dkfeZd] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=ky;
¼dkfeZd vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1993.—dsaæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, >kj[kaM jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jk¡ph dh vf/klwpuk lañ
6@lhchvkbZ&604@2013@2609@fnukad 25-06-13 }kjk izkIr lgefr
ls >kj[kaM jkT; ds yksd lsodksa ,oa vU; O;fDr;ksa ds }kjk esllZ
fofu vk;ju ,oa LVhy m|ksx fyfeVsM ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa@funs'kdksa] Jh
uohu dqekj rqYL;ku] pkVZMZ vdkmaVsaV] Hkkjr ljdkj ds yksd lsodksa
,oa vU; vKkr O;fDr;ksa ds lkFk feyhHkxr dj jktgjk ukWFkZ dks;yk
CykWd ¼dsUæh; vkSj iwohZ½ vkcaVu esa dfFkr vfu;ferrk ,oa Hkz"Vkpkj
ls lacaf/kr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 120 ch lifBr /kkjk 420 ,oa
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 13¼1½¼Mh½ lifBr /
kkjk 13¼2½ ds v/khu iathd`r lhchvkbZ ekeyk lañ vkjlh 219
2012 ¼bZ½ 0012] fnukad 03-09-2012 esa vkSj mDr ewy vijk/kksa esa
rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/kksa ls lacaf/kr ;k muls lEc) vijk/kksa
esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=ksa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj esa
fd, x, ;k mUgh rF;ksa ls mRiUu fdlh vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk
vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh
'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr >kj[kaM jkT; ds lEcU/k
esa djrh gSA
[lañ 228@33@2013&,ohMh&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013
S.O. 1993.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05
REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
lkIrkfgd
WEEKLY
la- 39º
ubZ fnYyh, flrEcj 22—flrEcj 28] 2013] 'kfuokj@Hkkæ 31—vkf'ou 6] 1935
No. 39]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 22—SEPTEMBER 28, 2013, SATURDAY/BHADRA 31—ASVINA 6, 1935
Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
Hkkx II—[k.M 3—mi&[k.M (ii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
Hkkjr ljdkj ds ea=kky;ksa (j{kk ea=kky; dks NksM+dj) }kjk tkjh fd, x, lkafof/d vkns'k vkSj vf/lwpuk,a
Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
3995 GI/2013
(5227)
5228
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government of Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi vide
Notification No. 6/CBI-604/2013-2609/25.06.2013, hereby
extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Delhi
Special Police Establishment in the whole of State of
Jharkhand for investigation in the CBI case No. RC 219
2012 (E) 0012 dt. 03.09.2012, U/s 120 B r/w sec 420 of IPC
and Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988 and substantive
offences thereof, regarding alleged irregularities and
corruption by Public Servants of State of Jharkhand and
Others in regard to allocation of Rajhara North Coal Block
(Central & Eastern) in connivance with Office bearers/
Directors of M/s. Vini Iron and Steel Udyog Ltd., Shri Navin
Kumar Tulsyan, Chartered Accountant, Public servants of
Government of India and others unknown and attempt,
abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection
with the above mentioned offences and any other offence
or offences committed in course of the same transaction or
arising out of the same facts.
[No. 228/33/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1994.—dsaæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl
LFkkiuk vf/kfu;e] 1946 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 25½ dh /kkjk 6
ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx
djrs gq, v:.kkpy izns'k jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] bVkuxj dh
fnukad 27 tqykbZ] 2013 dh vf/klwpuk lañ ohvkbZth&04@2010@171
}kjk izkIr lgefr ls Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 ¼1946 dk vf/kfu;e
lañ 45½ dh /kkjk 120&ch vkSj 420 rFkk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k
vf/kfu;e] 1988 ¼1988 dk vf/kfu;e lañ 49½ dh /kkjk 13
¼1½¼Mh½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ ,oa /kkjk 15 ds varxZr naMuh;
vijk/k tks v:.kkpy izns'k ds if'pe dkesx ftyk ds fnjax {ks= esa
VªkUl v:.kkpy gkbZos ¼Vh,,p½ gsrq Hkwfe rFkk Hkouksa ds vf/kxzg.k esa
gqbZ folaxfr;ksa@voS/krk ls lacaf/kr vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe@Hkou@isM+ksa ds ekfydksa
dks {kfriwfrZ ds fu/kkZj.k ,oa Hkqxrku ls rFkk mijksDr vijk/kksa ds laca/k
esa ;k muls lEc) vijk/kksa esa fd, x, iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa rFkk "kM;a=ksa
;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mRiUu dksbZ vU; vijk/k ;k vijk/kksa dk vUos"k.k
djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa
vkSj {ks=kf/kdkj dk foLrkj leLr v:.kkpy izns'k jkT; ds lEcUè
esa djrh gSA
[lañ 228@67@2013&,ohMh&II]
jktho tSu] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013
S.O. 1994.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),
the Central Government with the consent of the State
Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Vigilance Department,
Itanagar vide Notification No. VIG-04/2010/171 dated
27th July, 2013, hereby extends the powers and Jurisdiction
of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
to the whole of the State of Arunachal Pradesh for
investigation of offences punishable under sections 120-B
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1946)
and section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) and section 15 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988)
relating to anomalies/illegalities in acquisition of land and
building and in determination and payment of compensation
to land owners for land/building/trees acquired for Trans
Arunachal Highway (TAH) in the Dirang Region of West
Kameng District of Arunachal Pradesh and attempts,
abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection
with the above mentioned offences and any other offence
or offences committed in the course of the same transaction
of arising out of the same facts.
