She worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to tbe Respondent seeklng appointaient on the basis of her tenure as casual labour with efïect from January 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent inten- tionally inslucted the contracter to remove the peti- tioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the pstitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assig- ning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

Industriel Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 186 of 2001 (ID No. 229|99 Transferred frctn Labour Court-III, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN :

Srat. P Venkatanarasamma, C|o. 16-9il79|41|l, Oîd Malakpet, Hyderabad-36. . .Fetitioner. AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Fcod Corporation of India, HACCA Bhawan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation poceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report îo the Government and the Govern- ment in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard aîso, ihe petitioner made several représenta- tions to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However, no action was taken against the représentation. It is submhted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen AU the workrnen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is saine as that of the other workmen.

Food Corporation of India,

Nalgonda District. .. Respondents.

AFr-EARANCES :

For the Peiitioner : M|s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Res pondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

4. Aggrieved by the action o* the ALC(C) SjSri. V. V^nkriteswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filcd WP No. 9008192 that prior to filing of the WP fhe Cental Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejec- ting thé petitioners' cîaim on the ground that trière is no relers tj> ar>proach tbe Hon'ble labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also This case I.D. No. 229J99 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of La^our's order No. H- 11026|l|2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbere'd in this Court as L.C.Ï.D. No. 186J200Î.

constrained to approach thc Hon'ble Court for ncces- sary relief.

5. Retreating that she workcd from Jaiiuary, 1977 lo Dccember, 1978 with R2 without any break in ser- vice the petitioner îtpeated that after extracting work frem petitioner as casual labour placed lier at the disposai of the various contractors to perforai the same nature ot work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contracter the petitioncr was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A. of the "l.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the conttactor on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a mode! employer. Hence Respondent ought not to hâve terminated tira services of the petitioner without eompiying with hc provisions of principles of natural justice. Thc Respondent having continuée! the petitioner for a period of ahnost fwo years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provi- sion trader Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submttted that Ois petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who werked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of her haviftg made oral représentations to the Respondent to re- instate her, the Respondent ignpred he same. The petitioner is onr$ earning member of thc famity and in vîew of illégal termiuation it has become difficvilt for her to eak out her îivelihocd and maintenance of i'amily. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case m any forum îox necessary relief.

8. Tharefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pkased to set aside the oral termination order dWed 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondeat ta reinstate the petitionex into. service with continuitv of service with back wages ancl ail other attendant benefîts and pass such other crders as sre jus* and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common cotmter stafing that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neîtber on law nor on facts. The petitionef again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of ï.D. Act it is an amendment by the State Goverranent. The petitioner nevec worked as an employée in Food Cor- posation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not aîtracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalagoda was established in the year 1970 artd commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is onc of the Modem Rice Mills estab- lished ail over the country. Initially Raw MiWwç facîlity was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequen'îy Parboiled unit was commissioned with ihe increased s*rençth of casual workers. It is submifted- that the responderr* used to award H & T coatract to private con- tractors for handlina and transnorting of the food "ra'ns at Mod^rrt Tttcc Mill MiraTaguda and i\* the food storage dépôt at Miryalagoda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the 604 GI/5002—36

2753 same and she was paid as per thc scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by her. It was his respo'nsibîlity as io who should be engaged and how niany persons should be engaged for his work. Thc FC1 lias nothing to do with those matters. The corporation ne ver controlled or super- vised the work donc by the contract labour. The pelitioner might be one of those contract labourers A.P. Transport Workers Co-opcrative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-79. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as she was never engaged £s casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that she was engaged as casual labour by the FC1 fiora 1)1977 to 4-"l 2-î 978 is incorrect* and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government oï India by letter dated 12-6-1997|15-7-l997 conveyed ifs décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing tbat there was relationship of employer and employée bet- ween the petitioncr and the Respondent. Pctiîioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

i

12. It is submitted that SJSri N. Aniaiah, J. Veeraswarny and V. Venkateswarlu fileé a WP No. 9008)92 secking directions wlhen the WP was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their cîa,im which reads as thus, The workmen has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 2"40 days or more during (he period of 12 mo'inths precedUig tïie drste ot alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raisins ^he dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has declded not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'blre Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008)92 permttted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner Was never engaged and was never employed by the corpoiation, hence there is no ques- tion of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petirioner has approached ths Hon-'Me Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laoses. Hence, the petitidn may be dismisped.

14. Smt. P. Vcnkatanaïasamma exam'ned berself as WW1 and deposed facts s*;i'ed in the pétition in the chief examination and added that sbe was super- visïng the stocks from insec*s by applying pesticides. Alorjg with her there we?e 30 t.> 50 casual workers a* Miryataaudai. That sbe nsed to be puid monthly salary. She worked confi-.">"O'Hslv for rwo vears. The respondenf used to maintatn aftend^nce résister and wajres résilier and she used to sian on the regtsters. No aflnohrtment letters were issued, They were paid monthry wa:ges. The corporation submitted atten-2754 THE GAZUTiL 01 1NDIA:MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 (PARI I I- S I C. 3 ii)J F.C.I. Thc contractor used to get the work done as desired by them During ihe period from 22-4-74 io 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.F. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, H\derabad and tri m 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given'to Sri V. Satyauara- yana Reddy. He cannot say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contracter. There is no practice of éngaging casual labour for H&T works ni F.C.I. She never worked during January, 1977 te December, 1978 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. MI is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was a.warded to A.F. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitionet was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispule. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings heid on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in" the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. Wi6 was not maintained by the F.C.I. ïn the cross examina- tion he deposed that he used to look after the main- tenance and repaârs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to encans a contractor. Ail the other works v,ere carried throush con- tractor. They hâve not fiied anv license before (his Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint n contractor. They did not maintain any register of fh? workers who are employed by the contracter. Workf relating to the dépôt was beine looked af7amv fiVd P writ No. 9008192. Tt iq incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLCfC) Hc rlenied that she is entitled for any relief.

dance regisîer to ALC(C)-II at Vid}ranagar during conciliation. General Secrsi.-ry Mr. Anjaiah, obtained thc attendance rcgistcr from ALC(Cj-!l vabsequently thcir services were convcitcd at: if they weie woiking with the contractas. No notice wns served at the time of changing to the ïold ai' contracta-,. They worked till i'Jok Tfuy rr de a représentation to the management fer régularisation of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. Thc union raised the said dispute wherein her claim was aiso included-ide EA. Wl dalcd 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représen- tation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is th'i copy of service ceî'Jficate for the period from 1-3-1976 to 31-12-1977 issued by the Asstt Manager (Depoî) dated 7-1-1978. WW1 deposed that she filed the original service certificite before the R L C ( C ), but, actually it is the copy of service certificate of Sri J. Veera Svvamy. Ex. W6 is the attendance regisîer mainfained by the F.C.I. Ex. W7 is the order in WP No. 9008192 dated 16-9-1997. She could get trie copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.T, during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management prodaced the relevant record such as attendance register. payment register etc., during ihe conciliation period. in the cross-exami- nation. she deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. She has not filed any document before fhe Court showing that she worked for 2 years from Jamiury, 1977 continuously under the respondent. She denied that there is no practice of eneaging casnal labourers directly by 1he corporation. It is tme that she filed the présent case after 20 years. She has not filed any représentation or letter addressed !o tbe Respondent corporation allesing tbat thev worked ni F.C.T. and they v ère ter- minafed from service at any po'nt of time during the period from 1977 onwavds. She denied that only contractors used to pav lier. She admitted that^she did not file any document showing that she receîved anv amount from the corporation. After 1978 she worked under the crmtractors namelv, SlSri. V. Satvpnaravana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherla- pallv Ram Murthy etc. Tt is fue that ALC(C) and conciliation officer reiected the référence on the cround that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationshin of emplover and employée. That union has not filed nny WP a-rairist the said oroceedinffs of ALCi'C). She denied thnt Ex W6 is fotged and cre:ited. Th^t they them- selves filed original of Ex. W6 before +he FLC(C).

16. It is argued by the Learned Coumel for Ihe petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in ilmost 2 years continuously service with the Corporation from January, 1977 to 4th December. 1978. That constantlv they hâve been put under one rr another contractor without givins" anv notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of terminajon was çiven as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Ani'aiah bv ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is tha faillie report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy ot- the attendance reçistcr. wh'ch shows that thev are the helpers and sweepers that is for the mon+h from October. 1977 to Jhnuarv, 1978 Hence, in view of ail thi
petitioners are only da4ly wage employées and had no right to the posts. ne aiso reiicd on 1989 2 ALD page 4^0 Diviaioa Bencli it was hclci tlhat contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors ot Singareni Collienes Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the com'pany without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further heîd such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lord- ships held Law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised ai any point of time and to revive matters which had since béer settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to "us to be no rational basis on which the central government has exercised powers m thjs case after lapse of about 7 \ears of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Court-Deprives them remedy available to them in law-Loses their rights as well. So he submits that .in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efïlux of time.

workmen, the petitiuner was among those 250 work- men. That the petitioner vas looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. The MW1 admitted in the cross exaraina,tion he lias not filed any liccnse of ihe contracter and that it is truc that ail thèse work- men who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised Uie dispute before the ALC(C). This shows ttiat they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that peti- tjoner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judaement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed. by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petrUoner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complred with, the terminatioa wa;s thereforc bac!. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wliereiii it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artiflcial breaks. Petiîioner's services ter- minated refus^ng rsncwal ard another person ap- pointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F und 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée vorkraan was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when altempted to ioin duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic •tttmination of service. Thorefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from i'anuary, 77 to 4th December, 78. Thsy hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is ver y easy for the F.C.I. to say ihat they hâve no connection what so ever with tins petitioner, but three among thèse workmen approached the High Court and got ithe order. Whjtrein his Lordship directed those petitioners to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. 1 would Hke to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. lndustrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Gcvernment. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of Inida, therefore direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial-cura-Labour Court. Accor- dingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they aire casual îabourers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January '78 that is only for 4 months. And those who have produced service certificates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. Nô. 164J2001 wherein the original certificat© liled showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daiîy rated casual helper. No doubt, if is aîleged that they cotitinued to work under con- tractors as they were made over to corrracters without foilowing Sec. 9A. Therefore tihey did not approdeh the conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificat? pro- duced in so many cases are also taken to bé true. Does it improye the situation? Il has come in évidence that they worfèd as daily rated casual labour. No dotibî, no limitation is prescribed under the I.D. Act, 17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T coiUract to private contvactors for handling and transporting of food grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the Works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the wo/k of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during he said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge vhether the petitioner was engaged under the con- tractor. The petitioner is trying to project himseif as casual labour with certain Xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originaîs. The présent case K iiîed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And thaï there is no relatkm- ship of emplyor and cmplo\ee. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, ihe petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He reîied on the foilowing Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same Court rejecting permission, to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment. their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lord- ships held dispensing with services of persons engagée! on daily wages in a governmenl départment therefore is not a retrenchment. Further held that right to postings is not available. Pmther held that daily wagers disengagement after completîon of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to coyer thèse employées. Since the2756 I HE GAZELLE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)] 20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employaient is given to such persons, petitioner's ser- vices shall be taken as worker of J(anuary, 77 and she shall be given préférence over others in the tnatter of employment of casual labour even though on daily vages taking her seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However, a word of caution lhat this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronouneed in the

open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Fhaai Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, trartscribôd by her cerrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAiL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of évidence

Wilnesses examined for the Witness examined

Petitioner :

for the Respondent:

WW1 : Smt. P. Venkatanarasamma

MW1 : Sri. M. Siva Rama Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner|Union

Ex. Wl; : Conciliation order of ALC (C) dt.

10-9-93.

but, ail cases the question cf reasonablencss in ap- proaching the proper authonties also lias to be seen. ihey kept quue uli 1988. And afier ail the wrils etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will n be advisable lo direci Ui.; Food Corporation of India to take them back ? Trie Learned Counsel tor the respondem ha,ve refcrred to 2000(1) LLj page 561. Their Loid- ïhips jcùisvd to s well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certi- ficates and those who did not produce service certjfi- ca.es. I am afraid that also wiJl not do any good to petitioners and does not imp'ove their case because the original certjficate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164J 2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two day:-,, ihe others are Xerox copies without filing the original and like in this case in some other 4 or 5 cases J. Vceraswaniy's certificate is filed alihough he himself did not file his service certificate.

Ex. W2 : Lr. OF ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Copy of service certificate dt. 7-1-78.

Ex. W6 : Copy of the attendance register of

Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Ex. W7 : Orders in WP No. 9008192 dt. 16-9-97.

Documents marked for tbe Respondent

Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract

dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of A L C ( C ).

Ex M3 : Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of

Labour Dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and

Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hava not proved by aaj rcliabk decumeruary évidence that they worked under the F.CI. even in cases where service certifi- cate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 16412001 (ID 98|98 of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside lhat netitioi>cr has nothing lo do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ali thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent comractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors lhat thcv made a lepresentatien to the management for regularization of their services for which again they were removed by contractera under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing ihe évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there îs delay but not of ten years. Because, they conti- nued working under some contracter or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C') in 1988. Hence, î'ne above cited Supr^n * Court's cases are not com- plefely applicable to the faces of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated êarlier there is no proof that thcv worked under the F.C.I. But, however, ïn ail îhesc cases they are enitled for some relief.

New "Delhi, fhe Î9th February, 2002 3.O. 9G5.—în pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 187|2O0l) of the'Central Government Industria! Tribunaft-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute betveen the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was rcceived by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. •L-22025!1|2002-1R(C-;1I)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Offiecr

ANNEXURE

BliFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT ÏNDUSTRTAL TRÎBUNAL-CUM-LABOtJR COURT, AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dâted : 31st December, 2001

Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 187 ot 2001 (ÏD No. 230;99 Tran^ierrod irom Labour Couri-III. Hyderabad)

BETWEEN :

Sri K. Narasimha Reddy, C|o. F:C.L, MRM Miryfclaguda-50820/. Petitioner.

2,757 case ta'kenunder Sec. 2A(.2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the iudgemefit of the Wcn'ble ffigh Court of. Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri. "U. Chinnappa and M|s. Cotton Corporation of India; and two ofhers.

2. Brief averments of ÎJ.J pétition are : That the Respondent, thood 'Corporation ui tndia, estaohshed xviKM MiMlng Opérations] DepotsfGodown m 1970 cdrrying on Miltrag Opérations. Innially the peti- tioner was engaged as contract worker in the year ï97o to Decerflber, ly-76. Subsequently the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contrac- tors. Therefore, fhe petltiotier "as directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, i^ood Cotporauon of lodia, iSalgonda District. He worked from ïanuary 1977 to 4tn December, 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd kespondeflt. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the morith of December, 1978. After fhe illégal termi- natien petitioner has been majking représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimately the peti- tioner managed to get a job with fhe contractor jn Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petîtioiïer made an application to the Respondent seeking appqiiitment on fhe basis of his tenure as casual labour with efïecl from January 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respon- dent intentionally instructed the constractor to ré- nove the petitioner from service. Therefore, peti- tioner was again out of employaient. Hence, the acion of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 wtthoot any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal", arbîtrary and unjust.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager.

Food Corporation of Inida, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation df Inida, Nalgonda District. . . Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Mis. 'G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : M|s. B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

3. The petitioner Jiled a conciliation appli- cation before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation pro- ceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC{C) dosed the proccedings, but t'ailect to report to the Govfcniment and the Govern- ment jn turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représenta- tions toALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However no action was taken against the représentation. It subjtnitled fhat the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 woftmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And tbe petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 230(99 is transferred from Labour Court-IÏI. Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of Inida, Ministry of Lajbour's order No H- 1102611 |200!-TR(C-II) dtd. 18-10-2001 and renum- bered in this Court as L.CT.D. 187(2001. This is a 4. Aggrieved by the action ef the ALC(C) S|Sri. V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008192 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejeeting the petitioners' daim on the ground that tîiere is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'We High Court BeiKih in WP No. 9009193 keeping ail facts and circumstajices in v"cw and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri. U. Chinnappa and M|s. Gotton Corporation of ïndia and two others reported in 1977 ALT.page 556 directed the three petitione"s to approacb the Hoh'ble Labour Court under S. 2A(2) of the ID Act. Hence2758 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 L^ART I I —S E C. 3(ii)] the petitioner is also consîi'aintd to approach the Hon ble Court along for neces^ary relief.

5. Retreating that he v/crkcd from January, 1977 to December 1978 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai oi the various contractors to perform; the same nature or work. At the lime of transferring to the fold of the contracter the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the i.D. Act sinee it îelated to clbange of service con- ditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contracter on the advise of the Respondent.

the scheduied rates ûxed under the H&T contract dependuig on the work donc by him. It was his respon- sibihty as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. 'ihe FCi nas nothing to do with those marters. The corporation never comrolled or supervised the work donc by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one ot those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Wûrkers Co- opérative Society Lîrf., was the contractor from 2.1-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Rcddy and Company was ihe contrautor for the period trom 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour a,t any point of time. Thereiore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI ftom 111977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought net to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- - ons ÛL principles of naturaï justice. The Respon- dent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given (notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petilioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation îhough terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

11. Union raised an industriel dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC{C) .uibmiUed his report to the Ministry of Labour, Uovernrncnt of India on J 3-5-96. The Governnunt of India by leiter datcd 12-6-1997J 15-7-1997 conveycd its decis'on that the dispute is not fit for référence to ths industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was rclationship of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of ihe Cential Government.

7. The petitioner is uneducatcd inspite of his having made oral représentations lo the Respondent to re- instate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order daîed 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant bciicfits end pass such other orders as arc just and necessary in tlv. interest of justic;.