[No. 228/67/2013-AVD-II]
RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.
foÙk ea=ky;
¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 24 tuojh] 2013
dkñvkñ 1995.—dsUæ ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foRr ea=ky;] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr c®dksa dh 'kk[kkvksa dks]
ftuds 80- ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh esa dk;Zlk/kd
Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
Øñ
c®dksa ds uke
'kk[kkvksa dh la[;k
lañ
1-
;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
218
2-
bafM;u vksojlht c®d
120
3-
lsaVªy c®d vkWQ bafM;k
103
4-
¯lfMdsV c®d
30
5-
LVsV c®d vkWQ eSlwj
28
6-
LVsV c®d vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
26
7-
bafM;u c®d
12
8-
vka/kzk c®d
10
dqy
547
[lañ 11016@3@2013&fgUnh]
fefgj dqekj] funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5229
;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
jktHkk"kk dk;kZUo;u izHkkx] dsaæh; dk;kZy;] eqacbZ
jktHkk"kk fu;e 10¼4½ esa vf/klwpukFkZ laLrqr 'kk[kk,a@dk;kZy;
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] fnYyh
1- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
nf{k.k
iVkSnh 'kk[kk]
gkml uañ 1] okMZ uañ 6
ckck vkVkoyk pkSd ds ikl
iVkSnh gsyh eaMh jksM] xqM+xkao 122504
2- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
HkksaMlh 'kk[kk
xkao HkksaMlh] ftyk xqM+xkao] fiu 122102
3- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
mthuk 'kk[kk
Mkd mthuk] ftyk esokr] gfj;k.kk
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] fnYyh
4- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
mÙkj
Hkksjx<+ 'kk[kk
gkml uañ 7@2] jsyos Øk¯lx
ujsyk] fnYyh] fiu 110040
5- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
xksdyiqj 'kk[kk
,&51] xksdyiqj] Mkd?kj xksdyiqj
ubZ fnYyh fiu 110094
`
6- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
;w,yih if'pe fogkj 'kk[kk
ch 2@15] if'pe fogkj
fnYyh&110063
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] t;iqj
7- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
nwuh 'kk[kk
iapk;r Hkou] xzke o iksLV nwuh
rglhy nsoyh] ftyk Vksad
jktLFkku] fiudksM 304 802
8- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
uhejkuk 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV uhejkuk] rglhy cgjksM+]
ftyk vyoj] jktLFkku] fiu 301705
9- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
yhM+h 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV yhM+h] rglhy ihlkaxu
ftyk vtesj] jktLFkku] fiu 305203
10- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ck?klwjh 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV ck?klwjh
rglhy ulhjkckn] ftyk vtesj
jktLFkku] fiu 305401
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] djuky
11- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
;wfu;u yksu iksbaV Qjhnkckn 'kk[kk
,llhvks&60] gqMk ekdsZV
lsDVj 7] Qjhnkckn]
ftyk Qjhnkckn 121001] gfj;k.kk
12- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
lSDVj 3 djuky 'kk[kk
,llhvks 16] lSDVj 3] djuky
ftyk djuky 132001 ¼gfj;k.kk½
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] vktex<+ 13- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
lesnk ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku½ 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV lesnk] ftyk vktex<+
fiu dksM 276128
14- ;wfu; c®d vkWQ bafM;k
nsokjk tnhn ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku½ 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV nsokjk tnhn] ok;k
egkjktxat ] ftyk vktex<+]
fiu dksM 276137
15- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ekgqy 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV ekgqy] ftyk vktex<+
fiu dksM 223225
16- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
Vk.Mk 'kk[kk
Xkzke o iksLV Vk.Mk ftyk vEcsMdj uxj]+
fiu dksM 224190
17- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
nsoxkao 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV nsoxkao] ftyk vktex<+
fiu dksM 276202
18- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
feÙkwiqj 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV feÙkwiqj] Cykd tgkukxat
ftyk vktex<+] fiu dksM 276131
19- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
dksgjk 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV dksgMk] Cykd iobZ
ftyk vktex<+] fiu dksM 276288
20- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
tksdgjk 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV tksdgjk] Cykd gjS;k
ftyk vktex<+] fiu dksM 276136
21- ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
Hk[kjk 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV Hk[kjk] Cykd Qwyiqj
ftyk vktex<+] fiu dksM 223226
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5230
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
22 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
BBsjh 'kk[kk
eksgYyk uañ 10] esu jksM] ljk;ehj
futkekckn] ftyk vktex<+] 276305
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] xksj[kiqj
23 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
cjgt 'kk[kk
LVs'ku jksM] eqñiksñ cjgt] ftyk nsofj;k+
fiu 274 601] mÙkj izns'k
24 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
gjS;k 'kk[kk
lezkV uxj] eq[; cktkj eq iksLV gjS;k]
ftyk cLrh 272 155 mñ izñ
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] iVuk
25 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
cDlj 'kk[kk
BBsjh cktkj] cDlj ftyk jksgrkl]+
fcgkj fiudksM] 821115
26 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
lklkjke 'kk[kk
fudV lkgw Vkdht] thñVhñ jksM] lklkjke
ftyk lklkjke] fcgkj fiu&802101
27 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
lckSjk jksM 'kk[kk
Hkkxyiqj frydk eka>h gkfV;k jksM]
ftyk&Hkkxyiqj] fcgkj fiu&812001
28 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
eèqcuh 'kk[kk
fudV izèku Mkd?kj] eq[; ekxZ]
ftyk eèqcuh]+
fcgkj fiu dksM&847227
29 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foñ lekos'ku 'kk[kk èqrkSyh
eksñ+iksñ èqrkSyh] fudV ekyik pkSd]
ok;k pkSFke] ftyk&[kxfM+;k]
fcgkj fiudksM&851201
30 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foñ lekos'ku 'kk[kk vtukSy
xzke HkVxkek] ealwj pd jksM]
iksLV ny¯lg ljk;] ftyk leLrhiqj]
fcgkj fiudksM&848114
31 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk 'kaHkqiV~Vh
xzke o iksLV 'kaHkqiV~Vh] ftyk&leLrhiqj]+
fcgkj fiudksM&848129
32 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foñ lekos'ku 'kk[kk fc'kquiqj gjukjk;.k
xzke clkSyh fgEer ¯lg] iksLV ekgiqj
ftyk eqt¶Qjiqj] fcgkj]
fiudksM&843103
33 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foñ lekos'ku 'kk[kk ykHkxkao
xzkñ+iksñ ykHkxkao] ftyk&[kxfM+;k]
fcgkj fiu dksM&851204
34 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foñ lekos'ku 'kk[kk firkSf>;k
xzke o iksLV firkSf>;k] ftyk&[kxfM+;k]
fcgkj fiudksM&843117
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] Hkksiky
35 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
cjsyh 'kk[kk
1] HkwrM+k dkWykSuh] tsñtsñ jksM] cjsyh
jk;lsu ¼eñ izñ½
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] bankSj
36 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ukuk[ksMk 'kk[k 13@4&lh CykWd]
egkdky okf.kT; dsUnz ohvkbZih jksM]
ukuk[ksMk mTtSu ¼eñ izñ½ 456010
37 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
fo'ks"khd`r foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk
cMk ckaxMnk iksLV% ikyk[ksMh
ftyk bUnkSj ¼eñizñ½ 453112
38 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
fiiY;kdqekj 'kk[kk ,lñ,lñ vkaxu
90&91 nhi isysl dkWyksuh]
xzke% fiiY;kdqekj
ftyk% bankSj ¼eñizñ½ 452010
{ks=h; dk;kZy; jk;iqj
39 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
chtkiqj 'kk[kk esu jksM