12. L ^ submitted that SjSri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Vcnkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008|92 seekmg directions when the WP was pending Government of India passed an order dated /-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as Unis. "The workmen has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons ior the inordinate delay of more than 9 yean in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. lias decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008]92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even ciherwise the petitioner has approached tlie Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dis- missed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendaient by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of Trdia at any point of time. Therefore Sec, 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was estab- lished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice milis established alTover the country. Initially Raw Milting facility was provided with a ïimited number of casual workers a,nd subsequently Parboiled unit was commis- sioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondem used to award H&T contract to private conîractois for handling and irans- porting of the food crains at Modem Rice Mi!l. Miryalagudai and at ihe food sforage dépôt at Mirvalrs-
14. Sri K. Narasimha Rcddy examined himsclf as WW1 and deposed facts sfnted in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by appîying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respon- dent used to maintain attendanee register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointment letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation submitted atten- danee regi'iter 1o AI.C(Ci-IÏ nt Vidyanagar during concilialion General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah obtained 2759

tractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour lor H&T works in F.C.L He never worked during January, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under i'.C.l. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the con- tract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dis- pute. ALQCj submitted a, failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedinss held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 b, the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Government cf India expressing that the indusîrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were en- gaged directly by F.C.l. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in ;he High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by the F.C.l. In the cross examina- tion he deposed thait he used to look after the main- tenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and tarnsport used to engage a contractor. AU the other Works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Woilc relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contraptors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised ihe discute before the ALC'CO. He has not atten- ded the conciliation proceedings. In the said réfé- rence pefitioner is one such. That SjSri V. Venkates- warlu, N. Anjaiah and ï. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008|92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

the attendance register from ALC(C)-I1 subsequentiy iheir services were converted as il' they Vicre workinç with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fola of conlractors. They worked till 1984. fhey made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services for which they wcre ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Govt. vide Ex. V. 3. Ex. W4 is the représen- tation made by the union lo the ALC(C). Ex. W5. is the order in WP No. 9008J92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the attendance résister maintained by the F.C.l. He could get ihe copy ci this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.l. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management pro- duced the relevant record such as attandance regis- ter, payment"register etc. during the conciliation period. In the cross examination he deposed that the respondent corporation is a central government corporation. He has not filed any document befôre the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of eneaçinç cosual labourers directly by ths corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or. letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.l. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 on- wards. He denied that onlv contractors used to pnv him. He admitted that hî did not file any document showina that he received any amount from the cor- poration. After 1978, he worked under the contrac- tors ramely. SISrj V. Saîy^naravana ReHdv, Kondnri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy %tc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union wa:s belated. And there is no rciationshin of empiover and emplovee. That union has nn< fiird anv WP against the said proceedines of ALCfCV He denied tlwt Ex. W6 is forqed and c^nted.. T^nt IIIPV themselves - filed açainst original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

16. It is argued by ihe Learned Counsel for ihe petitioner that this is a case vsherc this petitioner has beein made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2' years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. That constanily they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged ùnder Sec. 9A of the* I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which 's addressed to Anjaiah- by ALC(C) about conciliaiion proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect, Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers a,nd sweepers that is for the month from petober, 77 to January, 78. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the inere fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons whô were agàin working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.L, who ab against them saving that they' hâve raised trie, dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However trie said dispute was raised by moie than 250 workmen, thé petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner Vis looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MWl admit- ted in 'he cross eXaminàtion he has not fiîed anv license of the contractors and that it is'true that ait thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and o'her ren- tres hâve raised the dispute before" the'ALC(C). This 15. Sri Sivarain Krishna the Asstt. Manager Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.l., Vijayawada deposed as MWl and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he workeà as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modsrn Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.l. used to* award H&T work to pri- vate contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him vmdei H&T confra^t. The contractor was bein.7 paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the woi-k done by him. F.C.T. bas nothimt to do with !^c engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not sup.'rvi^d or romroiled bv any of the officiais of the F.C.l. The coniroctor used to pet the.work done as deslred hy them. During the period from .22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contact "was aiven to A.P'- Transport Worker-; Co-operative, Socie- tv. Hyderabad and from 12-11-7.7 2760 THE GAZETTE 01 LNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3Ui)J their names bciug sponsoreil by employaient exchange. So further held such workraeu employed througu a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also rclied ou 2000 (.1) LLJ page 501 whereiu the Lordships held Law doca noî prescribe any tiuie limit ior the appropriée Government to exercise its powers under Sec.10 of the Act. It is not that tbis powei can be exercised at anv point cf time and to revive îiiatters which had since been settkd. Power is to be exercised reasonably and not in a ralienal manner., TTiere appears to us io lv. no rational basis on which the central government has exercised powerg in this casç- after laf"e of about 7 year& of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also reiled on 1993 FLR (67) pagv; 70 w hère in it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Comt-Deprives thern remedy avaiïabls to them in law-Loses tbeir rights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it îs admitted for arguments sake the right is loft by efiïu* of time.

shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connectée with ihe said work hence, it is sub- niitted that petitioner is to be rcinsta,ted with ail back wages etc. The petitioner rclied on a JUdgement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of ihc Hon'blc A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied ou 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held thaï the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied vvith, fhe termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held îhat petitioner wos appoimed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refusing rcnewal and another persoa appointed. It was held that ihe petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also pelied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Ca,ses page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatk termination ,of service. TherëTôre prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

17. The respondent Counsel argued iliat petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of Urne. That it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to privaîe contractons for hancfîing and transporting of foodgains. The contractors used to bring their. labour fofthe purpose of doing the work s under taken by the contraclor. The corporation riê\er controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. bas no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contrac- ter. The petitioner is trying to project himse'f r- casual labour with certain xerox papers which have no value in the absence of originals. The présent rase is filed in the yeac 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. Aad that there is no relation- ship of employer and employée. When the respon- dent has not appoinîed there is no question of dis- mission. Kence, the petitioner is net enthkd for any relief what so srver. He relied on the following iisdgements 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held faihire to explaui satisfactorily tha>i original document was lost or that it is not in a position to have the same .Court rejectine permission to file xerox copy of document as secondary évidence vustified. He atso reFcd en 2001' 2 ALD page 205 wherein ït was held daily wage employées cannot .iqlaim regu'nr empksyment. their dis- engagement from service car; net be consîrued as violation of Sec. 25F. ïfe also relied OH (1997) 4 Suprême Court Case" faae 391 wherein their Lordshipsi jfrdâ dispeosjng with services ofl persons engaged on daily wages in a ^overrnnent de- parlment therefore is not a retrenehment. Further. beld that right to posrings is not available. Further held tbst daily wagers disengasemettt after compfetien of work have no right te f ost. Tbeir Lordsbips further held that concept of retrenchment caanot bc sfretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only dailv wage empkfvees and had no right ta the posts He also relied on 1989 2 ALD nage 420 Division Beneb it was held that confract îabour worteiaff as Hamali Emoloyee cofttractars of Siffareni Collieries Co. Ltd.. they are aot entitled to be ahsorfced as badli Mers of the company withont

18. It may be seen that the case has a> chequered history. The allégation is that the pethioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 77 to 4th December, 78. They hâve approached for the ftrst time on 12-4-1,988 seeking absorpton. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they save no connection what so ever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who appronched the High Court and got the order. Wherein bis Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P, State Amendaient under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position îhat this is Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. Hawever, as stated in the beginning of the case itsetf the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench. Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefoxe direct appficatiom ca,n be entettained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tîibunal-cum-Labour Court, Accordingly, this case was filsd on 11-3-1998. Wfth- out going into much slaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labourers. ôranted tha,t the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the monlh of October '77 to January '78, that is only for 4 months. And those who have produced service certifiea9 Tlve Learnfid Counsel for the respondent have referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561 Their Lordsbips refusée! to condone the delay of 7 years. Hc also idied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen " SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 wherein iheir Lordshtps heid that where there was wholesak discharge ot workmen their Lordships held four ycars delay 15, sufficiènt net to grant rcinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dts- pensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental dep^rtment is not a retrenchmtnt. That their dismissal cannot bs treatcd as îetrencbmenh He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the reraedy availabk to hâve and in law loses their right as welf. No doujt?, Leamed Counsel for the petitioner tried to djstinguish between those who produced service certifieaies and those who did not prddtice service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not imprdve their case because the original certi- ficate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 16412001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months (wo iays, the others are ?ero>. copies without filing the original and in some à or 5 cases J. Veeraswahmy*s certificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion petitioners hâve not proved by nny rcliaHa documentary évi- dence that the/ worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service ceuifioate is filed. For ixaia- ple as stated in L.C.I.D. 164)2001 (ID 98198 of Labour Court No. III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F C I. Othcrwise, ail thèse petitioners filing vvrit in the Hon'ble High Court eic.'would be a futile exercise. Tliev did v>/ork for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contracter and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représenta- tion to the management for regularization of theh services for _which agaiin they were removed by con- tractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can safely be coneluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under variou"! contractais but the petitioner hâve failcd to prove by any .satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely bz concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. althouah throuah contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed bv the respondent which shows that they were contractors during t ir relevant per; "1. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued workinc nnder "orne contracter dr otîier till tO84 and they ap- proached the ALC(C) in '988. Hence, the above-cited Siipreme Court's cases are not compietely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt. their praver cannot be sranted because a" stated earlicr there is no oro'>f that they worked under the F C T. But, bov ever, in ail thèse cases they are cnt'fled ftv sorti" relief.

20. In the resuit, the resnondent No. 2 is directed thaf he'is frée to employ anv persorl as casual labour who is workins earPer to this petîfioner. But race emplovment is civen to such persons, petitjoner's ser- vices shall be taken a¹, wrrkcr of Jonuarv. 77 anà he shaii be sriven nreferepee o\cr others in the matter of emplovmpnt of casual labour even thoveh on daily waces takin"î his seniority as employée of January, 604 GI/?002—37

2761 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at N^gbftda District. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only tor engaging fresh. casual labours from today and there shall be ro refrencfrmuH in view of ihis award.

Award passed "ccordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated fo Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of Dëcember, 2001.

E. ISMATL, Presidmg Office.- Appendix of cidence Witness examinée-for the Witness examined for Petitioner: '

the Respondent:

NIL NIL Documents marked for the Feîition£r|Union Hx. Wl : Conciliation oider ot A L L ( L; dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 : Lr Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94. " , Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide Lr No 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93 Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008]92 dt. 16-9-97.' Ex. W6 : Copy of the atlend-incc registei of Helpers &' Svwepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Et M2 : Copy of the minutes of concilition pro- ceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour Dt. 17-iS 97.

Ex. M4 : Notice un, 1er Arhifration 4ct ard arbifration Award dt 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th Fcbruary, 2002 S.O. 906.—In pursiiance of Section 17 of tr#e In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947). the Central Government hsreby publishes the. award (Ref-No. 166/20&1) ,of the Central Government , Industrial Tribunal-cma^LÇ, Hyderabad as shown ia tbe* Astte- xdre in the Ind"strial Dispute between the emptoyert in relation to the management of FCI and their2 ne THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCTI 9, 200?/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI II--Src. 3'n'i workman, which vvas receivcd by the Central Govern- ment on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025/l/2002-IR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Oflicer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TR1BUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated : M st December, 2001 Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 166 of 2001 (ID No. 100/98 Transferred from Labour Court-III,

Hyderabad ) '

BETWEEN

Smt. Mariyamma, C/o FCI. MRM Miryalaguda-508207. Nalgonda District. Petitioner

AND

]. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2 The District Manager.

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. . . Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner.—M|s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the ResponJeit.—MU, B. G. Ravindra Reddy-

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 100/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Mmistry of Labour's Order No. H-11026|l|2001-IRfC-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 166/2001. This is a case taken under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reportcd in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : Tbat the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Opérâtions/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opérations. Initially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequenrly, the Respondent Cor- poration did not enfrust any work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager,

Food Corporation of India. Nalgonda District. She wor- ked from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period Without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were termina'ecl in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termiasrtion petitioner has beeni making représentations to the Res- pondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner man- aged to get a job with the contractor in Food Cor- poration of India. She worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appointaient on the basis of her tenure as casual labour with effect from January, 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of emp- loyment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminat- ing the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application be- fore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceed- ings, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also, the petitioner made several représen- tations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Govern- ment. However, no action was taken against the repré- sentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Government passed an order dated 13th May, 1993 rejectinsj the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 direct- ed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble La- bour Court under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained tp approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that she worked from Januray, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in service the pétition repeated that after extrac'ing work from pelitioner as casual labour placed her at the disposai of the various contractors to perform the sam~ ncti re cf vor':. At the time of transferring to the fold of :he contrée'o.- the pe^itioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the I.D. Act since it related to change of service condi- tions. Subsequently Ihe petjtioner's services v, ère ferminated by the contractor on the'advise of the Respondent, b. ihe Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provi- sions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provi- sion under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Cor- poration who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in ser- vice. Hence, the action of the Respondent amoûnts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of her having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate her, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has bccome dilficult for her to eak out her livelihood and maintenance of family. The petitiôner has not filed any suit or case in any forum l'or neccssary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. ACC neither on'law nor on facts. The petitioner agam approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of J.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner neyer worked as an employée in Foçd Corportion of, India at any point of time. There- forr Section 2A(2) is npt attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was estab- lished in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28th May; 1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills estab- lishcd ail over the coantry. Initially Raw Milling faci- lity was provided with a. -limited number of casual workers and sutfsequeiitfy.Parboiled unit was commis- sioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It- is submitted that the% respondent used lo award H & T contrabt to private contractors for handling and transportihg of tne foodgrains at Modem Rice Milt. "Miryalagudîi and at the food storqge dépôt at \lii\aliigudu on fonder basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same arîd she- was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed undèr the H&T .ontratet depending on the work donc D> lier. It was his responsibîlity as to who should be engaged and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothiiîg to do' with those matters. The corporation never fcontrolled or supervised the work done by the contratt labour. The petitioner might be one of thosé contract labourers. A. P, Transport Workers Co-opeyative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to. 14-5-1977 arid Sri V. Satya- narayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the pe/idd from, 1*1-11-1977 to il-4,1-1979. Th2 Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in

2763 by the petitioner as she was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that she was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Minis- try of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government|of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/ 15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship of employer and employés between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veera- swamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Govern- ment of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 reject- ing their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the .management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govern- ment has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication". The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum'. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no ques- tion of violation of Section 25F even otherwisc the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Couit after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dis- missed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

, 14. Smt. Mariyamma examined herself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief fcxami- nation and added that she was supervising the stock:" from insects by applying pesticides. Along with her Ihere were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That she xised to be paid monthly salary. She worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register andwages register and she used to sign on- îhe registers. No appointment letters were issued. Theyljtâïe paid monthly Wages. The cor- poration submitted affendance register to ALC(C)~II at 'Vidyanagar durïngconciliation.'Xîeneral Secictary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register frero ALC(C)-II subsequently their services 'wére converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served atthe time of changing to the fold of con- tractors. THèy worked till 1984. They made a repré- sentation to the management ' for regularization of their services for which they werej ail terminated from ser- vices. The union raised the said dispute whçrein her claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993 Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALCfC) that there is no armicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Government videTx. W3. Ex. W4 i* fr2764 THE GAZE![fc C* 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 |P f présentation made by the union to the ÂLC(C). submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held t>n 4-4-96 before fhe ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-9,7 issued by the Government of India e(\pressing that.the industrial dispute is not fit for référence As none of '.he labourers were engaged dhccUy by F.C.l. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order ha" uot bcen questioned in Oie High Court by the coacerned workman. Ex. W6 v as not maintained by the I .CI. In the cross examination hc deposcd that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for bandiing and transport used to engage a contractor. Ail the other works were carried through contractor. fhcy ha\e not filed any license betore this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. fhcy did not maintain any register of the worker* who aie employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were net there duting the said period. It is true that ail the^e workmen hâve riised the dispute before the ALC(C). He lias not ctfcnded the conciliation pro- ceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S Sri V. Venkattswarlu, N. Anjaiah and ,(. Veeraswamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is in- correci that Ev. W5 is filed before the R L C ( C ). He denied ihat she is entitled iv any relief.

x. W5 is the ordcr in WP No. 9008/92 datetL16tii Setpember, 195*7. t x. W6 is the attendance register mamfained by the F.C.l. She could get the copy of this from Ihe RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.l. during, the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srtnivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as at- tendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination, she de- posed that the respondent corporaion is a central government corporation. She has not filed any docu- ment before the Court showing that she worked for two ycars from January, 1977 continuously under tiie respondent. She denied that therc is no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation It is true that she filed the présent case aftcr 20 ycars. She has not filed any représentation or letter addressed lo the Respondent corporation alleging that they work- ed in F.C.i. and thèy were terminated from service at any point of lime during the period from 1977 on- $cards. She denied that only contractors used to pay her.-She admitted that she did not file any document srrowing that she received any amount from the corpo- ration. Atter 1978 she worked under the contractors hamely, S/Sri'V. K Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherfapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true thàt ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejecied the ré- férence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union Was belated. And there is no relationship ol

employer, and employée. That union has not filed 1îny,-WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). She" denied that Ex. Wo is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 btforc the RLC(C). •

1765

exercised rcasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has twercised powers in this case after lapse of about 7 y.ars of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67j page 70 where, r, >; was held : lapse of over 15 ycius in appro.i. lihig the Court-Deprives them remedy availabîe to ihem in law-Loses their îights as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear iulings the petit joners evtui il they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sakc the right is lost by efflux of time.

service, thait Sec. 25F was not complied wilh, the ter- ni ination was thcreforc bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wlieiein it was held that peti- lioner was appointed on lenurc basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services, terminated refusing renewal and another perison appointed. It was held that the pelitioner is eniitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) I Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the ab- ieme^ woikinan \\ as ic-quircd to join duty by a spéci- fie date but when attempted to join duty was p.evented doing se. Held the said standing order would iiot be used to efîect automatic termination of service. Therefore, prays the petitioner to be rein- slatcd.

17. The respoudent Couns>ei argued tkat petitioner never worked in F.C.5. at any point of time. That U Jias corne in the évidence itiat F.C.I. used to award H & T centract to private contractors for handling and transpoiting of food grains. The conîractors used to bring tfaeir labour for the purpo^e of doing the works under taken by Uie contractor. The corpo- îation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors duriug the said period. The F.C.I. lias no knowledge wheiher the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself a-; capital laboui with certain Xerox papers which bave no value in the absence of criginals. ihe présent case is filed in the year 1998 afler a lap;,e of 22 years whicîi is a long period. And that there is no reïationship of employer and emp- loyée. Whcn the respondent bas not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief wbat so ever. He relied en the following Judgenienîs. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfacîorj- ly that original document was lost or that it is not in a ppsition to hâve the same. Court rejecting per- mission to file Xerôx copy of document as secofldary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001' 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot daim regular empïoyment, their disengage- ment from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a" government department therefore, is not a retreflchmcnî Further held tbat right to postings is not ava'Iable. Further held that daily wagers disenga- gement after completion uf work hâve no right, to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of re- trenchmerit cannot be stre-iebed to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only daily wage employées and had no right to the pesis. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour work- ing as Hamaii Employée centractors of Singareni Collines Cp. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorb- ed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by empkiyrmiit exchange. So further held such- workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law does not pTescribe any time limit for the appropriate Governmenl to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can b&,-^.xercis^datîiiny point ôf time" and to revive matiers which had since béer., scttled. Power is to be

18. It may be scen that this case has a chequered 'jistory. The ;:ilcgations is that the petitioner in this case and'43 otber cases worked from January, 77 to 4th Diccmber, 78. Ihey Iu've approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 s-eekmg absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. 10 say that they hâve no connection what so ever wiih this petitioner, but thr;e arnong thèse workmen approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed those petitioners to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A'2) of A. P. State Arnendment under Indus- • riai Disputer Act. 1947. I would like to clarify one position" that this is Central Government Industrial 1 ribunal-cum-Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the Slate Government. However, es stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement Iield us tho amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore, direct applications can be enter- taincd by the Central Government Industrial Tribu- nal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed en 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an adrnitted fact that they are casual labourers. 'Granted that the arguments of the Learnod Counsd for the peîitioners are correct and the yery attendance register which shows daily ratcd'sWceper uîtendance is from the month of Octo- ber, 1977 lo January, 1978, that is only for 4 inenths. And those who h?ve produced service cerrificates are ail xerox erpies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 16412001 wherein tlse original certificate filed showing th:\t he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily riïted casual helper. No doubt, it is alleg- cd that they contînued to work under contractors as they were màde over to contractors without following Sec. 9À. Therefore, they did not approach the con- ciliation officcr. E\cn if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certifiâtes pro- duced in so manj cases are also taken to be true. Do~s it improve the situation? It has come in évi- dence that lhcv worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, nô limitation is pre^cribed under the I. D. Act, but. ail cases the question of reasonableness in approach'ng the proper authorities also has to be seen. Thej kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almosl 22 ycars hâve passed. Will it bc advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to îake them back ? The Leamed Counsel for tbe res- pondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. The;r Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 Years. He also relied on Shal'mar Works Ltd. and tbeir workmen SCLF 1950—8"3 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstate- merit '.Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services2766 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, J923 [PARr II—SEC. 3(ii)] of pcrsoiis cngagcd on da'ly wages in a governmental d^paiunent is not a îetrenclmient. That their dis- misxtl cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also rcliod on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of ovcr 15 yejis depnves of thcm of tho remedy available to Siave and in lavv loics their right as well. No doubt, Learncd Counsel for thc petilioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and tho-,e who did not producc service certificates. I am tfraid that also vvill not do any good to petitioners and dojs not improve their case because the original veitilicitc marked in L.C.J.D. No. 164|2001 states (h; t thc pelit'oner in thai case worked only for three months two days the othevs arc Xerox copies with- oui fil nj thc onginal and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Vceraswamy's certificate 's filed although he himself did iu)i file his service certiÊcatc.

19. -'n conclusion, uclitioners hâve not proved by ail rcliabîe documentary évidence that they worked und,:r thc F.Cl. c\çn in ca"es where service certifi- cats U filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. j 64 2001 (1D 98,98 cf Labour Court-HI) it is only for thrC'j months two days. But it cannot be simply briKhed aside that pJitioncr ibas nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ail thèse pelitioners filing >vrtt in thc Hon'ble High Couri etc. would be a futile exercise. They u'id wcik for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent ccniractors and more over they say thaï they worked till 1984 under varions contractors that they made a îeprescntation to the management ior regularization of their services for which again the\ weîe removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. asking them not to engage them. So it can -aftly be concluded ihat thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under vaiious contractors but the petitioner hâve lailed to prove by any satisfacîory évidence that tluy woiked directly at the F.C.I. Seemg the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safeh be concluded tbat they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractoi s More so in view of fie exhibits filed by thc .ie,> pondent which shows that they were contractors dming the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Recause, they coiitinued working tuidei some contracter or other till 1984 and they epproached the ALC(C) in 1983. Hence. the above-citca Suprême Courfs cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubf, their prayer cannot be granted Lecriu-e as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under thc F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the result, thc respondent No. 2 is direeted that he is free to employ any person as casual labour who is working i-arlier to this petitioner. But once cmplojraent is given to such persons, petitioner's ser- \'ccs shall be taken as woiker of January, 77 and she shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment cf casual labour even though on daily wages Iaking her seniority as employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda District. However. a wo'rd of caution that this shall apply inly for engaging • fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrenchment in view of this award.

AvvarJ passcd accordiugly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani 'Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on tnis the 31st day of Decsmber, 2001.

E. 1SMAIL, Presiding OfEcer Appendix of évidence

Wiine^a examined ior the Fetitioner :

WWI.—Smt. Mariyamrna.

Witness examincd for the Respondent :

MW1.—Sri M. S\p Rama Krishna.

Documents marked f">r the Petitioner|Union Ex. Wl—Conciliation Oidet of xALC(C) dated 10-9-93.

Ex. W2—Lr. Of ALC(C) dated 9-5-94.

Ex. \V3—Failure of conciliation report of ALC (C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4—Union's îeprcscntation dated 16-8-93.

j£x. W5—Ordci in WP No. 9008|92 dated 16-9-97.

J2x. W6—Copy of the al tendance register of Helpcrs and Swcepers of FCI.

Documents miiked loi the Respondent Ex. MJ—Cop\ of ilie lender and the contract dated 1-3-74

Ex. M2—Copy oî thc minutes of conciliation proccedings dated 4-^-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex M3—Lr. Fiom Gowmment of India', Min. of Labour dated 17-6-97.

Ex. M4—Notice under Aibitration Act and Arbitration Award dated 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 SO -907.—In pursuanoe of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), thc Central Government hereby publishes the award fRef. No.

J 69/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tri- bunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employrcs in relation to the management of FCI and their <\ orkraan which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025/l/20024R(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABADI

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated :—3 lst December, 2001

Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 169 of 2001 (ID No. 209/98 Transferred from Labour Court-ÏII, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri N. Satyanarayana, R/o 7-4-186/15, Bangarugadda, Nalgonda. Petitioner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India. HACCA Bhavan, . Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of Tndia. Nalgonda District. . . . Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

Fpr the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 209/98 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/1 /2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and re- numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 169/2001. This is a case taken under Section 2AC21 of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of ]989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two ottiers.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Opcrations/Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opertaions. Initially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondent Cor- poration did not entrust any work to the contractors.

2767 Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked froni January, 1977 to 4fh December, 1978. The peti- tioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Res- pondent. The petitioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the mon!h of December, 1978. After the illégal termination peti- tioner has been making représentations to the Res- pondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner manag- ed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Res- pondent seeking appointment on the basis of his tenure as casual labour with effect from January, 1977 till December, 1978 instead of absorbing the petiitoner into service. The Respondent intentionally instructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason is illégal, arbitrai) jnd unjust.

3. The petitioner fiied a conciliation application be- fore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceed- ings, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer the dispute. In this regard also the petitioner made several représen- tations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Gov- ernment. However no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar ground*.. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petifioner'syrayer is same as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Government passed an order daîed 13th May, 1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 direct- ed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in ser- vice the petitioner repeated that after extfacting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposa] of the various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferrinç to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the I.D. 'Act since it related to change of service conditions.
2768 THE GAZETTE 01 iNDIA : MARCH 9, 200.2/PHALGUNA 1S, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J
Subsequcntly the pctitioncr's services weic terminaled by ihe contraclor on the acivise ot the Respondent.

The Respondent has no knowîedge as to- the service put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that, hc was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1/1977 io 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

6. The Respondent is a modcl employer. Hcnce, "Respondent ought noc to have terminated the services ôf the petitioner withoul complying with the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent having continued the petitiener for a period of almost two yèars coatinuously ought to have given notice pay. Hence the said action arnounts to violation of provi- sion under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitt- ed that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimniation.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one amont? them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the Minis- la- of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. fisc Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997/ 15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not lit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no materia! showing that there was reltaionsip of employer and employée between the petitioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the abovs décision of the Central Government.

7. The petitioner is uneducated in spite ot his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to rein- state him, the Respondent ignored the saine. The peii- tioner is only earning member of the family and ia view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak oui his livelihood and maintenance ot family. The petiiioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Couit niay bc please.1 to set oside tiie oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and al' other attendant benefits and pass such orher orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

12 Tt, is submitted that SISriN. Anjaiah, J. Veera swamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking directions when the WP was pendine, Govern- ment of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 reject- ing their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has failed tô produce any documentary évidence co prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govern- ment has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

9. The respondent filed a common councr staîing that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Gov- ernment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corportion of India at any point of tinie Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no ques- tion of violation of Section 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court aftêr a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dis- missed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissèd.

14. Sri N. Satyanarayana examined himsclf as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesiicides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryala- guda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendante register and wages register and he used to sign on the regîsters. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages, The corporation submitted attendance register to ALCCC)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretarv Mr. Anjaiah, obtained tbe attendance register from ALCfC)-IJ subsequently their services were con- verted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They ,worked till 1984. They made a representtion to the management for regularizatio'i of ttieir services-for vhich they were ail termjnated from services. The union raised the said dispute whefe- in his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl datîd 10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was establish- ed in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills established ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned witb the increased strength of casual workers. Tt is submit- ted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transportinjr ri the food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the saine and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H & T contract depending on the work donc by him. It was his responsibUity as to who shou! ' be engaged and how many persons should be enaggec! for his work. The FCT has nothing to do with those matters. The corportaion never controlled or supervis- ed the work done by the contract labour. The peti- tioner rnight be one of those contract labourers. A. P. Transport Workers Co-opertive Society Ltd., was the contracter from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. §atyanarayana RccMy and Company was the contrac- *>r for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979.

2759

under F.C.I. JJx. MLis -the copy of the tender and the contract datèd 1-3-1974 wherein the work' was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operiative Society for H & T works àt MRM, Miryaiaguda.; The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raïsea in- dustriat dispute. ALC(C) submitted a fallure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 tefore the ALC(C).;Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Govern- ment of India expressîng that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for;240 days or more. This order has not beèr! qi-j.vionsd in ,lhe High Court by the concerned, wori.nr.m. IVi. \V7 was not maintained by the F.C.I.;' In the cross eXami- nation he deposed that he used îo look after the fnkin- tenatice and repairs of the maphinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contracter. Air the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed anylicense before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did'not maintain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy" who was-thé Asstt. Manager. Hs denied that those con- tractors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). Hë has not attended the con- ciliation proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkaiswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veefa Swamy filed a writ No. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W7 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitied for any relief.' 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the Central Government vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the service certificate issued by the Asstt. Manager (dépôt) dated 2-12-77, The petitioner deposed that he worked as a daily rated casual helper to that effect he has produced a copy of certificate marked as Ex. W6 wherein it is stated that the petitioner worked as a daily rated casual labour for the period from 1-9-77 to 2-12-77. Ex. W7 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srini- vasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross-exa- minâtion he deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he work- ed for two years from January, 1977 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no prac- tice of engaging casual labourers directly by the cor- poration. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation-or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used . to pay him. He admitted that he did not file any docu- ment showing that he received any amount from the corportion. After 1978, he worked under the contrac- tors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Kônduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that- ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W7 is forged and created. That they themselvès filed original of Ex. W7 before the RLC(C).

16. It is argued by the Learned Counseî for the peti- tioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 y.'ius conîinuous service with the cor- poration from Janinry, î 977 ?o 4th December, 1978. That constantîy they hâve been put under one or an- other contractor without giving any" notice of change as envisaged under Section 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of terminafion was" given as required under Sec- tion 25F or any wages'paid. The petitioner has marked Ex: Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said elïecî. Ex. W3"is the f allure report "of the ALC(C). Ex-. WT is the Xerox Copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October. 1977 to January, 1978.Hence.in view of âll this voiuminous "évidences¹ the mère fact that thèse helpless itliterate persons who were again working till 1984 under con- tractors after having worked with the F.C.I., who go against ttteni.saying that they hâve raised the dispute bélatedly; They were working directly under the con- trat of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 worîcmen, the petitioner was among those, 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking. after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination ne' has not filed any license of the contractor-and that it is true that ail thèse-workmen who worked in depof and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is-iot connsctPd with the said work hence, it. is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with 15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mecha- nical at the District Office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem' Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.I. u§ed to award H & T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H & T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by' the labourers was not supervised or controlled bv any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-opertaive Society. Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He cannot say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no pfactice of engaging' casual labour for H & T' works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 1977 to Decerafeer; 1978 as casual labour 604- GT/200-^^-38- 2 7⁷0 T HE O À Z E I T£ OF 1 K D IA : M A P . CH 9, 2 0 O 2y F H A L G U > "A l à, 1 9 25 • - T A RI I I — S ; x. 3 î , y )J

relied en 2000(1) LLJ page 561 wîïerein the Lord- ships heui Law does nol preferibe any time limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers tuidcr Sec. 10 of the Act. It is not that 1lhis power can be exorciscd .at any point of time and to revive matters which had since bcen settled. Power is to be exercise reasonably and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to bc no rational basis on which the Central Govemmert has exercised powers in this case after lapse of abouî 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also reJied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in apprraching the Court-Deprives them remedy availabîe îo them in law-Loses their rights as well. So îie submits that in lieu of this clear rulings the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitîed fer arguments sake the riglit is lost by efflux of time.

ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judge- ment in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A. P. ffigh Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more ihan 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied witb, the termination was thereforî bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it wao held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificiel breaks Peti- tioner's services terminated refusing renewal and another person appointed. It was held that the peti- tioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that tbe absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duly was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

17. The respondent Counseî argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence thac F.C.I. used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains. The contractors used to bring thdr labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The cor- poration never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is try- ing to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years wîiich is a long period. And that thers is no relationship of employer and emp- loyée. When the respondent ha,s not appointed there is no question of dismissiî^. Hence, the petitioner h not entitîed for any relief what so ever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permis- sion to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily wage employées cannot claim regular employment, their disengage- ment from service cannoî be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government départaient therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, held that right to postings is not available. Further held that daily wages dis- engagement after completiori of work hâve no right to posf. Their Lordships further held that concept of retrenchment cannot be stretdhed to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners arc only dailv wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench i* v/as h?ld thaï, contract labour work- ing as Hamali Employée contractors of Singarem Collires Co. Ltd.. they are net entitled to be absorb- f d as badii fillers of the company without their names beirs; pponsored by emplovment excBange. So further held such workmen employed through a contractor does not become employées of the company, He also

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered bisîory. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no connection what so ever wiîh this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wfherein bis Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A. P. State Amendaient under lndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Government Industrial Tribu:ial-cura -Labour Court and the amendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Govern- ment, However. as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement Iheld as the amendment is assented by the Président of India, therefore direct applications can be entertaincd bv the Central Government Indus- tpal Tribunal-cum-Lshoiir Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going rnto much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that thev are casuM labourets. Grarsted that the argu- ments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct end the very a'.t.-ndancc register which shows daily rated sweeper attend nnce is frem the month of October, 1977 to January. 1978, that is only for 4 mon*hs. And thosc who hâve ppoduced service cer- tificates are aîl xerox copies except one in case of LCID No. 16412001 flD No. 98(98) wherein the original certificats filed showinrr that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a dâily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is alleged lhat they continued to work under contractors as thev wer? made over to contrac- tors withont followin? S"c. 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation officer. Even if tihat is taken ns truc and ail the Xerox copies of the ser- vice certificates produced in so many cases are aîso takentobe true. Does it improve the situation? It has ceme in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No deubt, no limitation is prescribed under the T.D. Act, but. ail erses the question of reasonableness in apnroachine the proper authorities also bas to be- seen." Thev keot auife till 1988. And, after ail the writs etc. sîmo"t 2? years hâve passed. Wilî if be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to tnkc them back ? The Leamed Counseî for the respondenf hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561;. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works 2771

However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shaii be no retrenchment in view of tbis award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the

open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assis- tant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the

Petitioncr :

WW1—Sri N. Satyanarayana.

Witness examined for the

Ltd. and thcir workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152-- 64 wherein tbeir Lordshïps held that where there was Wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstate- ment. • Furlhsr (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental departmeat is not a relrenchment. That their dis- missal cannot be treaied as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 ycars deprives of ihem of thc remedy available to hâve and In law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those wtio did not produce service certificates. I ara afraid fhat also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in case of LCID No. 164|2001 (ID No. 98[98) states that the petitioner worked > only for three months two days, in other cases they are Xerox copies wilhout flling the original and as in sorne 4 or 5 cases JJ. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although he himself did not file ras service certificate.

Rcspondent :

MW1—Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna.

Documents marked for thc Petitioner[Union

Wl—Conciliation order of ALC(C) dated

Ex.

lû-9-93.

Ex. W2—Lr. Of ALC(C) dated 9-5-94.

Ex. W3—Failure of conciliation jeport of ALC (C) vide Lr. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4—Unian's représentation dated 16-8-93. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5—Order in WP No. 9008]92 dated 16-9-97.

Ex. W6—Copy of service certificate dated 2-12-77.

Ex. W7—Copy of the attendance register of Helpers and Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml—Copy of tlhe tender and the contract dated 1-3-74.

Ex. M2—Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedines dated 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3—Lr. From Governj/ient of India, Min. of Labour dated 17-6-97.

Ex,

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reiiable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. cven in cases where service certifi- cate is filed. For cxample as stated in the case, that is in L.C.I.D. Noy 164/2001 (ID 98/98) of Labour Court-III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot bc simply brushed aside that petitioner has notihing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners fiiing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt parhaps under diiïcrent contractors and more over they say that they worked tiîl 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regùlaiization of their services for which again they were removed by contractors under the directing of F.C.I. asking îhem not to en- gage them. So it can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked direcly at the F.Ç.I. Seeing îhe évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits, filed by the respoh- dent, which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant p;riod. No doubt, there is delay but not ôi ten years. Because, they continued working. under somè contracter or oiher till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above- cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely appli- cable to the facts of thèse cases. No dobut, their piayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier tlfaere is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

M4—Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dated 25-1-89.

20. In the resuit, Ihe raspondent ,No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casual labour , who is working earlier to. this petitioner. But once employnienl is giveii to such persons, petitioner's ser- vices shalî be taken as worker of January, 1977 and he shaîl be given préférence over o&ers in the matter of employment of, casuaî labour cven though on daily wages taking h;s seniority as employée of January, 1977 eithei a: Miiyalaguda or at Nalgonda District.
,,V TKE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 {F^iï-^J^
New Delhi, the 19ih February, 2002 g Q 908 —in pursuance of Section 17 of the In- dustrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pubF.shes the award ^ (Rel. No 17012001) of the Central Govemment inctusmal Tnbunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ot i-Ci anu their workman, which was reccived by tne Central Government on 19--2-2002.

fNo. L-22025|l|2002-lR(C-II)]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

flEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD PRESENT:

Shxi E. lsmail, Presïding Officer.

Dated : 31st Decsmber, 2001 Industrial Dispute L.C.Ï.D. No. 170 of 2001 (ID No. 210)98 Trajnsferred from Labour Courl-lII, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN :

Sri R. John Paul, C|o 16-9-749141, Race Course Road, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

... Fefitioaer.

AND

1. Th3 Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of Inidai, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2, The District Manager,

Focd Corporation of îndia, Nalgonda District. . Respondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Fetitioncr : M|s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra

Reddy.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 210J98 is tfansferred fiom Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Govern- ment of India, MinistTy of Labour's order No. H" 11026|1|2001-IR(C-[I) dated 18-10-2001 and

cenumbered in this Court as L.C.l.D. No. 17012001. xnis is a case .taken uader Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment ot ihe Hon'ole xiigii Court of Andhra iradebù reponed in W.P. INU. So9o of i)9S9 da-ed 3-8-1995 oelween Sri. U. Chinnappai and M|s. Cotton Corporation of lndia and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are ; That the Respoudent, i-ood Corporation of India, es;abLsiied ivixM ivlOMiig OperauonsiDepotsjUodown in 19/u carrying on iviJiiug Operauoiis. Initialiy the peti- tioner \/as engagea as contiu,ct worker jn ihe year 1976 to Deceinœr, 19 76. Subsequendy, the Kes- pondent Corporation did not entrust any workto the vonlraciors. Thereioie, the petitioner was direciiy engaged by the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of india, Nalgonda Dis- trict. He worked from January 1977 to 4th Decem- ber 1978. The pptitioner was directly under the comrol of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner v orked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination pecitioher has been maldng représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultima- tely the petitioner managed to get a job with the contracter in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made £n application to the Respondent seeking appointaient on the basis of his tenure as casual labour wiîh effect from January 1977 till December. 1978 instead of absorbing the petitioner into service. The Respondent intentionally insîrucîcd the contractor to remove the peiiticner from service. Therefore, peti- tioner was again out of employmenî. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminaling the services of trie petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner liled a conciliation application bei'ore the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. The conciliaition proceeduigs were admitted by ALC(C) but that taded in fajlure. Conséquent on fallure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceed- ings, but failed to reporc to the Government and the Government in turn could not refer Ihe dispute. In this regard also the petitioned made several représen- tations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Gov- ercment. However no action was taken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ali the workmen were questiening the similar issue on similar grounds. llie petitioner is one among 1hose 250 wodkmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen,

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) SjSri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed WP No.,9008192 that prior to filing of the.WP the Central G,o'vernment passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting. ihe pstitioners' cfaim on the ground that there is, no relationshîp of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9Ô09[93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing. upon the Judgenrat of betveen Sri U. Chinnappa and M!s. Cotton Corporation of India and two othèrs reperied in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three peiitioners to approach the non Die LaOour Court uncier Sec. 2/\\Z) or tne JL.U. Aci. iience, me penuoner îs aiso coasirainecl to appioach the rfonbie Court aiong ior necessary reiiei.

2. Reureating that he worked ïrorn january, 1977 to uecemDer x 97 & wah K.Z witùout any break in bcrvice tue peuuoucr repeated • tuai auer exuacting work trom peutioner as casuai iaoour piaced run at ihe disposai ot tùe virious comractors to peitoimj trie same nature oi work. t\i ihe urne of uansieirmg io Lue ±oid ot the comryctor ihe petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of tlie x.D. Act siûce it reiated to change of service condi- tions. Subsequentiy tùe peiitioner's services were ter- minated by the contracter on the advise of the Respondent.

b. The Respondent is a modsl employer, llence, Res>ponûent ought not to hâve, terminatea ihe services oi me peutioner witùout employmg with the provi- sions ot principies of iidliiiiii justice. The Respondent havmg commued the pcuuoiUi ior a. period ot aimost two yeajs continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. .fctoace the said action ameunis to violation ot provi- sion undef Sec. 25F of the -l.D. Act. It is subrnraed that the petitioner is the senior most employee( of Corporation who wcaked since 1977. The corpora- tion though'terminated''services of the petitioner conti- nuéd, the w'orkcrs who a\; juniors to the pefitioner iâ, service, tience tiie action.oi ihe Rcsponiioni amounts to djjserimiôatiGù.

,; ^ , ••< v .... ?

7. fThe petïtîoner is uneducafed iâspiéé^f fais having madej' orai représentation^' to) the Rçsptirftfent to re- instate Mm, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is onlyearning member of the family and m view of illégal termination it has becorae difficuli for him to eak out hts'livetihood and maintenance .'bf family. The petitioner has not filed my suit or câsej in any forum for ,,jnecsssary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside Ihe oral termination oïder dated 4-12-1,978 of the ^espendent, and consequently direct the res^ondent to reinstats the petitioner mto scFvii.-o with.. cdfttinuity of • service with b/ack wages and ail other at^ndant benefits and pass.'s'uclî pther orders as are just'and neceskary in the ihteresf' of jussice.

s

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the petiâôn is not mairitainable under the /l.D. •' Act neither on lajw nor on facts. The petitieher iigaiaf approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(£) oj l.D. Act as it is an &mendment by the State Govern- ment.; The petitiouer.never worked as an employée in Food Corporation,.of India at any point 91 tïnj;. Therejore Sec. 2A(2)V is not attracted. ;' f 10.*,Modem Rice Mill at A.fir>aUu.":il:i. vuis esîab- lished".in the-^ar 1970 and comrn:"ijj()n.%(l frora 28-5-1.P71. Tt is one of the Modem, ftice Mills esfabisj&ed alloveir the çqu^ry. ;Initially'Raw Millïng facilit| was provided vnfilM limited number of casuai workers and subsequeiidy Parboiîed -and w% coin- missioned with the mereased sîrength of casuai workers. It is sufenkted thai the responden? used to award-H |s T conttaat to private contractors for hand- ling. |ad ^asportirig of the fopd grains ,it Modéra

2773 Rice Mill, Miryalagada and at the foeé storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tenderbasis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he-was paid as per the •schedule rates fixed under the H&T eon- tract depending on the work done by him. It was his responsibility as to who shoutd be engaged and how many persons should bs engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The coi- poration never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitiener might be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workeis Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri. V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for îhe peridd from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the service put in by Ihe petitioner as he was never engaged as casuai labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was en- gaged as casuai labour by the FCI from 1 i 1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised "m industnal dispute in connec- tion with 256 workers and the petitioner Mas one among them. The ALC(C) submitted his report to the : Ministry of Labour, Goyemment of India on 13-5-1996. The Government ot India by letter dated 12-6-1997J15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tri' bunal on the ground that there is no material showing that there was relationship ot employer and employée between the petitioner and the Rescindent. Fctitioncr has not chosen to question îhe above décision of the Central Govenflnent.