¼,pih isVªksy iai ds lkeus½
chtkiqj ftyk chtkiqj
NÙkhlx<+ 494444
40 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
narsokM+k 'kk[kk]
eka nars'ojh eafnj ds ikl
esu jksM] narsokM+k ftyk narsokM+k
¼Nñ xñ½ 494449
41 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
t'kiqj uxj 'kk[kk iqjkuk egy]
chñ ,lñ ekdsZV esu jksM]
t'kiqj ¼Nñ xñ½ 496331
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5231
42 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
c®dBiqj 'kk[kk cSlkxj ikjs]
c®d vkWQ bafM;k ds ihNs
c®dBiqj] ftyk dksfj;k
¼Nñ xñ½ 497625
43 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk
MqejrjkbZ] esu jksM MqejrjkbZ]
ftyk jk;iqj ¼Nñ xñ½
44 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ukjk;.kiqj 'kk[kk
esu jksM] t;LraHk ds ikl]
ukjk;.kiqj ¼Nñxñ½ 494661
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] jhok
45 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
vejikVu 'kk[kk]
128@2 uxj iapk;r jksM]
lqHkk"k pkSd vejikVu] ftyk lruk]
eñizñ fiu 485775
46 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
iUuk 'kk[kk]
13 'kkldh; x`g fuekZ.k laLFkku ds ikl]
chVhvkbZ jksM] ftyk iUuk]
eñ izñ fiu 488001
47 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
vuwiiqj 'kk[kk]
okMZ] uañ 07] vejdaVd frjkgk]
vuwiiqj eñizñ fiu 484224
48 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
VªkaliksVZuxj lruk 'kk[kk
2@1] VªkaliksVZ uxj lruk] jhok jksM
ftyk lruk
eñ izñ fiu 485001
49 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
vrjsyk 'kk[kk]
xzke iksLV vrjSyk] R;kSFkj]
ftyk jhok
eñizñ&485001
50 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
jgV 'kk[kk]
241 xzke jgV] iksLV jgV jhok
fiu 484446
51 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
rsanqvk 'kk[kk]
jhok jksM xzke rsanqvk] iksLV in[kqjh
ftyk lhèh
fiu 486669
52 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
cxS;k 'kk[kk]
iapk;r fcfYMax] jsLV gkml] xzke cxS;k]
rglhy fprjaxh] ftyk ¯lxjkSyh
fiu 486001
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] bykgkckn 53 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
dqjeSpk 'kk[kk]
thñVhñ jksM] dqjeSpk
ftyk&lar jfonkl uxj
mÙkj izns'k fiu 211003
54 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
cjkSr 'kk[kk
iksLV&cjkSr] Cykd&bafM;k
ftyk bykgkckn
mñ izñ fiu 221502
55 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
N=ifr 'kkgwth egkjkt uxj]
xkSjhxar 'kk[kk ftyk&N=ifr 'kkgwth
egkjkt uxj ¼vesBh½
mñizñ fiu 227409
56 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
chuk 'kk[kk]
uknZy dksy QhYM~l fyñ chuk izkstsDV]
ftyk&lksuHknz] mñizñ fiu 231220
57 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
'kkafriqje 'kk[kk]
th&2] xksgjh jksM] 'kkafriqje]
QkQkeÅ ftyk
bykgkckn] mñizñ fiu 211013
58 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
vfx;kSuk 'kk[kk]
fjtoh baLVhV~;wV vkWQ baftfu;¯jx ,.M
VsDukykth] vfx;kSuk] ea>uiqj]
ftyk&dkS'kkEch mñizñ 2212207
59 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
tequhiqj vBxoka 'kk[kk]
iksLV&eksM+ ftyk lar jfonkl uxj
fiu 221406
60 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
dkSykiqj 'kk[kk]
jktiwr <kck ds ikl
iksLV&xksihxat ftyk lar jfonkl uxj
mñ izñ fiu 221303
61 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ohjeiqj 'kk[kk]
Cykd&vHkkSyh ftyk lar jfonkl uxj
mñ izñ fiu 221308
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5232
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
62 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
HkqdhZ 'kk[kk
fodkl Hkou] ftyk gsMDokVZj]
iksLV&Kkuiqj]
ftyk lar jfonkl uxj&mñizñ
fiu 221304
63 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
uVok¡ vkSjaxkckn 'kk[kk
iksLV&[kefj;k
ftyk lar jfonkl uxj] mñ izñ
fiu&221306
64 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
egtwnk cktkj 'kk[kk
iksLV Hkksjh ftyk&lar jfonkl uxj