12. It is submitted that SjSri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008|92 seeking directions when the WF was pending Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen hasfailed to produce any docranentâry évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days. or more.during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alïegsd disengagement of his services by the management. He was aiso failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has décided not to" refer fhe abcWe dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008192 permitted the petitioneT to approach appropriate forum. Hence, thé peti- tioner aiso has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was nevei employed by the corporation, hence there is no ques- tion of violation of Ssc. 25F even otherwise the peti- tioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is Iiable to be dismissed on the ground of deïay and lapses. Hence, the péti- tion may be dismissed.

14. Sri R. John Paul examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated ïn the pétition in the chief examination and added thaVhe was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Aîongwîîh him there were 30 to 50 casuai workers at Miryala- guda. That he used to bs paid monthly saîary. He •wxirfeed continuousîy for two years. The respondent "se^ trrr*nir'*pîn .•>*;:-"i^n>n-:? réf'".* r<- and Wî"res rewis-fet ?md &er-a-ct' t: "V-. 0:1 îhe-îOf.hîttr-î. • No apppb'rmeiit.
2774 TKE GAZEïTE OF IKDÏA.: M A R C ÏI 9, 2002/ïiïALGUKA 18, 1923 [PARI il—SEC. 3(ii)j
to 11-9-79 it was gi^en to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He ean not s>ay whetner ttte petitioner was empioyed by Oie said contracter, ffiere is no practice oi engagmg casuai JdDour ior 11 "T works in b'.U.l. He ne ver workeu dunng Januaiy, *V77 to December, 1978 as casual labour under i-\C'.I. Ex. hil is the copy or the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wncrein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for ri & f works at MRM, iviiryalaguu
letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. ïhe corporation submiited attendance register to Al_C(Cj-il at Vidayacagar ûuring conciliation. Gene- xal Secreiary Mr. Anjaiali, obtamed trie attendance register irom ALC(.C)-U subsequcntly ttieir services were converted as iî ihey were working with the con- tractors. No notice was swrved at the time of chang- ing 10 the ï'old of contracters. They worked till 1984. Iney made a représentation to the manage- ment icd regularizaùo.i of tlieir services for which they were aîl lerminated from services, ïhe union raised the s>aid dispute wherein his daim was also included vidi; Ex. VV.L dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that îhere is no amicable ôetilcment. Matter was referred îo the central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C) Ex. W5 is the order m WP No. 9008jS2 daied 16-9-97. Ex. W6 is the copy of service certificats issued by the Asst Manager, F.C.L, MRM Mjryaiaguda dt. 29-12-77. He deposed that he has submitted R2 his service certificate that he worked for the neriod irom 2-1-77 to 29-12-1977 and the original certificate has been deposited before tha RLC(C), Hyderabad, Ex. W7 is the attendance register maintaôned by the F.C.I. He could got trie copy of this form the RLC(C) which was liled by the F.C.I. during the conclusion period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevanl record such_as attendance register, payment register etc., during Ïhe conciliation period. In the cross examinatwn } disposed that the despondent corporation is a central government corporation. He has not filed any docu- ment before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 77 continuously under the res" pondent. He denied that there is no practice of ëngaging casual labourers dïrectly by the corporation. It is true he filed the présent case ai'tcr 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alîeging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. Ho admitted that he did not file any document showing that he received any amouut from the corporation. After 1978, he worked under tbe contractoïs namely, SJSri V. Satyanarayanr* Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah anû Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected ïhe référence on the ground tbat the dispute raised bv the union was be- lated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée, That union has no* filed anv W.P. aaainss the said proceedinss of ALC(C'). He denied îhat Ex. W7 is forged and created. That thev themseîves filed original of Ex. W⁷ before the R L C ( O.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has beea made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 1977 to 4îh December, 1978. That constantly they hâve beéni)ut under one cr another contractor without giving cny notice of change as envisagée! under Section 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Section 25F oi any wages pai4- The petitioner has marked Ex. Wt which is cddresscd to Anjaiah by ALC(C) àbout conciliation pro- ceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W7 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from Octpber, 1977 to January, 1978. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.I., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They werc working directly under the control of second Respondeut. However the said dispute was raised by more thau 250 workmen, the, potitionf was amang those 250 workmen. That the petitioner wab looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 ;:dmitted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres ha\e raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further iic is noi connecled wiîh the said work hence. it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated wîth al! brick wnges etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 2>i of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein tiie petif'oaer was appointed by the orders of the High Cdurl. He also re'îed on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was hejd that the petiuoner did complète more than 240 days of servie?, that Section 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955;,. wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis piving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refus'nç renewal and another person appoijjted. It was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases paa 61, where it was held that the absentée workraan was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when atfempted to join dutv v/a> prevented doing so. Held the said standing order wonld'not be used to'effect automatic termination of service.Therefore rrtiys the peîitioner tb be'reirr>tated.

15. Sri Siyaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanx.il at the District Office of the V.C.X. Vijayawnda deposed as MW1 and stîted that 22-12-1977 to June. 1991 he worked ns Asst. Manager at M;rvalnmda Modéra Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.I.'used to award H &T worfc to private contractors by caliing tenders.'The contracter 'uwd to bring labourers for the rsurpose of doing the works under- taken by him under H &T contract. The contratfor vas b-jinç paid as per the scheduied rates fixed for H & T ' contracts depending on thë work done'hv him. F.C.I. has nothing to do wîth the engagement of labourers and work done by i^p labourera was rot snpervised or controlled by any of tbo officiais of tîie F.C.T. The contracter used to pet the work done a" de^ired by them: During Oie perind from 22 -'4- î 974 to î 4-5-1977 the contract was given io A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77

V. The refondent Counsel argued that petitioner nevev voTkfrf. in FuCI. at puy point of time.• That it has rorffè in, the. évidence that F.Cj. used to award H & r contracta f- priva;; coiitrf çtors ï:ir hrjidlini? and *transoortiig of goed ^iair.3. The conlractors us"d îo hrîng thsir labaùr fer ths jtjrpose of doing the works usder taken by ,tbe contracter.-•• ~ ~"7-£

évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No deubt, no limitation is ^Aîscribed under the I.D. Act, but, aîi cases the question of reasonableness. in approacbing the proper authorities also has to be seen. Fhey kept quite till j 988. And after ail the writs etc. aîmost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Counsel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held that where there was wholesaîe discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a governmental départaient is not a retrenebment. That their dismisssl cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also vtVied on 1993 FLR where said : Iapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy availablé to hâve and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to dtstinguish between those who produced service certificate and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months tvvo days. the oth'ers are Xerox copies without filing the original an&ïn some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed although hc himself did not fiîe his service certificate.

The corporation never controlled or supervise the v/ork of the labour of the contracter that thsre was t\/o différent contractors during the said jperiod. The F.C.I. lias no know- ledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contracter. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the Kb^ence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a Iapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has pot apointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief wiiat so ever. He relied on the foîîowing Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was faeld failure to sxpîain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission of file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence iustified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held duily wage employées cannot cîaim regular employment, their dis- engagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Section 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Supreipe Court Cases page 39Î wherein tbeir Lordships heîd disnensinp with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a govemment départaient therefore is not a retrenchment. Furtber, held that rigbt to postings is not availablé. Further heîd that dailv wagers disençagement after completion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of re- trenchment cannot be stretched to such an ext'ent as to cover thèse employées. Since the petitioners are only dailv wage employées and had no right to the posts. He also reîied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was heîd that contract labour workïng as Hamali Employée contractors of Sinçareni Coliieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be nbsorbed as badli fillers of the company without their nanties beinr" spon- sored bv employment exchange. So further held such work- rnen empîoyed through a contractor does not become emplovees of the conïpanv. He aiso relied on 2000 (1) I,T,J page 561 vherein the Lordships held Law does not prescribe r*ny timelimit for the aporopriate Government "o exercise its powers under Section 10 of tbe Act. Tt is nnt that this power can be exercised at any point of time and in revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exer- c'sed reasonablv and not in a rationaî manner. Thera appenrs to us to be ro rationaî bn^is on which the Central Government bas exercised powers in this case after Japse of about 7 vears of order dismi"sini* the respondent from service. He also relied on 1^93 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it wns he-M : Iapse of over 15 vears in approacbint? the Cmirt-Denrive^ the^i rcmedv nvailabie to them in law-Loses their risbts ?= well. So Ve ïvhT'ts thn" in J'eu of this clear m'inss tb? netifioneir ever> ;t th*" hnd " i" ri->bt or>d
19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. evèn in cases where service certificate is filed. For examplc as stated in t.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour (Court-IÏÎ) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simpîy brushed aside that petitioner has nothina to do witb the F.C.Ï. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners films writ in the Hon'bîe High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.T. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over ihey say that they worked till 1984 under varions entractors that they made a îepresentation to the management for régularisation of their services for which aaain thev were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.I. askins them not to engage them. So it can safelv be concluded tnat thèse persons did work for F.C.I. althoujrh under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to provs by any satisfacfory évidence that thev workM il'rectlv at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the.exhibits, it can safeiv be concluded that they ;l"d work for Ihe F.C.I. aîfhoutjîi through contractors. More so ia view of the exhibits fi'ed by the respondent which shows that they were contrneror^ during •he relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued workinp under ';ome contmcti-"- or other till 1984 and they approached the ALCfO in 19SR. Hence. the above-cited Suprême Cour't cases are not complète! v applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as sated earîier there is no proof that tVv worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in a!l ther-e cases they are entitîed for some relief.

20. in the result, the respondent N'o. 2 is dirccteJ that he is iree to empioy any persuu us capital iaoour wno is vv^jt^rit; eoriier to inis peutiouer. tsut once etnpioyment ii givoii I"J buch pers>oni, pcliuoner's services shaii be uiiœu us woikcr cf Jaiiiiary, 19- / and tic sliail be given preierence overoihers m the matter of emploj'ment ot casuai labour even tnuiiji.i on uaily wages taKiog his seniority as employée ux Janua^y, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda Diiulct. Hovv- ever, a word of caution ihat this shall agply only lor cngdguij? lresh casual labours irom coday and Uiere suall bc iio leuiacii- îiient in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and proaounced in the open

Court, 'xransmit.

Dictated to ICum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day ot December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Prcsiding Oflîcor

Appendix of évidence Witnes.5. exainined for the Witness examinée! for the

ï'eiitioner : Respondent :

W\V1 : Sri R. John Paul MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna 18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered historv. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from January, 1977 to 4th December. 1978. They hâve approached for the fïrst time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy for the F.C.I. to say .that they iiavc no connection what so ever with this petitîoner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the Hiph Court and srot the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitionar to approach the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, J947. I wou!d like to clarifv one position that this is Central Govern- msnt Industriel Trih'vn-1 -rvri-T °br n- C-"irt and the amend- ment of Section 2,A(2) is of fhe State Government. However. as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble Hieh Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président of Tndia, therefore direct appli- cations caa be enterlained by the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court. Accordingly, this case was filed on lï-3-1998. Without going into muoh elaborafe discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual Inbonrers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows d;nly rated "weeper attendance is from the momh of October 3977 to Tanuary Î97R, that is only for 4 mo^ths. And those who hâve produced service certificaies ace lîîl xerox copies except one ia L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 wherein the original certificate filed sbowing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-Ï2-1977 os a dailv rated casual heiper. No rîoubt, it is al'eged that thev contînued to work under contractors as thev were rnade o'rcr to contractors without foîlowmg Section 9A. Therefore, they did not approach the conciliation offiter. Fven iî ih^t is taken as trae and ail the Xerox copies of the service rertificates prodacsd in so many cases are also taken to be
Documents marked for the Petitioner/ Union 27-76. THE GAZETTE OF I>rDI^-" Ï"!AR6K_^;; XOO2-/FHAfeQ^A 15, 1923 CPAR3r~IÏ~5x&"3fl&)] Ex. Wl : Cc-fciliaîiorf order Vf ALC(C) dt 1CV9-Q¹*

iAND

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

lv The Sr. Régional Manager,

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide

Food Corporation on of India, HAÇCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

2. The District Manager,

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District.

- . Kespondents.

Ex. W6 : Copy of Service certificate dt. 29-12-77.

APPEARANCES :

Ex. W7 : Copy of the attendance register of Helpers &

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

Sweepers of FCI.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddv.

Documents marked for the Respondent

AWARD

Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceed- ings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lr. from Government of tndia, Minisiry of

Labour dt 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration

Award dt. 25-1-89.

This case I.D. No. 72/99 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Mi-nVrv of Labour's order No. H-11026/l/2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I D. No. 179/2001. This is a case taken under Section 2A(2) of tbe I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Hï>h Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Millin.sr Opérations Initiaïïy the petitioner was engaged as contract Opérations Initial v the petitioner was engaged as contract wo-ker in ths year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the coritractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged bv the 2nd Respondent namely, the District Manager. Food Coloration nf In^is, Nalgonda District. She worked from Jaruary, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The peti- tioner worked contfnuouslv for the above said period withoiit any breik in servies. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the ïlleeal termination p'tkioner has been makine représentations to the Rc.pondent Corporation. Ultimately the petitioner manatîed to p!i<*ntjon to the Rescondent ^eekirti annoinîment on the basis "f her tenure p.s cafual labour with effect frotn Januarv. 1977 t;!l December, 1978 instead of absorbing the pet'tionpr înto service. The Respondent intentionallv instructed the coptr-c*"o- to remove the petitioner from servie;. There- frm", pp*ition'î'" w?s aiain ont of empîovrrent. H^nce, the ac*?on of Re^rondent in terminating the services of the peti- tinner with effect from 4-12-1978 without anv notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjiwt.

• ?. T ^P p S t ^ ' o n er f ^d a c o n c i l i a t i on r m p l i c a t i on b e f o re i he S.O. 909.—In pursuance of Sectios 17 of the Industrial Députe Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hsveby publishes the award (Réf. No. 179/2001) of the Central Govemment Jndustrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyedarabad as sbown ''n ihe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- îîJovcrs in relation to the management of FCI and their v "'.rrnn. whîch was received by the Central Government on 39 02-2002.

[No. L-22025/l/2002-TR(CII)J

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk OiBcer

ANNEXURE

HPr-,--^^ THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

AT.C(C) on 12-4-19RR see'-rtng absorption. The corci'iatîon pr^ceedînrrs were adrnitted by <*LC(C) but that ended in fa:'"ri"eiri7ent on fpilnre of the meetinas y\LC(C) clo'ied the nroceedinTs. but failed to report to the Government and thft Gov"rnmont in turn couid not refer Ihe dispute. Tn this r<*o—A p,ho, the netitioner made several reoresertntions to AT.C(C) to rend the r'isnutf to the Goverrvment. However, no art'tnn was t->Ven against the renresentation. Tt is wbrnitied ib"t th<^ said dipnijtR was raised bv the union on !>ehalf of 7^0 wnrkmeri. AH the workrnen were auestir>mn
Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Ofhcer.

Dated : 31st December, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. NO. 179 OF 2001

(1D No. 72/99 Transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Smt. Sultan Kee, R/o Opp. F C I.

, , .. Petitioner

2777 5. Retreating that she worked from Janaary,. 1977 to;

December, 1978 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed her at the disposai of the various contractors to perform the same nature of work. At the time of transierring to the fo!d of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the l.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subse- quentiy the petitioner's services were terminated by the con- tractor on the advise of the R;sponde:it.

12. It is submitted' that' S/Sri N. Anjaiâh, J. Veej-aswamy and'V. Venkaieswahu hïed a WP Mo. yOUbjl>2 seeKing direc- tions when tne WP was pending, Goveoijent oi Jnciia passcd an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecung their ciaim which reads as tlius, "The workmen has ïaiiea to produce any documen- tary évidence to prove that he had worked l'or a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the management. He was also iailed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more lhan 9 years in raising the dispute. Theretore, the Central Government has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriât* forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation, hence there is no question of Violation oi Section 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natural justice. The Respondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Section 25F of the l.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of lier having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstafe her, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only eiirning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for her to eak out her livelihood and mainte- nance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pîeased to set aside the oral termination order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pnss such other orders as are just and necessary in tbe interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the l.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of l.D. Act as it is an amend- ment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-j 97!. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills established ail over the counrry. ïnitially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for h.mdling and trans- porting of the foodgrains at Modem Rice Mïfl, Mirvalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and she was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H &T contract depending on the work done by her. It was his responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many rersons shouïd be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation never controlied or supervised the work done bv the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the con- tractor from 22-4-J974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satvanaravana Reddy and Comnany was tbe contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledae as to the service put in by the petitioner as she was never ençaped as casual labour at anv point of time. Therefore, the allégation that she was engaged as casual labowr by ths FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

14. Smt. Sultan Bee examined herself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition in the chief examination and added' that she was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with her there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That she 'jsed :o be paid monthly salary. She worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and she used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corporation sub- mitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subsequencly their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the tixie of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représenta- tion to the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein her claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Mr.tter was referred to the Central Government vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/92 ciated 16-9-1997. Ex. W7 is the copy of service certificate for the period from 1-3-1976 to 31-12-1977 issued by the Asst. Manager (Depot) dated 7-1-1978. WW1 deposed that she filed the original service certificate before the RLC(C), but, actually Ex. W7 is the copy of service certificate of Sri J. Veeraswamy. Ex. W6 is the cc.py of attendance repister maintained by the F.C.I. She couîd set the coov of Ihis from the RLCCC) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the con- ciliation period. During the sa'd porjod the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produeed the relevant record such as attendance résister, pavment register etc., during tbe conciliation period. In the cross-examination. she deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government Corporation. Sh~ hii lot filed ?nv document before the Court shnwing that she wnrksd for two year": from Janu^rv, 1977 continnouslv under tbe respondent. Slie den-ed that there is no practice of engarins* ralliai hibourers directly bv the corrtortioij. It is true that she fjied tbe présent ca"e after 20 vears. She has not filed ony rera-eientPtion or letter nddre-- sed to the Resnondent Corporation al'eeine that '^ey worked in F C I. and thev were terminated from service at any point of time durinç the period from 1977 onwards. She denied tbat oniv contractors used to pav her. She admitted th?t sbe did not file anv document shov/ing trwt she received any amount from the corporation. After 1978 she worked îmder tlie roitr.icfors namelv. S/Sri V. Sitvanarayana Reddy, Kondnri '"ppraiah and Cberiana!!y Ram Mnrfbv etc. It is true th.it ALfTC) and conciliation offirer reiected the référence on the eround that tbe dispiite raised bv the union was oebted. And there is no relatîonsb'n of empiover and employée- Tbat nniori hn$ not fi'ed anv WP apainst tbe said nroceedin?s of AT.CfC). Sbe den'ed that Ex". Wfi is forçod pnd created. That t">ev themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

11. Union raised an ïndustrïal dispute in connection w!ovee between the net-'tfoner and the Resnondent. Petitioner r>a" not ohosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

15. Sri Sivaram Krisbna. tbe Asst,- ATanatrer. Mecbanfral at tJie District Office of the F CI., Vfravawada defosed as MW1 pnâ stated tbat 22-12-1977 to Inné, 1991 he worVed as A "t. Manager at Miryalaeuda-Modem Rtce Mill. The Repionaî Office of the F.CT. used to award H &T work to private 604 GI/2002—392778 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—S£c,-3.(ii)] aad 2§H. He aiso relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases pa.çe 61, v;here it was heîd that the absenlee workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doin-g so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to brins îabourers or the purpose of doing )hs works undertaken by liim under H & T contract. The contractor v/as being v-aid as per the scheduled rates fîxed for H & T contracta depending en the work donc by him. F.C.I. lias nothing to do with the engagement of Iabourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controllod by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether tho petitioner was employed by the said contracter. There is no practice of eneasing camal labovir for H &T Works in F.C.I. She never worked during January, 1977 to Dscember, 1978 is casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is t5ie copy of ihe tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport Workers Co-open\ AH the other works were carried throi.gh contractor. They hâve nnt filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to amioint a contractor. Thev did not maintain anv résister of the workers who are ernnloyed bv the contrnetor. Work reiatinq to the dépôt was being looked after bv Sri Ratna Swamv who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there durine 1he said period. Tt is true that ail thèse workmen li.ive r.ii^ed ihe dispute before fhe ALC(C). He has not sttendrf the conciliation nmecedinns. Tn the said référence oetitioner is one such. That S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu. N. Aniaiah and J. Veerâ Swamv filed a writ \fo. 9008/92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the R Ï C C ). Ho denied that she is entitled for any relief.