mñizñ fiu&221404
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] dkuiqj
65 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
xqykeÅ ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku½ 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV xqykeÅ] CykWd ckou]
ftyk gjnksbZ] fiudksM 241001
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] y[kuÅ
66 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
¯Hkxk 'kk[kk
eksgYyk VaMok] iksLV ¯Hkxk] fiu 271831
67 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
lsDVj D;w 'kk[kk
ljLorh fo|k eafnj] lsDVj D;w
vyhxat] y[kuÅ&226024
68 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
;w ih LVsV ,xzks 'kk[kk
;w ih ,xzks bafMLVª;y dkiksZjs'ku
foèku lHkk ekxZ] y[kuÅ&226001
69 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
;w ih LVsV 'kqxj dkiksZjs'ku 'kk[kk
;w ih LVsV 'kqxj dkiksZjs'ku] fofiu [kaM]
xkserh uxj] y[kuÅ&226010
70 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
2 cVkfy;u ih , lh lhrkiqj 'kk[kk
ih , lh y[kuÅ jksM]
lhrkiqj&261001
71 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
ygjiqj 'kk[kk
fj;kt+ ekdsZV] esu ektk'kkg Øk¯lx]
ygjiqj] lhrkiqj&260135
72 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k
flèkSyh 'kk[kk
lqeaMie eSjst gky] flèkSyh]
lhrkiqj
73- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vkf'k;kuk 'kk[kk]
,e 1 ,] lsDVj vkbZ] vkf'k;kuk]
y[kuÅ&226012
74- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lsDVj vks 'kk[kk]
flVh ekaVsljh Ldwy] lsDVj vks]
vyhxat] y[kuÅ&226024
75- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
foHkwrh [kaM 'kk[kk]
foHkwrh [kaM] ea=h vkokl ds ikl]
xkserh uxj] y[kuÅ&226010
76- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqlekgk 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV dqlekgk] QStkckn]
vdcjiqj jksM] QStkckn&224135
77- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
32 cVkfy;u] ih , lh] y[kuÅ 'kk[kk]
ih , lh vkyeckx] y[kuÅ&226005
78- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
gjnksbZ;k 'kk[kk] lh ih ,y baVj dkyst]
gjnksbZ;k] vkneiqj] y[kuÅ
79- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ekSjk 'kk[kk]
lSaFkk Økflax] nqcXxk eky jksM]
pjd bafLVV~;wV] y[kuÅ&227107
80- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqpsjk 'kk[kk]
dqpsjk cktkj] QStkckn] txnh'kiqj jksM]
ftyk QStkckn&224158
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] nsgjknwu
81 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
;wfu;u yksu ikWbaV 'kk[kk]
baMLVªh;y ,fj;k] banzs'k vLirky ds ikl]
iVsy uxj] mÙkjk[kaM&248001
82- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
cM+klh xzkaV 'kk[kk]
iksLV cM+klh xzkaV] Cykd jk;iqj]
rglhy nsgjknwu lnj] ftyk nsgjknwu]
fiu&248008
83- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
?kulkyh 'kk[kk]
'kkg Hkou] fpe;kyk jksM]
ftyk fVgjh x<+oky] mÙkjk[kaM
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5233
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] tcyiqj 84- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Vh,QvkjvkbZ 'kk[kk]
xzke uhe[ksMk] Mkd vkj,,Qvkjlh
eaMyk ekxZ] tcyiqj&482021
85- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
okjkflouh 'kk[kk]
dVaxh jksM] okjk flouh&481331
86- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
rsoj 'kk[kk]
xzke o Mkd rsoj]
HkasMk?kkV ekxZ] tcyiqj&482001
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] jkaph
87- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dkaMjk 'kk[kk]
xq#xksfoan flag ,tqds'ku lkslk;Vht]
VsDuhdy dSail] dkaMjk] Mkd pkl]
cksdkjks]
ftyk cksdkjks] fiu% 827004
88- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tkerkMk 'kk[kk]
204] U;w VkÅu] tkerkMk]
ftyk tkerkMk] >kj[kaM] fiu 815351
89- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
pkl 'kk[kk 564150
jkty{eh Vkoj ck;ikl jksM] pkl
Mkd&pkl] cksdkjks]
ftyk&cksdkjks&fiu% 827013
90- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
panok 'kk[kk 564834 esu jksM panok
ftyk&ykrsgkj] >kj[k.M fiu% 829 203
91- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
prjk 'kk[kk&564567]
lq'khyk dkWEIysDl] xqnM+h cktkj]
prjk x;k jksM]
ftyk&prjk] fiu% 825401
92- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
;w,yih te'ksniqjk 'kk[kk 563163
igyh eafty]
dekuh lsaVj fc"Vqiqj] te'ksniqj]
ftyk&iwohZ fla?kHkwe]
>kj[k.M&831001
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] xkthiqj
93- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
djfg;k 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV i[kuiqjk] eNVh]
ftyk xkthiqj
fiu dksM% 233227
94- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
;qojktiqj 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV ;qojktiqj]
Cykd jsorhiqj] rglhy lnj]
ftyk xkthiqj] fiu% 232332
95- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dkeqiqj 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV dkeqiqj] Cykd cjNkoj]
rglhy eksgEenkckn] ftyk xkthiqj]
fiu% 232229
96- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
erlk 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV thoiqj]
Cykd tefu;k] rglhy eksgEenkckn]
ftyk xkthiqj] fiu% 232340
97- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqpkSjk mijokj 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV dqpkSjk mijokj]
Cykd djaMk]
rglhy lnj] ftyk xkthiqj]
fiu% 232224
98- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ukjh ipnsokjk 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV ukjh ipnsokjk]
Cykd nsodyh]
rglhy lnj] ftyk xkthiqj]
fiu% 233002
99- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vj[kiqj 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV vj[kiqj]
CykWd fcjuksa] rglhy lnj]
ftyk xkthiqj] fiu 233005
100- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lkSjh 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV lkSjh] Cykd efugkjh]
rglhy lSniqj] ftyk xkthiqj]
fiu% dksM 275205
101- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iÁiqj jkejkbZ 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV iÁiqj jkejkbZ]
Cykd t[kfu;k] rglhy t[kfu;k]
ftyk xkthiqj] fiu% 275203
102- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ljgqyk 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV ljgqyk]
Cykd jsorhiqj] rglhy t[kfu;k]
ftyk xkthiqj] fiu% 232326
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5234
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
103- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
chjiqj 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV chjiqj]
Cykd Hkaojdksy] ftyk xkthiqj]
fiu% 233231
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] vkxjk
104- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ch lh ,l 'kk[kk]
4 if'pe] xksfoanuxj]
Hkkjrh; peZ m|ksx la?k]
lkdsr] U;w 'kkgxat] ftyk vkxjk]
mñ izñ&282010
105- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
'kghnuxj vkxjk 'kk[kk]
jktiqj pqaxh ds lehi] 'ke'kkckn jksM]
vkxjk mñ izñ&282007
106- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fodklHkou] McjbZ 'kk[kk]
uohu dysDVªsV ifjlj] fodkl Hkou]
f'kdksgkckn ekxZ] McjbZ
ftyk fQjkstkckn] mñ izñ
107- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dkslhdyka 'kk[kk]
uUnxkao jksM] jsyos LVs'ku ds lkeus]
eFkqjk] mñ izñ&281403
108- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
pankSlh 'kk[kk]
pankSlh cky fo|k eafnj] eqaflQekxZ]
Hkheuxj] mñ izñ&202412
109- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,Q vkbZ iSBk 'kk[kk]
iSBk Cykd] xkso/kZu] ftyk eFkqjk]
mñ izñ 281502
110- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lsok 'kk[kk vkxjk]
izFkery] izsQUMloklu Iyktk]
lat; Iysl] vkxjk] mñ izñ 282002
111- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
f'kdksgkckn 'kk[kk]