17. The respondent Couiisel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has come in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H &T coniract to private contractors for handling and transprting of food- grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contracter. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent con- tractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowledse whether the petitioner was engaged under the ".ontractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain Xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originaîs. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And thr.t there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the res- condent tas not appointed there is no question of disrrsissing. Hence, the petitioner is not cntitlsd for any relief vhatso- ever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was heîd failure to explaîn satisfactoi ilv that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court reiseting permission to file Xerox eonv of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it was held daily vage employées cannot daim regular emplovment. their dis- ëneagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Section 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on dailv wages in a government department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further held that rieht to postînj is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after compîetion of work hâve no ri7ht to oost. Their Lordshipr. further held that concept of retrenchment cor;not be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse eni- piovees. Since the petitioners are only daiïv wage emriovees and had no rieht to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD paf?e 420 Division Bench it was held lhat contract labour workini* as Hamali Employée contractors of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be absorbed as badli fillers of the companv without their names being soon- sored bv eniniovment exchançe. So further held >,uch work- men empioved throneh a contractor does not becnm*: emnlovees of the compnnv. He also reîied on 2000(1") LL.T raee 561 wherein the Lordships held Law docs not Drescribe r^ny tirae lim't for the ancroririate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exc-cised at any point of time and lo revive rr.atters whîch had since bcen settied. Power !'- to be exercised resnonsibîy and not in a rational manner. There anpears to us to be no rati^nal basis on which the Centra! Government hns exercï^ed powers in this case after lapse of about 7 viars of r;-der dis- m;s"'iTr the respordent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) rafre 70 wherein it was held : lanse of over 15 yenrs in approachine the Court—Denrivjs them remedv avail- nbîfi to them in 'aw—ï.or,es t'neir rifïits a* well. So he suiimits thnt in lieu of tbis cîear rulinas the netitioners even if tbev hftd ?nv ri"ht anf! if it is admitted for arrruraents 'r.'ce fhe rifht is lost by cfflux of time.

16. It is argued by the Lecirned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner lias been made to run from nillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 vears continuons service with Ihe corporation from Januarv. 1977 to 4th Decémber, 1978. That constantly thev hâve been put under one or another contractor without civine anv notire of change as envisared under Section 9A of the T.D. Act. No notice of termination wis given as reauired under Section 25F or anv waces paid. The netitioner has marked Fx. W1 whcih is add'-essed to Aniaiah bv ALC(C) about coticiliat'on nroceedines. Ex. W2 is aiso served to fhe said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure renort of Ihe ALCfO. Ex. W6 is the Xerox conv of the attendanec résister, which jhows that thev are the. heloers and sweeners that is for the monfh from October. 1977 to Januarv. 1978. Hence. in view of ail this \oluminou^ évidences the mère fact that thèse helnless illiferate rers^ns who were anain wortinf tîil 19R4 under contractera sftr- havinrr worked with tfe F C.T.. who po nr"ninst them s.ivîns that t^ev liave raised the disrwte beiatediv. Thev were v/orkinc direct''' under the controi of second Resnnndsnt. Howev-r the said disnute was raised bv more than 250 workmpn. ti-.p petitioner was amone those 250 workmen. Tint the îWit^T"- was inoVîne after stock bv s^ravinT r>8sticidc>at ail the^r; v/nrlrmen n-hn worked in dpnot and other rentres hâve >"ii*prî thp d'snut.i y^afnrp fhe Aï C f C ). This shows fhat thev worlced in The D f i ^* Fiirfhpr he is not eonnected with the said work heir-e. it -"<• "îibmittpd t*>at pe.t't;nnër is to be re'nstnted with a¹' h->"'< n-Tfps f*r The rtet'tionpr rei'^d on a Tii(1rrem°nt in wp N" *"< of 1993 of thp Hon'b'i" \.V. Hi"h Court vTx"rr;iTi the r"*:- tinner was ant>oîntpd bv the on'<"<-<, of t lv H;-;h Cniir" H^

I ' OO r f UM on ' 0 01 L LT n a ee 2 01 w l i p r p în î* w is ' • " > , 1 c1 t ' i it

2779 fresh casuai labours irom today and there shall be no ret- renchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this 31st day of Uecember, 201! j.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Oflicer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the peuuoiiers ure coneci ana tne vcry atieuuanee register which suows Qduy raiea sweeper attenaance is irom me inonui oi Ociooer, iy/7 to January, ly/8, mat is oniy tor 4 moriths. Ana cnose wno nave prouuced service cemncaies are ail xerox copies except one in i^.t^.i.O. JNo. Itw/zoui vvncrein lac original ceiuucate nied showing that lie worKed iiom 1-9-19/7 to z-iz-iy// as a aauy ratea casuai iieiper. iNo doubt, ît à" aiiegea mat mey conuuued to worK unasr coniractors as tJiey wcie inaue over to coniractors witnout louowmg beclion yA. Therciore ihey did not approacn tne conciliation otticer. nven if mat is taKen as irue aud au the xeiox copies of me service certmcaies produced in so many cases are also taKen to be true. uoes it nnprove tne situation 7 it lias corne m évidence that tney worKeq as daily rated casuai laoour. JNo douot, no limitation is presenbed under the LU. Act, but, ail cases the question ot reasonaoieness m approaching tlie proper autho- nties aiso has to be seen. They tept quite uil 1988. And arter au the wnts etc. aimost 'II years nave passed. Wili it be advisabie to direcc the Food Corporation ot lndia to take them bacK ? The .Learned Counsel tor ine respondent hâve reierred to 20U0(l) LU page 361. Their LorcUhips refused to condone tne deiay ot 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works JLtd. and tiieir worlcmen SCLF 1950—SJ page 152—1"4 wnerein their Lordships held that where there was whoiesale discnarge ot woriunen their Lordships lield tour years delay is sunicient not to grant remstatement. Fuiiher (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships iteld that dispensing with services ot persons engaged on daily vvages in a governjnentai department is not a retrenchment. That their ûismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy availabie to hâve and in iaw loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certincates. I am afraid that also will not do auy good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the others are xerox copies without filing the original and like including this case in some other 4 or 5 cases ]. Veeraswamy's certificate is liled although he himself did not file his service certificate.

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.l. even in cases where service certilicate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-111) it is only for three months two days. But It cannot be simply crushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.l. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.l. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over they say that they worked till 1984 under various contractors that they made a représentation to the management for regularization of their services fox which again they were removed by contractors under tht direction of F.C.l. asking them not to engage them. So i: can safely be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.Ï. although under various contractors but the petitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at tRe F.C.l. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely be concluded that they did work for the F.C.l. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that they were contracorts during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they continued working under some contracter or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer canrrat be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.l. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as casuai labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to f:uch persons, petitioner's services shall be taken as worker of January, 1977 and she shall be given préférence over others in the matter of empîoyment of casuai labour even though on dailv wages taking her seniority as employée of îanuary, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nalgonda Distt. However, a word of caution that this shall apply only for engaging Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Smt. Sultan Bee MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. "iO-9-93.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) Wde L. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Ex. W6 : Copy of the attendance register of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Ex. W7 : Copy of service certificate dt. 7-1-78.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation proceed- ings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lr. from Government of [ndia, Ministry of Labour dt. 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S.O. 910.—In piirsuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award fRef. No. 17612001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dis- pute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-2-2002.

[No. L-22025|li?.0O2-IR(C-ID3 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer2780 THE GAZETTE OF IND1A : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 LPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

to ALCCC) to send the dispute to the Government. However no action was ïalcen against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispuie was raised by ihe union on behalf of 2i0 workmen. Ail ihe worKinen were qutstioi.ûng the simi- lar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one amoiïg those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the ottter workmen.

Shri E. Innail, Presidng Officer.

Dated : 31 st December, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 176 of 2001 fID No. 75]99 Transfcrred Irom Labour Court-III, Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Biksliam, Rio Mamidalia(Post), Tirsarti (Mdl), Nalagonda Distt. .. Petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S|Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera iswamy tiied WP No. 90O8|92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting the petitioners' claim on the giound that there is no reiationship of the employer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009|93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the ludgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M|s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others leported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the ihree petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrain- ed to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabdd. 2. The District Managei,

Food Corporation of India,

Nalgonda District.

.. Respondents.

5. Retreating that hc worked from January, 1977 to December 1978 with R2 without any break in service the pelitio^er repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform; the same faillite of work. At the time of transferring to the fo!d of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act srnce it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : Mis. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Re.spondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Res- pondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petilioner without complying with the provisions of principles of natura! justice. The Respondent having con'.inued ihe petitioner for a period of alnmsi two years continuously oiîght to hâve given notice pay. Hence, the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submit*ed that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The Corportion though erminated services of the petitioner continuée! the woirkers who are juniois to the petitioner in service. Hence, the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

This case I.D. No. 75)99 is transfcrreJ from Labour Court- III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Minisuy of jLaoour's order No. H-11026|l|2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and ronumoeicd in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 176|2001 Tûis is a case taken under Sec. 2 A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 m view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhia Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and Mis. Cotion Corporation of India and two others.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspiîe cf his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Resepondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only eaming member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and main- tenance of family. The pefitioner has not filed any suit or case in the focum for necessary relief.

8. Therefon-, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termir/ation order dt. 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and conscquently direct the rescondent to *einstate the p?titioner into service with continuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common cranter stating that the pétition is not mainfainabîc under the I.D. Act neither on 'aw nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the Stnte Government. The pe'itioner never worked as an employée in Food Comornfrnn of India at any point of tirne. Therefore Sec. 2A(2> is not attracted.

2. Brief averments of the pétition aie : That the Respon- dent, Food Corporation of India, estabjshed MRM Milling OperationsIDepotsjGodown in 1970 carrying on Milling Ope- rations. "Inuiaiiy the pciiiioner vvas en'gaged as contrnet worker in the year 1976 lo December, 1976. Subsequently, the Respondcnt Corporation did nor entrust any work to the contractors. Theietorc. the petitioner was direc-ly engaged by the 2nxl Responcknt narneiy, t b; District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District. He worked from Januaiy 1977 to 4th December 1978. The petitioner was directly under the contre] of the 2nd Respondent. The peti- tioner worked continuous'y for the above said period without any break in service. The service i of the petitioner were terminated in the month of Deceraber, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner lias beon making représentations to ihe Respondent Corporation. Ultimatcly the petitioner managed to get a job wjlh the contrac'or in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same dépôt in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seeking appoïntment on the basis of his tennre as casual labour with effect from January 1977 till December. 1978 instead of absorbing the petifiener into service. The Respondent inten'ionaliy iratructed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. There- fore, petitioner was agein oui of employaient, Hence, the action of R"spor'dent !n tetni^i'-ins; fhe services of the peti- tioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and •without assigning any re~son is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner iiled a conciliation application before the ALCCO on 12-4-19i:8 seeV.ing absorption. The concilia- tion proceedings were adrci'ted bv ALC(C) but that ended in fai'ure. Conseauent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the nmceec'inss, b'ii- fajled to report to the Govern- ment and the Government in ton i:ould not refer the dispute. In this regard also the pctitîcrer mr.de severaî représentations

10. Modem Rice Mill at Mirvalaguda was establishïd in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem R;ce Mil's established ail over the country. initi^lty Raw Milline facility was provided with a limited numbfr or casua' workers and subseauently Parboi'.ed unit was comnrss'oned with the increased strength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of the foed grains a Modren Rice Mill, Miryalagudn ?nd at the foed ston^e dépôt at Miryalapiîda on tenderbpsis, The coniractor used to bring his own labour for the same ^nd he wfs pa:d ris cer the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T controef ^"neidinc on the work donc bv him. It was the responsibiîitv as to who shou'd be ensnr"cd nrd how rn^ny persons shou'd be encsged for his work. The FCT ho? tînthinc to do with thoy tue pcmiuner as ne was iicver engagée as casual labour at any point of tune. Therefore, the anegation that he was engagea as casual labour by tue t el irom 1| 1977 to 4-12-1978 îs incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection wi!h 256 woikeis aad ttie peiiuoiier was one amoiig tnem. me ALC(.C; submitted nis report to the Mimstry of Labour, Gov- erumenc of mdia on lio-1996. The Government of lndia by ieaer datea iz-o-iyy//13-/-J'.'i>7 convcyea .-.s aecjsion, mai the aispute is not fit tor refeience to the Industrial Tribunal on tne ground inat there is no maienal showing that there was relationship of employer and employée between the peuiioner and che Responaent Petilioner has not chosen to question the above décision of tne Central Government. 12. It is submitted that S|Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. VenKaieswaiiu filed a WP No. 9008|92 seeking direc- tions when the WP was pending, Government of lndia passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecung their ciaim which reads as thus, "The workmen has faiied to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged disengagement of his services by the manage- ment. He was also faued to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute. Thereiore, the Central Government has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 9008|92 permitted the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never emp- loyed by the Corporation hence there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a iapse of 18 years and the pétition is liabie to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri M. Biksham examined himself as WW1 and depos- ed facts staied in the pétition in the Chief Examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by appiying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The respondent used to maintain attendan.ee register, and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The Corporatiion submitted attendante register to ALC(C)-II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secre- tary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the attendance registes from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. They made a représentation to the manage- ment for regularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALC(C) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Government vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4A is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.I. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was flled by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register e'c, during the conciliation period. In the cross-examination he deposed that the respondent Corporation is a Centra1 Government Corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from Jannary. 1977 continuo'isly under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaeing casual labourers direcly by the Corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 yaars. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worktd in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during

2781 the period from 1977 onwards. He deeded that only costrac- tors used to pay run. tic admiited that he did not aie any G'ocumeni stiowmg mat ne received any amouni Irom the Corpoitition. Alier 1978, he wonted under the contractors namciy, 5|Sri V. Saiyarurayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and chenapaliy Ram Niurtny etc. It is true that ALC(C) and corxiliation officer rejected the refeience on the ground that tne dispute raised by the union was beiated. And there is no reiauonship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said pioceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W5 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W5 before the RLC(Q.

15. Sri Srivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the Uisuict omee ot tne F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MWl and stated that 22-12-1977 to .lune, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.I. used to award H&T work to pnvale contraciors by caiimg tenders. The contractor used lo bring labourers for the_purpose of doing the Works under- taken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engagement of iabourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised to eontrolled by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contractor used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Work- ers Coopérative Society, Hyderabad and from 12-11-1977 to 11-9-1979 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T works in F.C.I. He never worked during lanuary, 1977 to December, 1978 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Trans- port workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of ' the minutes of conciliations proceedings held on 4-4-1996 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-1997 issued by the Government of lndia expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the con- cerned workman. Ex. W5 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AU the other works were carried through con- tracter. They hâve not filed any license befnre ttns Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are emp- îoved by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said oeriod. Tt is tru" tW ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute befo^e the ALCCC). He 1ns not atte"d- ed the conciliation proceedines In the sa>d référence peti- ti
16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pilîar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years conir/uous service with he corporation from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Sec. 9A of the ID Act. No notice of termination was piven as required under Sec. 25F or anv wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) about conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure. report of the ALCfC). Ex. W5 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helners and sweepers that is for the month from October, 1977 to January, 1978. Hence. in view Of ail this voluminous évidences the mère fa et that the^e helpîes¹;; iiiiterate persorra who were arain workine tiH 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.I.. who eo against them "aying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control2782 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)J the petitioners eveit if they had any right and if it is ad- mitted ior argumen-s sake me right is losc by efflux of tune.

of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more inan 250 workmer.-, Jhe petilioner was among those 250 workmen. That Ihe petitioner was looking after stock by spraymg pesticides etc. That MW1 admit ted in the cross examination he has not filed any license of the cont- racfor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in Ihe dépôt. Furtbcr he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by i-he orders of the High Court. He aîso reiied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days ot service, that Sec. 25F was not compîied with, the termina- tion was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petiîioner's services terminated refusing renewal and another person appointed. ft was held that the petitioner is entitled to protection under Sec. 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect auto" matic terminatioa of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered hislory. /he anegation is mat Uie peiuioncr in mis case and 43 oiner cases worKed tiom January, 1977 10 4tn Decemoer, iy/8. 'ihcy iiave apprJacned tor tne nrst time on 12-4-iy"K seeking abiuipuon. IL IS e5! e^eaced on rie-iiy wa"ps in i povrynvntal depart- ment is not a retrenchment. That the;r dismis^ai ennnot bs trratpd as retrenchmont. Hc also reiied on 1993 FLR where said • lipse of over 15 vears dpprives of th^Tn of the remprly availnbli" to hswf and i" law 1ose<; th"ir r'fht as w i i. No doubt, J>amed Counsp] for the pe'itioner *r!tin<"i;"h bptv/ppri those who rtroHucpd SR^v-'ct" cprtificates a"d thnge who did not nrodnce service certificates. I am afraïd that fi1"o MM'I! nnf r*o "nv p*w1 to nptrtjnnprt! and H^^s not ïtnrîrove tbei"- ca=" as in sonip A or 5 rnce<; T Ve°raswnmv's cPr*'ficnte is filed aîthoueh he himself did not file his service certificate.

17. The respondent Cotmsel argued tkat petitioner never worked in F.C.I. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.I. used to award H&T contract to private cortractors for hand'ing and transporting of food grains. The çontractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contracter. The Corporation never controllcd or supervise the work of the Labour of the contracter that there was two différent çontractors during the said period. The F.C.I. has no know- ledge whether the petiîioner was engaged under the cont- racior. The petitioner is tryins to Project hiniself as casual L-sbour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value to the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 affer a lapse of 22 ye^rs which is a long period. And tbat there ;s no relationship of emplover and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief wh?t so e'er. He relifd pn the foïIowmEr Jndeements 19^2 ">. ALT pid OTI 7001 2 ALDpac- 205 wherein it was Md riaity waee emptovees cannot claim regular emplovment, fheir disp", sagement from service cannot be construed as violation of SM*." J^P. He a'sorp'ied on Cl 99714 Snnrpme Court Cases pnse 391 wherem their Lordshins held dispensine with ser- vîmes of persons fngaged on dailv wamr>'o"reps and h?d no rîsHt to the poots. He a'so relîpd on 19S9 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contact labour worlcin" as Harm'i Empîovee rontractors of S;n(?ar"ni Ooilieri"s Co. Ltd.. thev are pot enf-'t'pd to be aheorbfd 315 b'd'i fîllers of tho comvnnv witbout th°ir rromos bpi"? snnnçnr-d bv emr>'ovnient pxchan"e. So fnrther b^d such wortcnien "mtilovpr' thronc'n ?i rontrict*ir Hn-"; not h->r^m" "wri!"î"vo" nf *h" r n " i n ' "" H*¹ o'"o TPVPA OS 7000C11 1XT nag"> 561 whereîn the Lord'hins hp'd LPW r!o"s r ot

nn"'-"'-" "rtr ti'n" limit *rtr tha innrnnrip'e fiOvornment

19. In conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved bv any relieble documentary évidence that thev worked under the F.C T. pven în ci m where service cctificite isfi^d.For examole as ?*rted in the case, that is in L.CI.D. No. 164J 2001 (ITi 98I9S of Labour Court-lin it is only for three months two dav?. But it cannot be simp'v bnished aside that petitionpr has nothing to do with the F C I. Otherwise, ail thèse petitioraers filing writ in the Hon'ble Hieh Court etc. wouM be a futiV px^rcise. Tliev did work for F.C.I. no doubt perbrps under différent çontractors nnd more over thev say that they worked till 1984 under varions rontracfors that they made a représentation to the management for regularïzation Of their services for which again they were removed by cont- ractors under the direction of F.C.I. askîng them not to engage thon. So it can safeîy be concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. although under varions contractors but the pctitioner hâve failed to prove by any satisfactory évi- dence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeirr* the évidence on record, it can safely be conchkLd that they did work far the F.C.I. although through contractors. More su in view of the exhibits filed by the resp jndent, which shows that, they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is delay but not of ten years. Because, they contimied working under some contractor or other tilt 1984 and they approeched the ALC(C) in 1988. Hence, the above-cited Suprême Conrt's cases are not completely app'icable to the facts of îhese cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier th^re ' is no proof that thev worVed u"d"r the F C I. Rut, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuît, the respondent No. 2 is d^ected that he is free to emplov anv tierson as castial labour who is work- ïng earlier to this p"titioner. But once emplovmen* is siven to snch persons. netit'oner's services shall be taVen as worker of Januarv. 1977 and he shall be given préférence over ,I"II"K in *ha matter of emn¹ovment cf pnsu-.l Jib^ur eveni though on dmly wages tak'ng bis senioritv as emnioveç of jTiim-; 1977 eWw at *<îrva1si
Award Pfçsed accordingly and pronounced in the open Court. Transmit.