#duiqjk] vkn'kZ flusek ds lkeus]
eSuiqjh jksM] ftyk fQjkstkckn]
mñizñ 205135
{ks=h; dk;kZy;]
112- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vgenkckn
ukxokl.k 'kk[kk]
iksLV ukxol.k] rkyqdk fl)iqj]
ftyk ikVu 384
151] jkT; xqtjkr
113- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqtkM 'kk[kk]
nkrkj pSacj ds lkeus] dByky gkbZ os]
dqtkM] rkyqdk% nlØksbZ]
ftyk% vgenkckn]
jkT;% xqtjkr] fiu% 382 430
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] jktdksV 114- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
jktnk 'kkfiax lsaVj]
tks/kiqj xsV] te[kaHkkfy;k]
ftyk tkeuxj] fiu% 361305
115- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xkasMy 'kk[kk] 'kkWi uañ 37]
dSyk'k dkEIysDl , foax]
xqankyk xsV ds ikl] xqankyk isVªksy iai
ds lkeus] xksaMy] ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr] fiu&360311
116- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tln.k 'kk[kk xhrk uxj]
[kknh Hkou ds ikl]
[kkuiqj jksM] tln.k ftyk jktdksV]
xqtjkr&360050
117- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fiiyok 'kk[kk ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk½
cl LVSaM ds ikl]
iksLV fiiyok] rykyk] ftyk&twukx<+]
xqtjkr
118- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dMqdk ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk½
uojkf= pkSd] xkao ,oa iksLV&dMqdk]
fo;k&yhyiqj ftyk
jktdksV] fiu&360050
119- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
jkeijosdjk 'kk[kk]
Jh osdjk Lokehukjk;.k eafnj]
xkao&jkeijosdjk] ftyk&dPN
370445
{ks=h; dk;kZy;] ukfld
120 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
czã.kokMk ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk½
rglhy flUuj ¼ok;k ukfld jksM½]
ftyk ukfld] egkjk"Vª &422 109
121 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ok.kh ¼cqn#d½ 'kk[kk]
nqdku la[;k 23 ls 25] 40 ,oa 41]
lqeu] gkbZV~l] Qst&II dks.kkdZ fogkj]
QjkaMs uxj] ok.kh
¼cqn#d½ rglhy ,oa ftyk % ukansM]
egkjk"Vª] fiu% 431 605
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5235
122 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
jkosj 'kk[kk]
'kki uañ 101] 102] 103] 104 ,oa 115
Nksfj;k ekdsZV] jkosj] rglhy jkosj
ftyk tyxkao
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dksYgkiqj 123 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
egk}kj jksM] dksYgkiqj 'kk[kk fcu[kkach
x.ks'k eafnj]
egk}kj jksM] dksYgkiqj 416 412
124 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
eksgksy 'kk[kk iksLV&eksgksy] rkyqdk&
eksgksy] ftyk lksykiqj] fiu 413 307
125 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ekdsZV ;kMZ] lkaxyh 'kk[kk olarnknk
ekdsZV ds lkeus] ekdsZV ;kMZ] lkaxyh]
ftyk lkaxyh
¼egkjk"Vª½ fiu&416 416
126 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dsMxkao 'kk[kk
edku uañ 410] xsV uñ 78]
rk djekyk] ftyk lksykiqj] fiu 413 202
{ks=h; dk;kZy; lwjr
127 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
fo'ks"khd`r foÙkh; lekos'kui 'kk[kk
iksLV ekaMo [kMd] rkyqdk fp[kyh]
ftyk uolkjh] fiu 396 060
{ks=h; dk;kZy; eqacbZ
128 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
if'pe
ukyklksikjk iwoZ 'kk[kk]
'kkWi uañ 4] 5] 6 t; fot; uxj ds lkeus]
100 QhV olbZ ukyklksikjk fyad jksM]
ukyklksikjk ¼iwoZ½]
ftyk&Bk.ks 401 209
{ks=h; dk;kZy; eqacbZ
129 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
nf{k.k
ckanzk ¼iwoZ½ 'kk[kk
js.kqdk dksñvkñ gkmflax lkslk;Vh fyfeVsM+
xq:ukud vLirky ds ikl]
ckanzk ¼iwoZ½] eqacbZ&400 051
{ks=h; dk;Zy; eqacbZ mÙkj 130 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk
dokM [kqnZ] iksLV&vkuxkao]
fHkoaMh okMk jksn]
rkyqdk fHkoaMh] fiu 421 302
131 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
;wfu;u yksu IokabV [kkj?kj
'kkWi uañ 1&4] IykWV uañ 17&18]
MsQksfMYl] lsDVj&19]
[kkj?kj] uoh eqacbZ&410 210
132 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dsyo.ks ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk½