DictRtpd to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant. trfn"c:bad bv her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix ol évidence

Witircss examined for the Wîtness exsmîned for the Petitioner : Respondent:

WW1 : Sri M. Biksham MW1 • Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner|Union Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(G> dated 10-9-1993.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dated 9-5-1994.

Ex. W3 : Failnre of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3.

Ex. W4A : Copy of unîon's représentation dt. 16-8-93 Ex. W5 : Oonv of the fttendance renfwer of Helpers and Sweepers of F.C.I.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender nnd the contract dated 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of îhe minutes of conciliation proc"ed- ings dated 4-4-1996 and failure report of ALCfC).

Ex. M"? T.r. Fram Govt. of India Min. of Labour dated 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under A'+'itration Act and Arbitration Award dated 25-1-1989.

2783 Nsw Delhi, the 19th February, 2002

S.O. 911.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hreby publishes the award (Réf. No. 180/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as showa in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the em- ployers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR(C-II)1 N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail, Presiding Officer.

Dated : 31st December, 2001

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. NO. 180 OF 2001 (ID No. 79/99 Transferred from Labour Court-III. Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri P. Venkat Rao, R/o Hyderabad Dist. Petitioner

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Fond Corporation of India, Nalgonda District.

. . .. Respondents APPEASLANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent : Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This case LD. No. 79/99 is transferred from Labour Court-ITI, Hvderabad in view of the Government of Tndia, Min'strv of I.abour's order No. H-l 10261112001-IRCC-in dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 180/2001. Thîs :<; a case taken under Section 2AC2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the iudement of fie Hon'We HiVh Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-Î995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averments of the pétition are : That the Tîesponcfent. Food Cornoration of India, established MRM Milling Onerjtions/Denots/Godown in 1970 carrytna on Millina Onerations. Initiaîly the petitiener was enaagod as contract worker in *he veir 1976 to Dpcembcr. 1976. Subseauently, the Re^nondent Corporation did not entrust any work to the contractât-?. Therefore. the petitioner was c'irect'v ena3t>cd b-" the 2nd Resnondent namelv, the District Manager. Food Cornoration of Tndia, Nalgonda District. Hs WM-Iced from Jannirv, \c>11 to 4th December. 1978. Th" r"eti'ioner was dïrectlv vr-f*T the control of the 2nd Resnondcnt Tlio neti- tioner worked contitiuouslv for the above Raid ner-od without anv hrp.pfe in service. The services of the retit'iner wnri" terminsted in the mon 2784 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/ PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted.

He worked in the same dépôt in lhe year 1984. The petitioner made an appiication to the Respondent seeking appointment on the b.isis of his tenure as casual labour with eftect from January, 1977 till Deceraber, 1978 mstead of ubsorbing the petitioner into bervice. The Respondent intentionnlly instrucîed the contractor to remove the petitioner from service. Therefore, petitioner v/as again out of eniployment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services ot the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and without r.ssigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption, fhe conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on fatlure of the meetings ALC(C) cîosed the proceedings, but fsiled to report to the
10. Modem 5Jce Mill at Miryalaguda was established in the year 1970 and commissioned from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills established ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facility was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsequently Parboiled unit was commissioned with the increased •>trength of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H & T contract to private contractors for handliig and trans- porting of fhe food grains at Modem Rice Mill. Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H & T contrnet depending on the work done by him. Tt was his responsibility as to who should be engaped and how manv persons should be engaged for his work.'The FCI has nothinç to do with those matters. The corporation never controlled or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The cetitioner mieht be one of those contract labourers. A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the con- tractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satvanaravnna Rpdd" ard Comnpnv was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent lias no knowledse as to the service put in by the petitioner as he was never enijaeed as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, thp allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by 'he FCI from 1/1977 to 4-12-1978"is incorrect and denied.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkatesvvarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swaray filed WP No. 9008/92 that prior to fllinç of the WP the Central Government passed an order dî. 13-5-1993 rejeciing the petitioner' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. Tbe Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keeping ail facts and circumstances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chimiappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page '556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Î.D. Act. HeP'-e. the petitioner is also constramed to approach the HbiTSîe Court along for necessary relief.

11. Union rai'Bd an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one amonç them. The ALC(C) submiffed his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of Tndia on 13-5-1996. The Governr.ient of India by lester dt. 12-6-1997/15-7-1997 convyed ifs décision that the députe is nor fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the erniird that there 's no material showins thnt there was relationshio of employer and employée between the petitioner and trie Resrondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government. 5. Retreating that he worked from January, 1977 to December, 1978 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extractin.2 work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the various contractors to perform: the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of the LD. Âct silice it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

12. It is submitted that S/Sri N. Aniaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateiwprfu filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeV'nj direc- tions wrien the WP was pendine, Government of Tridia passed an orrW dated 7-4-1993 re'ecfïns their claim which reads as thns "Thp wnrkmen has faiied to nroduce any dorumenatry évidence tr> prove that he had woriepd for a period of ?-t() dnvs or more dnr;ne the period of 12 months rrecedi'm the date of a'le->. npt;*io"er to armrr>ort, a r r,r o p r;n te forurn Hence, the petitioner also has approached this forum.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hen.ce, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without comp'ying with the provisions of principles cf natural justice. The Respondent having continued the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation tbongh terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts fo discrimination.

CCirnnritînry çi'brrv'tPrf nft^nrï^nof" j-p^rjetor to ATCfCVTT at VM"i-Tiçmr rfurino ronrjliation. OertPrpi Vpcrahrv Mr. Ani^iah.

pK+nî-iA/^ +>"^ a^prt^arïrp rP^isfpr f r o^ ATCCP^-TT sitb-pnnpntiv f^O'r cf>rvirpc. WP^f¹ COri^^ÇrfPd as if thpv Wr'rR WnrV'prr w'îb thf rnnf'-'rfors. Nn notice VIS SerVPri pf the firnp of r^aîirM'rfr to ty>e fnM of rontrartrirs. Thev worl-nd ri'1 19^4, Thev mafii" a rpr"resenfotîrirî fo thp mann^emprit for "*e(>iil-"l'*i'⁷'>tion of tl:pir

c^r-i^V^c for vh!r>h thpv w"rp nii fprmînïïtp-d frorn "Prvirps. Th*" union rnÏT^f? fhf^ sa'rl d'sftitp wh^rein h 'c ^1?ïïrn ^vq*; Msn

inr1iirfr"/1 v-Mo Py W1 r)M"cI 1-9-1QO3. F,T. W2 is the M t Pr Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/92 dated 16-9-1997. Ex. W6 is the attcndance register maintaintd by the F.C.r. He could get the copy of this from the RLC(C ) which was filed by the F.C.l. during the conciliation teriod. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In the cross examination lie deposed that the respondent corporation is a Central Government Corpo- ration. He has not filed any document before the Court show- ing that he worked for two years from Tanuary, Î977 conti- nuously under the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engaging casual labourers direcliv by the Corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représentation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.t. and they were terminated from service at any point of time during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors uSed to pay him. He admitted that be did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the Corporation. After 1978, he worked under the contractors namely, S|Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Konduri Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is true that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedin.gs of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanical at the District Office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.L used to award H ST work to nrivate contractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H &T contract. The contractor was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H &T contracts depending on the work t'one by him. F.C.l. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work donc by the labourers was not "nnervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.l. The contractor used to get the work donc as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was aiven to A.P. Transport Workers Co-ooerative Society. Hyderabad and from 12-11-77 to 11-9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the peti- tioner was employed by the said contractor. Trjere is no "ractice of engagina casual labour for H&T Works in F.C.T. He never worked during January, 1977 to Occember, 1978 as casual labour under F.C.l. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was nwarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H &T works at MRM. Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial diispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure renort Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of conciliation proceedines held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Fx. M^ is the letter datçd 17-6-1997 issued by the Government of India exnressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of tfie labourers were engaged directly by F.C.l. nor they worked for 240 davs or more." This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 ws not maintafned by the F.C.l. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look nfter the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handlina and transport used to engage a contractor. AH the other works were carried throueh contractor. They hâve not filed any Jicense before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. Thev did not maintnin anv recisfer of the worirers who nre emntoyed hv fha contractor. Work relating to the denot was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamv who was the Asst. Manaaer. He deni"1 that those contracfors were not there durine the saî.ï neriod. Tt is true tfiat ail thèse worV-ien hâve raised the dispute before the AT.CfCt. He fias not -t'ended the conciliafir>" t>rooef>din"s. Tn the snïd référence netitioner is one sucjh. That S/Sri V v e n w ^ w a r l u. N Aniaiah and J. Veera Swmv filed n writ No. 0008/92. Tt i" incorrect thst Ex. W5 is filer! before the RLC/C). He denied fhat he is entitîed for any relief.

16. Tt is arsued bv the Learned Counsel fur the petitioner that this is n case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 (>0i GII2002—40,

2785 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as envisaged under Section 9A of the l.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Section 25 F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) abolit conciliation proceedings Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. \V4 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 1977 to January, 1978. Hence, in view of ail this voluminious évidences the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.L, who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute belatedly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed ;>ny license of the contractor arid that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work bence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with ail bact wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 28 oi 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the peti- tioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. Ile also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Section 25F was not complied with, the termination was therefore bad. Hç also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services terminated refusing rènewal and another person appointed. It was held that the petitioner is entitîed to protection under Section 25F and 25H. He also relied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée workman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termination of service. Therefore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked in F.C.L at anv point of time. That it has corne in the évidence that F.C.L used to award H &T contract to private contractors for handling and transporting of food grains. The contractors used to bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works under taken by the contractor. The corporation never controlled or supervise the work of the labour of the contractor that there was two différent contractors during the said period. The F.C.L has no know- ledge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himsclf as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no -/alue in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 vears which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the res- pondent has not appointed there is no question cf dismissing. Hence. the petitiswer is not entitîed for any relief wha+ so ever. He relied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to "xplain satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document *t secondarv évidence iustified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherein it vas held daily waee employées cannot claim reeuinr emploprient, their dis- enaaeement from service rannot be ronstnied as violation of Section 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4- Suprême Court Ca"es page 391 wherein their Lordshins held dispensinT with services of persons engased on dailv wages in a government department therefore is not a retrenchment. Further. held that right to nostinas is n^< availabie. Further he'd that dailv waeei-s disenea risM to the nosts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD nacre 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour workinfi as Hamaii Employée contractors of Singareni Coiliries <"o. Ltd . thev are not entitîed to be absorbed as badli fillers of the comnany witbnut their names being sponsored bv cm- "Invment e-xchanec. So further held such workmen empioved through a contractor does not become employées of the ?7;;<5 THE ^ A / E T TH OV TMrtïA : M " CH Q. *00V FHALGIJNA 18. 1913 IF.MT TT-- *>/:. 3fii)] company. He also relied on 2000(J)LLJ page 561 wherein Ihe Lordships held Law does not prescribe any tims lirait for' the nppropriate Government to exercise ifs penvers under Section 10 of the Act. Tt is not that this power can be exercised af ony point of time and to revive matters which liad since heen settîed. Power ir- to bo exercised leasombly :>nd ni."t in a rational manner. There appear". to us to be no rational bas;" nn which th" Central Government 'ias exercised powers in this cuse after lapse of abont 7 vears of order dismissinrr the r;sr^nd"it from serv/ce. He aho relied on 1993 FLR (67) ra
be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Ofherwise, ail thèse petitioners filing v/rit in the Hon'ble Hiph Court etc. would be a futile exerc' ,f '1 hey did work for F.C.I. nb do^bt perhaps under différent con- Iractors and Vnbre over they say that they worked till 19S4 under various coMractors that they made a representalion to the management for régularisation of their services for which again rhey were removed by contr.ïcfors under the direction of F.C.I. askins them not to engage them. S
18. It may be seen thnt this case lias a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cfses worked from Jnnuary, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. They have appreached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. !t it. very easy for the F.C.I. to sav that they K'ive no connection what so ever wilh this petitioner. but he ÏS one of the candidates who approached the High Court ;ind çot the order. Wherein his Lordship dir;cted the petiîioner to approach the Labour Court under Section 2AC2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industriel Disputes Act, 1947. T wou'd lilfe to clapfv one position that this is Central Govern- mcnf Tndustrial Tribunni-cum-Labnur Court and the amend- aient of Secf:on 2A(2) is of the .State Government. However, ••"•< stated in the beginru'n¹? of the case itself the Hon'bk Hi">i Cm"-t hv a Division Bench ïndçement held as the amend- ment is assrnted bv the Président of India. therefore direct Tnn!-'r".tinns fnn 1v entert^ir'pd by Ihe Central Government Industriel Tobnnl-ri!m-t,abourt Cou't. Accordingîv, th's c:;-^e was filed on 11-1-1998. Without coing into much elnborate discussions ft is anTpflm'tted fact that they are casual î,".b<~>
20. In fhe resu'lt. the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to ëmploy anv nerson as casual labour who is working earliér to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons. pëtitioner's services shall be taken as v/orker of lanuary, 1977 and hc shail be fiiven préférence over oîhes in the matfer of employment of casual labo'ir even thoueh on dailv wages takinc his "eniority as emplovee of Tanuarv. 1977 either at 'VFiryalaguda or at Nalgonda District However. s Word of caution that this shall apply oniv for enracine fresh clisual labours frotn foday and there shall hs no irtrench- ment in view of this award.

Award passed accorditigiy ànd pronounced in the open

Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kuni. K. Phani Gowri, Personil Assistant transcribed bv her corrected by me on this the 31 st day of December, 2001.

E. TSMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the

Petitioner : Respondent :

WW1 : Sri P. Venkat Rao MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Union

Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALCfC) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Fai'ure of conciliation report of A L CO vide

Ir. No. 8(1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008/92 dt. 16-9-97.

Fx. W6 : Copy of the attendance résister of Helpers &

Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the conl.-act dt. 1-3-74.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minutes of conciliation rroceed- pétition"*'"'; ;""fi correct and the verv ntfendar.ee résister which shows c'aily rated sweeper ottendonce is from the r.ionth of Oct'^ber, 1077 to Tânuarv, 1!¹78, that is only for 4 months. Arkl those who hâve nrodi'ced service certifienvs f.re ail xerox comVr, excent one ir I..C.T.D. No. 164/20dl where'i the ori"iml cerfificate filed shov;nV.^d n" d'i'îv rated casnol laboni*. No doubt, no limit'^ion 's nrpsrrihed linder the T.D. \rf. but. al! cases the oiipstiVi of reasoT^bleness in approj^hinT the nroner autho- rities also has to be seen. They kept auite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation of India to take them back ? The Learned Coimsel for the resoondent hâve referred to 2000O) LLT n?ge 561. Their I ordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Sbnlimar Works Ltd. and their workmen SCLF 1950—83 page 152—64 wherein their Lordships held that where there wa-: wholesale discharae of worl-vnen their Lordships held" tour years delay is suffîcient not to grant reinstatement. Fuither (1977> 4 Suprême Court Cases cn"e 391 their T_ord-hips held that dis- pensinc; wifh services of persons engaged on dailv waaes in a çover'nmental departme^f is not a retrenchment. That tbeir dismi'ral cnpnot be treated as retrenebment. He olso re.lied on 1993 FLR whëre said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve ond in law lose> their riaht as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the peti- tioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certifiâtes and those who did not produce so/vice certificates. T am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not imnrove their case because the original ceitificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 164/2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked only for three months two days, the others are Xerox copies without filinu the original and in ?ome 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed fithouah hc himself did not file his service certificate.

ings dt 4-4-96 and ïaîtare report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 : Lr. from Government of Tndia, Ministrv of

Labour dt. 37-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice nnder Arbitration Act and Arbitration 19. In conclusion, petitioneis bave noi nroved by Dny relinble documentary évidence that thev worked under the F.C.I. even in cases whor"î service certificate is filed. For examnie as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 16.4/2001 (ID 98/98 of Labour Court-TTT) it is on'y for three months two days, But it can not

Award dt. 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2002 S.O. 912.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby pub- lishes tht award (Réf. No. 1811200!) of the Central Government Industrial Tribimal-cum- LC. Hyderabad as shown in the Annexurc in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025!l[2002-rR(C-II)l N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Ofiicer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TKIBUNAL-CUM-LA BOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT :

Shri E. ISMAIL, Prcsiding Officcr Dated : 31st December, 2001 'Industrial Dispute L.C.I.D. No. 181 of 2001

(1D No. 80(99 Transferred from Labour Court-IIL Hyderabad)

BETWEEN :

Sri G. Chaturvedi,

R|o Miryalaguda. • • Petitioner.

AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager,

Food Corporation of Tndia,

2787 HACCA Bhaban, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of liidia, Nalgonda District. .. Rcspondents.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner.—M|s G. Ravi Mohan.

For the Respondent.—Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy.

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 80|99 is transferred from Labour Court-III, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H-l 10261 l|2001-IR(C-II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 181)2001. This is a case taken under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M)s. Cotton Corporation of India and two oîhers.

2. Briei averments of the pétition are-: That the Respondent, Food Corporation ot India, eslablished MRM Milling Opérationsj Dépôts!Godown in 1970 carryiag on Miilmg Opérations. Initially the petitioner was en- gagcd as contract worker in the year 1976 to December, 1976. Subsequently, rhe Res- pondent Corporation aid not entrust any work to the contractors. Therefore. the petitioner was dircctly engaged by the 2nd Respondent nameiy, the District Manager, Food Corpora- tion of India, Nalgonda District. He work- ed from Jan. 1977 to 4th Dec. 1978. The petitioner was directly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The petitioner worked conlinuously for the above said period with- out any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December. 1978. After the illégal lermina- tion petitioner has been making représenta- tions to the Respondent Corporation. Ulti- mately the petitioner managed to get a job with the contractor in Food Corporation of India. He worked in the same der"ot in the • vear 1984. The petitioner made an applica- tion to the Respondent seekin°; appointaient on the basis of his temire PS c^su^i labour with effect from Jan. 1977 rili December. 1978 instend of absorbins- the D^titioner into service. The Respondent iVentiomillv ins- îructed the conlractor to remove rhe petitioner2788 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 IPART II—SEC. 3(ii)] from strvice. Therefore, petitioner was again ont of employment. Hence, the action of Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 4-12-1978 with- out any notice and without assigning any reason, is illégal arbitrary and unjust.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve termi- nated the services of the petitioner without complying with the provisions of principles oi natural justice. The Respondent having continuée the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Sec. 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniors to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respondent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oral représentations to the Respondent to reinstate him, the Respondent ignored the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become dilïicult for him to eak out his Hvelihood and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation appli- cation before the ALC(C) on 12-4-1988 seek- ing absorption. The conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(C) but that ended in failure. Conséquent on failure of the meet- ings ALC(C) closed the proceedings, but failed to report to the Government and rhe Government in turn could not refer the dis- pute. Jn this regard also the petitioner made several représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. However no action was aken against the représentation. It is submitted that the said dispute was rais- ed by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Ail the workmen were questioning the similar issue on similar grounds. The petitioner is one among those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is same as that of the other workmen.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termina- tion order dated 4-12-1978 of the Respondent and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with con- tinuity of service with back wages and ail other attendant benefits and pass such other orders as are just and necessary in the interest ot justice.

4. Apgrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S Sri V. Venkateswarlu. N. Anjaiah and J. Veero Swamy filed WP No. 9008 i92 that prior to filing of the WP the Central Govt. passed an order dated 13-5-1993 rejeeting the petiiioners" claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the employer and employée. The Hcn'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009 93 keeping ail facts and circurastances in view and basing upon the Judgement of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M's. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Page 556 directed the three petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner is also constrained to approach the Hon'ble Court along for necessary relief.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stating that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on law nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of T.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Govern- ment. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of India at any point of time. Therefore Sec. 2A(2) is not attracted.

5. Retreating that he worked from .Tanuary. '77 to December '78 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposa] of he various contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transférons to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not siven anv notice as reciuired under Sec. C-'A of the I.D. Act since it reîated to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner's services wer^ îmninated by the contractor on the advisc of the Respondent.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda was estabîished in the year 1970 and commission- ed from 28-5-1971. It is one of the Modem Rice Mills estabîished ail over the countrv. Initially Raw Milling facility was nrovided wUh a limited number of casual workers and subsecmentlv Parboiled unit was cominissïon- ed with the increased strength of casual workers. F is submitted that the re"pondpnt used to nward H & T contract to priva to con- tractors for handling and transporting of the 278$

forum. Hence, the petitioner also has ap- proached this forum.

13. The petitioner was never engaged and was never employed by the corporation iicnce there is no question of violation of Sec. 25F even otherwise the petitioner has approached the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the pétition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and lapses. Hence, the péti- tion may be dismissed.

food grains at Modem Rice Mill, Miryalaguda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contracter used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H&T contract depending on the work done by him. It was responsibility as to who should be engaged and how many persons shouid be engaged for his work. The FCI has nothing to do with those matters. The corporation ne ver controlled or supervised the work: done by the contract labour. The petitioner might be one of those contract labourers. A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society Ltd., was the contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 and Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent has no knowledge as to the ser- vice put in by the petitioner as he was never engaged as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore, the allégation that he was engaged as casual labour by the FCI from 1|1977 to 4-12-1978 is incorrect and denied.

11. Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the petitioner was one among them. The ALC(C) sub- mitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India on 13-5-1996. The Government of India by letter dated 12-6-1997] 15-7-1997 conveyed its décision that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no materia] showing that there was reiationship of employer and employée between the peti- tioner and the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision of the Central Government.

14. Sri G. Chaturvedi examined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the péti- tion in the chief examination and added that he was supervising the stocks from insects by applying pesticides. Along with hira theie were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryaiaguda. That he used to be paid monthly salary. He worked continuously for two years. The res- pondent used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient letters were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The corpora- tion submitted attendance register to ALC(C)- II at Vidyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obtained the atten- dance register from ALC(C)-II subsequently their services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changing to the fold of contractors. They worked till 1984. Ihey made a représentation to the management for rcsularization of their services for which they were ail terminated from, services. The union raised the said dispute wherein his claim was also included vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. W2 is the letter dated 6-5-1994 of ALCCC) that there is no amicable settlement. Matter was referred to the central Govt. vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by the union to the ALC(C). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008|92 dated 16-9-1997. The petitioner filed a Xerox copy of the ser- vjce certificate of Sri J. Veera Swamy that he worked for the period from î-3-76 to 31-12-77 of which original certificate is said to be deposited before theRLCCC) and that has not been marked as exhibit. Ex. W6 is the attendance register maintained by the F.C.T. Hc could set the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C I. during the conciliation period. During the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Srinivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant record such as attendance ré- sister, payment résister etc., durinç the conciliation period. In the cross examination 12. It is submitted that S|Sri N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarlu filed a WP No. 9008J92 seeking directions when the WP was pending, Government of India passed an order dated 7-4-1993 rejecting their claim which reads as thus, "The workmen has faiîed to produce any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or more during the period of 12 months preceding the date of alleged dis- en sagement of his services by the manage- ment. He was also failed to give justifiable reasons for the inordinate delav of more tban 9 years in raisins the dispute. Therefore, the Central Govt. has decided not to refer the above dispute for adjudication." The Hon'ble Hish Court of A. P. in WP No. 9008!Q?. per- mitted the petitioner to approach nppfopnate2790 THE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/FHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II--SEC. 3(ii)j he deposed that th£ respondent corporation is a central government corporation. lie has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for twô years frora January, 77 Continuously undef the respondent. He denied that there is no practice of engag- ing casual labourers difectly by the corpora- tion. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He has not filed any représen- tation or letter addressed to the Respondent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.l. and they were terminated from ser- vice at any point of time during the period from J977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay him. He admitted, that ne did not file any document showing that he received any amount from the corporation. After j 978, he worked under the contractors namely, SjSri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Kondari Veeraiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. ït is true that ALC(C) and con- ciliation officer rejected the référence on the ground that the dispute raised by the union was belated. And there is no relationship of employer and employée. That union has not filed any WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they themselves fiîed ori- ginal of Ex. W6 before the RLC(C).

fhe tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A. P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM, Miryalaguda. The peti- tioner was one of the 256 workers who rais- ed industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minu- tes of conciliation proceedings held on 4-4-96 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-97 issued by the Govern- ment of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none oi the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.l. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by the F.C.L in the cross exami nation he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for handling and transport used to engage a contractor. AU the other works were carried through contrac- tor. They hâve not filed any license before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not maintain any register of the workers who are employ- ed by the contractor. Work relating to -the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asstt. Manager. He deni- ed that those contractors were not there dur- ing the said period. It is true that al] thèse woixnien hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the concilia- tion proceedings. In the said référence peti- tioner is one such. That S!Sri V. Venkates- wariu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008 j92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before the RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asstt. Manager, Mechanical at the District office of the F.C.L, Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to June, 1991 he worked as Asstt. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional office of the F.C.l. used to award H&T work to private contractors by calling tenders. The contractor used to brins labourers for -the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H&T contract. The contractor was being paid as per îhe scheduled rates fixed for H&T contracts dôpending on the work done by him. F.C.l. has nothing to do with the engagement of labourers and work done by the labourers was not super- vised or controlled by any of fhe officiais of the F.C.T. The contractor used to get the work donc as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-74 to 14-5-77 the contract was given to A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society. Hyerabad and from 12-11-77 to 11 -9-79 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was tmployed by the said contractor. There is no practice of engagine casual labour for H&T works in F.C.l. He never worked dur- ing Janttary, 77 to December, 78 as casual labour under F.C.l. 'Ex. Ml is the copy of

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for Ihe petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from piîîar to post. The pelitioner has put in aJmost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 77 to 4th Decern- ber, 78. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without gtving any notice of change as envisagée under Sec. 9A of the T.D. A et. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or anv wages paid. The petitioner has mafked Ex. Wl wliieh is addressed to Anjaiah by ALCfC) âbout conciliation proecedings. 'Ex. W? is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the attendotice regis- ter, v/îiich shows that they are the heîpers and 1791 swccpcrs that is for the month from Qctober, 77 to January, 78. Hence in vicw of ali this voiuminous évidences the mère tact that thèse heipiess illiicrate persons who were again working till 19U4 under contre tors after having worked with the F.C.Ï., who go against them saying that they hâve raised the dispute beiatedly. They were working direetly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was arnong those 250 workmen. That the petkioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examina- tion he has not filed any liense of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Furher he is not connected with the said work hence, it is submitted that petitioner is to be reinstated with a]l back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A. P. High Court wherein Uie peti- tioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was held that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, ihat Sec. 25F was not eomplied with, the termina- tion was therefore bad. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was held that petitioner was appointed on tenure basis giving artificial breaks. Petitioner's services termina ted refusing renewal and another per- son appointed. It was held fhat the petitioner is enthied to protection under Sec. 25F and 25FI. He also rëlied on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée 'workman was required ro juin duty by a spécifie date but when attempted ro join duty was prevented doine so. Held the said f.tanding order would not bf used to effect automatic termination of service. There- fore ptays the petitioner to be reinstated.

casual labour with certain xerox papers whLch hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a iapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. Whe" the respondent has not ap- pointed there is no question of dismissing. rienoe, Ihe petitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He relied on the iioMow- iag Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to explain satis- factorily that origimai document was k)st or that it is not in a position to bave the same. Ccairl rejecting permifôion to fiie Xerox £opy of document ^s seeomdary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 w*lierein it was held daily wage employées can- not cïaim regular eiaployment, their disongage- ment from service cannot be cons^rued as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing-with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government départaient therefore is not are- ti-enchment. Furtlier, held that right to post- ings is not available. Further held that daily wagers disengagement after completiou of work hâve no right 279J ÏHE GAZETTE OF JNDIA : MAJRCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI 1 1 - S E C. 3(ii)J rights as well. So hc submits that in lieu of tins ciear rulings the petitioners even if they hacî any right and if it is admitted for argu- ments sake the right is iost by efflux of time.

it be advisable to direct the Food Corporation ot India to take them, back? The Learned Couusel for the respondent have referred to 2000(1) LU page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd and their workmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 where- in their Lordships held that where therc was wholesale discharge of workmen thier Lord- ships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further ( 1977) 4 Sup- rême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a Government de- partment is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treatel as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the re- medy available to have and in law loses their right as well. No doubt, Learned Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certifîcates and those who did not produce service certifîcates. I ani afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.I.D. No. 16412001 states that the peti- tioner in that case worked only for three months two days. the others are xerox copies without filing the original and in some 4 or 5 cases including this one J. Veeraswamy's certificate is filed althougjh he himself did not file his service certificate.

18. It may be seen that this case lias a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases work- ed from January, 77 to 4th Deccmbcr, 78. They hâve approached for the first lime on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. It is very easy foi" the F.C.I. to say that they hâve no con- nection whatsoever with this petitioner, but he is one of the candidates who approached the High Court and got the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to ap- proach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A. P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would like to clarify one position that this is Central Govt. Indus- trial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and the itmendment of Sec. 2A(2) is of the State Government. However, as stated in the beginning of the case itself the Hon'ble High Court by a Division Bench Judgement held as the amendment is assented by the Président oi India, therefore direct aprilications can be entertained by the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Accordingly. this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Wtihout going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labou- rers. Granted that the arguments of the Learn- ed Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweeper attendance is from the month of October '77 to January '78. that is oniy for 4 .rnonths. And those who hâve produced service certifîcates are ail xerox copies except one in L.C.I.D. No. 164[2001 wherein the original certificate filed showing that he worked from 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper. No doubt, it is aîleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to con- tractors without following Sec. 9A. There- fore they did not approach the conciliation oiïicer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the xerox copies of the service certifîcates pro- duced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? It has corne in évidence that thev worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limitation is prepcribed under the I.D. Act, but ail ca"es the question of reasonableness in apnroaching the proper authorities also has to be <=een. They kept ouite tili 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will

19. In conclusion, petitioners have not proved by any reliable documentary évi- dence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.I.D. No. 164' 2001 (ID 98198 of Labour Court III) it is only for three months two days. But it cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has nothing to do with the F.C.I. Otherwise ail thèse petitioners filins writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.I. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over thev say that they worked till 1984 under vnrious contractors that they made a renresen- tfiiion to the management for regularization of tlieir services for which a sain thev were re- mo^ed bv contractors under the f a c t i on of F.C.T. ^king them not to engage them. So it can safely *>e concluded that thèse persons did work for F.C.I. althoush under various con- tractors but the netitioner have faiied fo prove by any satisfactory évidence that they worked directly at the F.C.I. Seeing the évidence on record the exhibits, it can safely bc concluded that they did work for the F.C.I. although through contractors. More so in view of the exhibits filed by the respon- dent which shows that they were contractors during the relevant period. No doubt, there is dekty but not of ten years. Because, they continuée! working under some contracter or other till 1984 and they approached the ALC (C) in 1988. Hence. the abovecited Suprême Court's cases are not completely applicable to the facts of thèse cases. No doubt, their prayer cannot be granted because as stated earlier there is no proof that they worked under the F.C.I. But, however, in ail thèse cases they are entitled for some relief.

20. In the resuit, the respondent No. 2 is directed that he is free to employ any person as ca°ua! labour who is working earlier to this petitioner. But once employment is given to such persons, petiiioner's services shall be taken as worker of Januarv, 77 and he shall be given préférence over others in the matter of employment of casual labour even though on daily wages taking his seniority as employée of January. 1977 either at Miryala^uda or at NaWonda District However. a word of cau- tion that this shall applv only for ençiiging fresh casual labours from todav and there shall bc no retrenchment in view of this award.

Award passed accordingly and pronounced in Ihe open Court. Transmit.

Dictated to Kum K. Phani Gowri. Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 31st day of December, 2001.

E. TSMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness ex imined for the Petitioner :

Witness examined for the Respondent :

WW1— Sri G. Chaturvedi

MW1—Sri M. Siva Rama Krishna Documents marked for the Petitioner'Unioa Ex. Wl—Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93

Ex. W2—Lr. Of ALC(C) dt. 9-5-94 Ex. W3—Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8(1) 1993-E3

604 GI/2002—41

2791 Ex. W4—Union's représentation dt. 16-8-93

Ex. W5—Order in WP No. 9008 92 dt. 16-9-97

Ex. W6—Copy of the attendance regis- ter of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml—Copy of the tender and the contract dt. 1-3-74

Ex. M2—Copy of the minutes of conci- liation proceedings dt. 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C)

Fx. M3—Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dt. 17-6-97

Ex. M4—Notice under Axbitration Act and Arbitration Award dt. 23-1-89 New Delhi, the 19th Febiuary, 2002 SO 913.—In puisuance of Section IV of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947 (14 of 1947), the Cenlt.il Government hereby publishes the award (Réf. No. 182/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-LC, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman. which was received by the Central Government on 19-02-2002.

[No. L-22025/1/2002-IR(C-II)1

N. P. KESAVKN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT TIYDERABAD Dated • 31stst December, ''OOl

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L C I D. No 182/2001 (ID No 81/99 Tiansferred from Labour Court-III. Hyderabad)

BETWEEN

Sri T V N. Raju, R/o H. No 34-286. Bapujinagar, FCI back, Sagar Road, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District.

-. . Petitioner2794 THE GAZLTTL OF IMDJA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART II—SEC. ?.;ii)l AND

1. The Sr. Régional Manager, Food Corporation of India, HACCA Bhavan, Hyderabad.

2. The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India, Nalgonda District.

. . .. Respondents APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s. G. Ravi Mohan

For the Respondent : M/s. B. G. Ravindra Reddy

AWARD

This case I.D. No. 81/99 is transferred from Labour Court-111, Hyderabad in view of the Government of India, MinKirv of Labour's order No. H-11026/I/2001-IR(C-Il) d::t:J 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Coutt as L.C.I.D. No. 182/2001. This is a case taken under Section 2A(2) of the ;.D. Act, 1947 in view of the iudgment of the Hon'ble lïiyh Court of Andhra Pradesh reported m W.P. No. 8395 of 1"89 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Co*ton Corporation of India and two others.

2. Brief averrnents of the pétition are : That the Respondent, Food Corporation of India, established MRM Milling Opérations/'Depots/Godown in 1970 carrying on Milling Opération¹.. Tnitially the petitioner was engaged as contract worker in the year 1976 to December. 1976. Snbseqïientlv. the Respondent Corporation did not entrust an y work to the contractors. Therefore, the petitioner was directly engaged bv Jie 2nd Responde;it namely, the District Manager, Food Corporation of ïndia. Nulgoncla District. T-Ie worked from Jantiarv. 1977 to 4th December. 1978. The petitioner was d'Yectly under the control of the 2nd Respondent. The peti- tioner worked continuously for the above said period without any break in service. The services of the petitioner were terminated in the month of December, 1978. After the illégal termination petitioner has beep making représentations to the Respondent Corporation. Ultimatelv the petitioner managed to cet a iob with the coptractor in Food Corporation of India. Ke worked in the samc deoot in the year 1984. The petitioner made an application to the Respondent seekini appointment on the basis of bis tenure as casual labour with effect from Janunrv, 1977 till Deceirb-r, 1978 instead of absorbins the petitiornr into service. The Respondent intenfionally instructed the contracter to remove the petitioner from service. There- fore. petitioner was again out of employment. Hence, the nctinn of Refondent in terminating the services of the peti- tioner witfc effect from 4-12-1978 without any notice and tvithout assigning any reason, is illégal, arbitrary and unjust.

3. The petitioner filed a conciliation application before the ALCfO on 12-4-1988 seekinç absorption. Tir" conciliation proceedings were admitted by ALC(CÏ but that ended in faillira. Conséquent on failure of the meetings ALC(C) closed the proceedinps, but failed to report to the Government and the Government in lurn could not refer the dispute. In this resard also the petitioner made severai représentations to ALC(C) to send the dispute to the Government. Howcver no action was taken against the reoresentation. Tt is submitted th-it the said dfctnite was raised by the union on behalf of 250 workmen. Al' the workmen were questioniug the similar issue on similar srounds. The petitioner is one amona those 250 workmen. And the petitioner's prayer is s?me as that of the other workmen.

4. Aggrieved by the action of the ALC(C) S/Sri V. Venkateswarlu, N. Aniaiah and J. Veera Swamv filed WP No. 9008/92 that nrior to filing of 1he V/P the Central Government passed an order dated 13-5-1993 reiecting the petitioners' claim on the ground that there is no relationship of the emnloyer and employée. The Hon'ble High Court Bench in WP No. 9009/93 keepine ail facts and circumstnnees in view and basing ur^n the Tudgemont of between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others reported in 1977 ALT Paee 556 diiected the three retiHoners to aporoach the Hon'ble Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the petitioner "s also constrained to npproach the Hon'ble Court along for necessarv relief.

5. Retreating that he worked from January, 1977 lo December, 1978 with R2 without any break in service the petitioner repeated that after extracting work from petitioner as casual labour placed him at the disposai of the vurious contractors to perform; the same nature of work. At the time of transferring to the fold of the contractor the petitioner was not given any notice as required under Section 9A of ihe I.D. Act since it related to change of service conditions. Subsequently the petitioner s services were terminated by the contractor on the advise of the Respondent.

6. The Respondent is a model employer. Hence, Respondent ought not to hâve terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with fhe provisions of principies of natural justice. The Respondent having continuée! the petitioner for a period of almost two years continuously ought to hâve given notice pay. Hence the said action amounts to violation of provision under Section 25F of the I.D. Act. It is submitted that the petitioner is the senior most employée of Corporation who worked since 1977. The corporation though terminated services of the petitioner continued the workers who are juniots to the petitioner in service. Hence the action of the Respon- dent amounts to discrimination.

7. The petitioner is uneducated inspite of his having made oi\il représentations to the Respondent to leinstate him, the Respondent ignorëd the same. The petitioner is only earning member of the family and in view of illégal termination it has become difficult for him to eak out his livelihood and maintenance of family. The petitioner has not filed any suit or case in any forum for necessary relief.

8. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the oral termination order dated -1-12-19T8 of the Respondent and consequently direct the resDond"nt to reinstate the petitioner into service with rontinuity of sei\:ee with back waçes and ail Other nttendance benefits and p?ss such other orders as are just and necessary in the intérêt of justice.

9. The respondent filed a common counter stt.ting that the pétition is not maintainable under the I.D. Act neither on Jaw nor on facts. The petitioner again approached the Labour Court undèr Section 2A(2) of I.D. Act as it is an amendment by the State Government. The petitioner never worked as an employée in Food Corporation of Tndia at ?ny point of time. Therefore Section 2A(2) is not attracted.

10. Modem Rice Mill at Miryalaguda wis established in the year 1970 and commissioned from .'.8-5-1971. It is ore of the Modem Rice Mills established ail over the country. Initially Raw Milling facilitv was provided with a limited number of casual workers and subsecjuently Parboiled l'nit was commissioned with the increased strsngth of casual workers. It is submitted that the respondent used to award H &T contract to private contractors for îiandiin?. and trans- porting of the food grains at Modem Rice MiU. Miryalaauda and at the food storage dépôt at Miryalaguda on tender basis. The contractor used to bring his own labour for the same and he was paid as per the scheduled rates fixed under the H &T contract derending on the work do ne by him. It was his responsibilitv as to who should be enga.sed and how many persons should be engaged for his work. The FCT has nothins? to do with those matters. The corporation never controlied or supervised the work done by the contract labour. The petitioner mlsht be one of those contract labourers. A. P. Transport Workers Co-operative Societv Ltd.. was 'he contractor from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 rnd Sri V. Satva- narayana Reddy and Company was the contractor for the period from 12-11-1977 to 11-11-1979. The Respondent lias no knowledge as to the service put in bv the petitioner as he was never ensased as casual labour at any point of time. Therefore. the allocation that he was ensaeed as casuci! labour by the FCI From 1/1977 to -1-12-1978 is incorrect nnd denied.

1* Union raised an industrial dispute in connection with 256 workers and the netitioner was one among them. The ALC(C. ) submitted his report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of Tndia on 13-5-199fi. The Goverriment of Tnc'm by letter dated 12-6-1977/15-7-1997 ronveved its decis:on that the dispute is not fit for référence to the Tndustrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no mdforî.il showir.î that thçre was relationship of employer and employée betwesn 21)5 the petitioner and- the Respondent. Petitioner has not chosen to question the above décision ot the Central Government. 12. It is subraitted that S/Sri. N. Anjaiah, J. Veeraswamy and V. Venkateswarta filed a WP No. 9008/92 seeking direc- tions when the WP was pendiag, Government of India passed an oréei; dated 7-4-1993 rejectmg their ciaim which reads as tàus, "The workmaa has failed to produee any documentary évidence to prove that he had worked for a period of 240 days or. more dariflg the period of 12 months preceding the date ai alleged disengagement of his services by the manage- ment, He was aJso faiied to give justifiable reasons for the mor-dmate delay of more than 9 years in raising the dispute, ïheïetore, the Central Governnient has decided not to refer the atave dispute for adjudication." The Hon'bte High Court of A. P. m WP No, 9008/92 permitted the petitioner to iipproach appropriate foium. Hence, the petitioner also has approiiçhed this forum.

13. The petitioner was aever engag"d and was never em- pteyed by thç corporation, hence there is no question of viola- tion, of Section 25Jf even otherwise the petitioner has approaohed the Hon'ble Court after a lapse of 18 years and the p"titioa is Mable to be dismissed on the grouud of delay and lapses. Hence, the pétition may be dismissed.

14. Sri T. V. N. Raju exarnined himself as WW1 and deposed facts stated in the pétition ia the chief examination and added th.at he was supervising the stocks from insects by apptying pesticides. Along with him there were 30 to 50 casual workers at Miryalaguda. That he used to be paid monthly saJary. He worked continuously for two years. The responcient used to maintain attendance register and wages register and he used to sign on the registers. No appointaient lettgrs were issued. They were paid monthly wages. The coï]S®ratk>H submitted attendance register to ALC(C)-II at Vklyanagar during conciliation. General Secretary Mr. Anjaiah, obïained the attendance register from ALC(C)-II subsequently tÈeir services were converted as if they were working with the contractors. No notice was served at the time of changinç; to the foïd of confractorsj They worked tiU 1984. They made a représentation fo the management for regularization of their services for which they were ail termjnated from services. The union raiserf the said dispute wherem his claim was also in- ckided vide Ex. Wl dated 1-9-1993. Ex. VV2 is the letter dated 6--5-1994 of ALC(Ç) that there is no amicable seulement. Matter was referred to the Central Government vide Ex. W3. Ex. W4 is the représentation made by ihe vnion to the ALCfC). Ex. W5 is the order in WP No. 9008/92 dated 16-9*1997. Ex. W6 is the attendance register maintained by tbe F.C.I. He couM get the copy of this from the RLC(C) which was filed by the F.C.I. during the conciliation period. Daring the said period the Depot Manager was one Mr. Sriaivasa Rao. The management produced the relevant lecord sucta as attendance register, payment register etc., during the conciliation period. In "the cross examination he deposed that the ïespondent corporation is a Central Government Corporation. He has not filed any document before the Court showing that he worked for two years from January, 1977 continuously under the respondent. He denied that there i- no practice of engaging casual labourers directly by the corporation. It is true that he filed the présent case after 20 years. He lias not filed any représentation or letter addressed ta the Respnndent Corporation alleging that they worked in F.C.I. and they were terminated from service at any point of timo during the period from 1977 onwards. He denied that only contractors used to pay htm. He admitted; that he did not file any document showing that he received any amount fronr the corporation. After 1S78, lie worked under the contractors namely, S/Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy, Kondupi VeVaiah and Cherlapally Ram Murthy etc. It is ttue that ALC(C) and conciliation officer rejectsd the référence on the sround that the dispute raised by the union was belaied. And there is no reiatkmship of employer and employée. That union has not filed anv WP against the said proceedings of ALC(C). He denied that Ex. W6 is forged and created. That they themselves filed original of Ex. W6 before the R t C ( C ).

15. Sri Sivaram Krishna, the Asst. Manager, Mechanicnl at the District Office of the F.C.I., Vijayawada deposed as MW1 and stated that 22-12-1977 to lune, 1991 he worked as Asst. Manager at Miryalaguda Modem Rice Mill. The Régional Office of the F.C.I. used to award H S T works to private contractors by calling tenders. The contracter used to bring labourers for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by him under H & ï contract. The contracter was being paid as per the scheduled rates fixed for H & T commets depending on the work done by him. F.C.I. has nothing to do with the engage- ment of labourers and work done by the labourers was not supervised or controlled by any of the officiais of the F.C.I. The contracter used to get the work done as desired by them. During the period from 22-4-1974 to 14-5-1977 the contract was given to A.P. Transport Workers Co-operative Society, Hydeiabud and from 12-11-1977 to 11-9-1979 it was given to Sri V. Satyanarayana Reddy. He can not say whether the petitioner was employed by the said contracter. There is no practice of engaging casual labour for H&T works in F.C.I. He never worked during January, 1977 to December, 1978 as casual labour under F.C.I. Ex. Ml is the copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974 wherein the work was awarded to A.P. Transport workers Co-operative Society for H&T works at MRM. Miryalaguda. The petitioner was one of the 256 workers who raised industrial dispute. ALC(C) submitted a failure report Ex. M2 is the copy of the minutes of concilia- tion proceedings held on 4-4-1996 before the ALC(C). Ex. M3 is the letter dated 17-6-1997 issued by the Government of India expressing that the industrial dispute is not fit for référence. As none of the labourers were engaged directly by F.C.I. nor they worked for 240 days or more. This order has not been questioned in the High Court by the concerned workman. Ex. W6 was not maintained by the F.C.I. In the cross examination he deposed that he used to look after the maintenance and repairs of the machinery at MRM unit for harjdling and transport used to engage a contractas AU the other works were carried through contractor. They hâve not filed any iicense before this Court. He is not the concerned man to appoint a contractor. They did not main- tain any register of the workers who are employed by the contractor. Work relating to the dépôt was being looked after by Sri Ratna Swamy who was the Asst. Manager. He denied that those contractors were not there during the said period. It is true that ail thèse workmen hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). He has not attended the concilia- tion proceedings. In the said référence petitioner is one such. That SjSrï V. Venkateswarlu, N. Anjaiah and J. Veera Swamy filed a writ No. 9008|92. It is incorrect that Ex. W5 is filed before RLC(C). He denied that he is entitled for any relief.

16. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is a case where this petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post. The petitioner has put in almost 2 years continuous service with the corporation from January, 1977 to 4th December, 1978. That constantly they hâve been put under one or another contractor without giving any notice of change as enyisaged under Sec. 9A of the I.D. Act. No notice of termination was given as required under Sec. 25F or any wages paid. The petitioner has marked Ex. Wl which is addressed to Anjaiah by ALC(C) aboui. conciliation proceedings. Ex. W2 is also served to the said effect. Ex. W3 is the failure report of the ALC(C). Ex. W6 is the Xerox copy of the attendance register, which shows that they are the helpers and sweepers that is for the month from October, 1977 to January, 1978. Hence, in view of ail this voluminous évidence the mère fact that thèse helpless illiterate persons who were again working till 1984 under contractors after having worked with the F.C.I., who go against them ssying that they hâve raised the dispute belated- ly. They were working directly under the control of second Respondent. However the said dispute was raised by more than 250 workmen, the petitioner was among those 250 workmen. That the petitioner was looking after stock by spraying pesticides etc. That MW1 admitted in the cross examination he has not filed any Iicense of the contractor and that it is true that ail thèse workmen who worked in dépôt and other centres hâve raised the dispute before the ALC(C). This shows that they worked in the dépôt. Further he is not connected with the said work hence it is submittècl that petitioner is to be reinstated with al) back wages etc. The petitioner relied on a Judgement in WP No. 28 of 1993 of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court wherein the petitioner was appointed by the orders of the High Court. He also relied on 2001 LLJ page 201 wherein it was heîd that the petitioner did complète more than 240 days of service, that Sec. 25F was not complied with. the termination was therefore had. He also relied on 1996 (3) ALD page 955 wherein it was heîd that petitionfr was appointed on tenure basis eiving artificial breaks .Petitioner's services terminated refusing renewal and2796 ÏHE G A Z F f lt OF INDIA : MARCH 9, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PART I I - - S E C. 3(ii)J another person appointée!. It was held that the petitioner is enutled to protection undjr isec. 25F and 25H. He also îolieii on (2001) 1 Suprême Court Cases page 61, where it was held that the absentée vvorkman was required to join duty by a spécifie date but when attempted to join duty was prevented doing so. Held the said standing order would not be used to effect automatic termination of service. There- fore prays the petitioner to be reinstated.

direct applications can be entertained by the Central Govern- ment Industriel Tribuna-cum-Labour Court. Accordingy, this case was filed on 11-3-1998. Without going into much elaborate discussions it is an admitted fact that they are casual labour- ers. Granted that the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioners are correct and the very attendance register which shows daily rated sweepers attendance is from the month of October 1977 to January 1978, that is only for 4 months. And those who hâve produced service certificates are a!l xerox copies except one in- L.C.I.D. No. 164|2001 wherein the oiiginal certificate filed showing that he worked fiom 1-9-1977 to 2-12-1977 as a daily rated casual helper No doubt, it is alleged that they continued to work under contractors as they were made over to contractors without following Sec. 9À. Therefore they did not approach the> conciliation officer. Even if that is taken as true and ail the Xerox copies of the service certificates produced in so many cases are also taken to be true. Does it improve the situation? Tt has corne in évidence that they worked as daily rated casual labour. No doubt, no limittion is prescribed under the I.D. Act, but, ail cases the question of reasonableness in approaching the proper authorities also has to be seen. They kept quite till 1988. And after ail the writs etc. almost 22 years hâve passed. Will it be advisable to direct the Food Corpn. of India to take them back? The Learned Coun- sel for the respondent hâve referred to 2000(1) LLJ page 561. Their Lordships refused to condone the delay of 7 years. He also relied on Shalimar Works Ltd. and their woikmen SCLF 1950-83 page 152-64 wherein their Lord- ships held that where there was wholesale discharge of workmen their Lordships held four years delay is sufficient not to grant reinstatement. Further (1977) 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 their Lordships held that dispensing with services of persons engaged on dailv wages in a governmental department is not a retrenchment. That their dismissal cannot be treated as retrenchment. He also relied on 1993 FLR where said : lapse of over 15 years deprives of them of the remedy available to hâve and in law losses their right as well. No doubt, Leained Counsel for the petitioner tried to distinguish between those who produced service certificates and those who did not produce service certificates. I am afraid that also will not do any good to petitioners and does not improve their case because the original certificate marked in L.C.T.D. No 164)2001 states that the petitioner in that case worked onlv for three months two days. the others are Xerox copies without filine the original and in some 4 or 5 cases J. Veeraswamy's ctrtificate is filed although he himself did not file his service certificate.

17. The respondent Counsel argued that petitioner never worked m F.C.l. at any point of time. That it has corne in the évidence ihat H .Cl. used to award H&T contract lo priv.itc conlratiojs for handlin-g and transporting of food grains. The contiactois used lo bring their labour for the purpose of doing the works undertaken by the contractor. l'he corporation never controiled or supervise the work of the labour of the contracter that there was two différent contractois dunng the said period. The F.C.I. has no knowiedge whether the petitioner was engaged under the contractor. The petitioner is trying to project himself as casual labour with certain xerox papers which hâve no value in the absence of originals. The présent case is filed in the year 1998 after a lapse of 22 years which is a long period. And that there is no relationship of employer and employée. When the respondent has not appointed there is no question of dismissing. Hence, the pttitioner is not entitled for any relief what so ever. He îelied on the following Judgements. 1992 2 ALT page 171 wherein it was held failure to expiait! satisfactorily that original document was lost or that it is not in a position to hâve the same. Court rejecting permission to file Xerox copy of document as secondary évidence justified. He also relied on 2001 2 ALD page 205 wherem it was held daily wage employées cannot claim rgular employment. their disengagement from service cannot be construed as violation of Sec. 25F. He also relied on (1997; 4 Suprême Court Cases page 391 wherein their Lordships held dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wages in a government deparlment therefore is not a retrenchment. Further, heid that right to postings is not available. Furiher held that daily wages disengagement after completion of work hâve no right to post. Their Lordships further held that concept of reirenchment cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover thèse employées. Since the peti- tioners are only daily wage employées had no right to the posts. He also relied on 1989 2 ALD page 420 Division Bench it was held that contract labour working as Hamali Employée contractors of Singarani Collieries Co. Ltd., they are not entitled to be ab"orbed as badli fillers of the company without their names being sponsored by employment exchange. So further held such woikmen employed through a cont- ractor does not become employées of the company. He also relied on 2000(1) LLI page 561 wherein the Lordships held Law doe'. not prescribed any time limit for the appro- priate Governmenl to exercise its powers under Sec. 10 of the Act. Tt is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be cxe'cised reasonable and not in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Cential Government has exercised powers in this case after hpse of abolit 7 years of order dismissing the respondent from service. He also relied on 1993 FLR (67) page 70 wherein it was held : lapse of over 15 years in approaching the Courl-Deprive thi;m remedy available to them in Iaw-Loses their riahts as well. So he submits that in lieu of this clear rulines the petitioners even if they had any right and if it is admitted for arguments sake the right is lost by efflux of time.

19. ïn conclusion, petitioners hâve not proved by any reliable documentary évidence that they worked under the F.C.I. even in cases where service certificate is filed. For example as stated in L.C.T.D. No. 164|2001 (ID 98198 of Labour Court-III) it is onlv for three monfhs two days. But h cannot be simply brushed aside that petitioner has n'ûthinj: to do with the F.C.I. Oihenvise, ail thèse petitioners fîling writ in the Hon'ble High Court etc. would be a futile exercise. They did work for F.C.T. no doubt perhaps under différent contractors and more over thev sav that they work- ed till 19S4 under various contractors that they made a rep- résentation to_ the management for régularisation of theiY services for which again they were removed by contractors under the direction of F.C.T. asking them not to engage them. So it C;>T sifpiy be concluded that thèse persons did work for F C I. although under varions contractors but the petitioner hove failed to prove bv anv "atisfacrory évidence that they worked directly al the F.C.T. Seeine the évidence on record the exhibas, it enn stfdv be concluded that thev did work for the T CX alfhnnp/i rtirni'?¹" contracfors. More so ïn view of the exhibits filed by the respondent which shows that thf" werp contractors durin<* tbe relevant period. Ko doubt. therp ic delav but not of ten vears. TVcwe. thev contirmeâ work'i" uncW "ome rontrartors or other till 1984 and thev anr'Oirntd the A L C fO in 1988. H-ncv. fbc "bnvp- citerï Snrjrprn* Conrt's casps nrf not cornn'etelv annlicable to the facts of trfc*. ensfs Nn doubt. their nnvpr cannot b" r"-""tp() hervms* ->•• cfated eprlier thpre is nb w^f that the" "•'•ft^d ,,r,,^r th" ver. Rn+ however. in ail th^se cases thfv are r-nfitled for some relief.

20. In th rpsnlt the resnondent No ~> is dirpet^d that Ji" 18. It may be seen that this case has a chequered history. The allégation is that the petitioner in this case and 43 other cases worked from Jarmary. 1977 to 4th December, 1978. They hâve approached for the first time on 12-4-1988 seeking absorption. lt is verv casv for the F.C.T. to say that thev hâve no connection what so ever with this petitioner. but he is one of the cmrîidates who apronched the Hish Court and pot the order. Wherein his Lordship directed the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under Sec. 2A(2) of A.P. State Amendment under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. T would like to clarifv one position that this is Central Government Tndustnnî TrtbunM-
is free tn emnJov "nv nerson a" casual labour who h xvnrlitr* e.arlier )o Ihk ne'i'''oncr. Rni once pmnlovment is "ivpf, to such persons. pelitioner's services shall be taken to worker' of January 1977 and be shall be given préférence overothers in the matttr of employment of casual labour even tkough on daily wages taking his seniority a" employée of January, 1977 either at Miryalaguda or at Nnlgond-il district. How- ever, a word caution that this ï>hall only for engaging fresh casual labours from today and there shall be no retrench- ment in view of this award.

Award passed accoidingly and pronounced in thc open Court. Transmit.

DT^ated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me on this Ihe 31st day of December, 2001.

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of évidence

Witness examined for the Witness examined for the Petitioner : Respondent:

WW1 : Sri T.V.N. Raju MW1 : Sri M. Siva Rama

Krishna Documents maiked for the Petitioner|Union Ex. Wl : Conciliation order of ALC(C) dt. 10-9-93.

Ex. W2 : Lr. of ALC(Q) dated 9-5-94.

Ex. W3 : Failure of conciliation report of ALC(C) vide lr. No. 8<1)1993-E3.

Ex. W4 : Union's représentation dated 16-8-93.

Ex. W5 : Order in WP No. 9008|92 dated 16-9-97. Ex. W6 : Copy of the attcndance îegister of Helpers & Sweepers of FCI.

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of the tender and the contract dated 1-3-1974.

Ex. M2 : Copy of the minute? of conciliation proceed- ings dated 4-4-96 and failure report of ALC(C).

Ex. M3 Lr. From Govt. of India, Min. of Labour dated 17-6-97.

Ex. M4 : Notice under Arbitration Act and Arbitration Award dated 25-1-89.

New Delhi, the 22nd February. 2002 S.O. 914.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herehy pub-

2797 lishes the award (Réf. No. 7311999) of. the Central Government Industrial Tribimal-cum- LC Asansol as shown in the Annexure in tbe Industrial Dispute between the employer* in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2002.

[No. L-220l2i428l98-IR(C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Dcsk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NUMBER 73 of 1990 PARTIES :

Agent, Begunia Project, C. V. Area, Barakar.

Mis. B.C.C.L. .. Management,

Vrs.

Shri Jhari Mahato. • • Workman.

REPRESENTATION :

For the Management.—Shri P. K. Das, Advocate.

For the Union (Workman).—None.

INDUSTRY :

: Coal.

STATE . West Bengal.

Dated 4th February, 2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by the clause (d) of sub-section (1> and sub-sectkm 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Govt. of India through thc Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L22012¹ 428,'98-IR(CM-H) dated 09-07-1999 has re- ferred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the Agent, Begunia Project C. V/Area, P. O. Barakar, Distt. Burdwan for not re- gularising the services of Sh. Jhari Mahato in the post of Watch-man is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"2798 THE GAZETTE OF INDJA : MAftCH S*, 2002/PHALGUNA 18, 1923 [PARI ÎI—SEC. 3(ii)J After receïpt of the référence, SIMÎMROÎÏS were sent to the parties by registered post In response to the summens the management appeared throwgh Shri P. K. Bas, Acivoo&s but despite the fact that swmmon by rêsjister- ed post was served to the Union on 21-09^2001 nonc appeared on, behaif of the Union even after several adjournments.

In vrew of the fact that none appeared on behalf of the Union (workman) even after service of summon and several adjournments it appears that the Union has got no intçrest with the dispute. And hence No Dispute Award h passed.

Sdl- RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer New Delhi, the 22nd February, 2002 S.O. 915.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194? (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby p"b- lishes the award (Réf. No. 5511999) of the Central Government Indiïstrîal Tribtmal-cum- LC, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betvveen the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their woefamaa. which was received by the Central Government on 20-02-2002.

[No. L-22012!299!98-IR(C-H)} N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT, INDUS TRÏAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LAWOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

Shri Ramjee Pandey, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NUMBER 55 of 1999 PARTIES :

Agent, Bcjidih Methani Coiliery of M|s< E.. C Ltd. • • ManageTnent.

Vrs.

Shri Dinanath Kahar. •. Workman.

REPRESENTATION :

For the: Management.—Shri P. K. Goswami, Advocate.

For the Workman. (Union).-—Nonc.

INDUSTRY : CoaJ. STATE : Best Bengal.

Dated 30th January, 2002

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by the clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-sec- tion 2(A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dis- pute Act. 1947, Govt. of India through the Minisîry of Labour by its Ofder No. L-22012| 299!98-ÏR(CM-II) dated 25-05-1999 has re- ferrecî the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :—

"Whether the action of the management of Bejdih Colliery in dtemissing Sh. Dinanath Kahar w.e.f. 01-06-1996 is justified? %t not, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

After receipt of the référence sunimons were sejit to. lh& parties by registered post, jind the. parties were directed to appear and file thefr respective written statements. In pur- suance ta the siimmon the management appear- ed throirgh- îts Lawyer Sfiri P. K. Goswami. From perusal of record it is apparent' that sumnion by registered post has been' servei upon the Union (Werkman) on 19-09-2001 and deçpite several adjournments none ap- peared on: behalf of the workman, which indfcates that now the workman or the Union has °ot no interest with the dispute. Although management jq>peare€l through its Lawyer but despite several adjournment no written state- ment has been ®ed by the management aîso. And hence it can be easily inferred îhat the parties hâve no interest wilh the dispute.

279?

In view of the above facts it is clear that the parties are not reacly to contest the dis- pute and hence a no dispute award h being passed.

(Directorate General of Employment & Trainjng) RAMJEE PANDEY, Presiding Officer

New Delhi, the 25th February, 2C02

S. O. 916.—In pursuarce of sub-rule (2) and (4) of Rulc 10 of the Officiai Languages (Use fer Officiai Purposes of the Unicn) Rules, 1976 (As Amended, 1987), the Central Government herety notifies the following subordinate offices of Directoiate General of Employment & Training (Ministry cf Labeur), the staff whereof hâve acquired the workjng knew- ledge of Hindi. ;

1. Régional Directorate cf Apprenticeship

Training, Hyderabad.

2. Vocational Réhabilitation Centre fer Handj-

capped, Hyderabad.

[ No. DGE&T-U0172/99-Hindi]

N. LANKA, Dy. Sccy.

MftM by thf> Manager. Gott.
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054, 2002