,p uañ 722] iksLV&dsyo.ks]
rkyqdk&iuosy]
ftyk jk;x<+] fiu 410 206
133 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lkuikMk 'kk[kk
'kkWi uañ 14&15] v[kqjFk dksñvkWiñgkSñlksñ
IykWV uañ 11] lsDVj&14] ik] chp jksM
ds ikl ok'kh lkuikMk]
uoh eqacbZ 400 705
134 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
yqbZlokMh 'kk[kk
jRuk mesn lsflMsUlh] mesn uxj]
ikbZi ykbZu jksM]
yqbZlokMh] Bk.ks ¼osLV½ fiu&400 604
135 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
LVs'ku jksM psEcwj ¼if'pe½ 'kk[kk
LokfLrd izkbZM] ry eafty]
Mhñdsñ lkaMq ekxZ] psacwj ¼if'pe½
eqacbZ 400 071
136 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
jsyos LVs'ku Bk.ks ¼if'pe½ 'kk[kk
xkyk Øañ 15] 16] ry eafty]
isjkMkbt gkbV~l f'kokth iFk]
Bk.ks if'pe 400 602
137 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
U;w iuosy 'kk[kk
xkyk uañ 16 ls 19] Jh n'kZu
dksñvkWiñgkSñlksñ
lsDVj 9] IykWV uañ 34
[kkaMk dkWyksuh] U;w iuosy ¼if'pe½]
uoh eqacbZ 410 206
{ks=h; dk;kZy; ukxiqj
138 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dkUnzh dUgku 'kk[kk
iksLV dkUnzh dUgku] rkyqdk ikjf'kouh
ukxiqj] tcyiqj egkekxZ]
ftyk ukxiqj 441 401
139 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
VsaHkqj[ksM+k 'kk[kk ¼foÙkh; lekos'ku½
iksLV VsaHkqj[ksM+k] rkyqdk o#M
ftyk vejkorh 444 911
{ks=h; dk;kZy; cMkSnk
140 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
,evkblhvkj lhihlh vk.kan 'kk[kk
lek'kks/ku x`g ,oa ekbdj lhihlh dsUnz
'kkafrukFk dkWEysDl] esQs;j jksM]
;wfu;u cSad ds lkeus] vk.kan
ftyk vk.kan] xqtjkr 385 001
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5236
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
141 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
eatwlj 'kk[kk
115@116] thvkbZMhlh lkoyh
xkao eatwlj] xqtjkr 385 001
142 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dkjsyhckx 'kk[kk
l`f"V ,osU;w] 'kkWi uañ 1&4
vkezikyh dkEiysDl ds lkeus
ikuh dh Vkadh jksM] iks vkW dkjsyhckx
ftyk oMksnjk
143 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
NksVk mn;iqj 'kk[kk
gkml uañ 5@704] fodkl iFk]
dqlqe lkxj ds ikl] NksVk mns;iqj]
ftyk cMkSnk 391 165
144 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ujlaMk 'kk[kk
iksLV ujlaMk
rkyqdk ufM;kn] [ksMk ftyk
xqtjkr 387 345
145 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ekatyiqj 'kk[kk
Hkqry] galk ikVhZ IykaV
ozt/kke eafnj jksM] ekatyiqj]
ftyk cMkSnk 390 011
146 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
yrhiqjk 'kk[kk] iksLV yrhiqjk
rkyqdk iknjk] ftyk cMkSnk]
cMkSnk 391 440
147 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lkaljksn 'kk[kk] dey lS;n vkokl]
czkã.k Qfy;s ds ikl
iksñ vksñ lkaljksn rkyqdk djtu
ftyk cMkSnk 392 220 xqtjkr
{ks=h; dk;kZy; csyxke
148 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
,eñvkbZñlhñvkjñ 'kk[kk]
cSadlZ fDy;fjax gkml 1049@ch 2]
[kkukiqj jksM]
¼fjyk;al isVªksfy;e ds lkeus½]
frydokM+h ftyk
csyxke ¼dukZVd½ fiu 590 006
{ks=h; dk;kZy; gSnjkckn
149 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
losZ vkWQ bafM;k 'kk[kk
losZ vkWQ bafM;k dkEiysDl mIiy jksM
gSnjkckn ¼vkañ izñ½ & 500 039
150 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
xk;=huxj 'kk[kk
IykV uañ 3] xk;=huxj jksM
xk;=huxj] deZu?kkV
gSnjkckn ¼vkañizñ½ & 500 097
151 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
#nzkje 'kk[kk
xhre fo'ofo|ky; dSEil]
#nzkje xkao]
eaMy&iVkups:] ftyk&esnd
¼vka/kz izns'k½
fiu&502 329
152 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
vackyk 'kk[kk]
edku uañ 6&4@3] JhjkeqykiYyh]
xzke&vackyk]
eaMy&deykiqj] ftyk&djheuxj]
vka/kz izns'k&505 102
153 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
vUukje 'kk[kk
edku uañ 4&67] eSa jksM] xzke iapk;r
ds lkeus]
xzke&vuuje] eaMy&ekadksaMqj]
ftyk&djheuxj]
vka/kz izns'k&505 469
{ks=h; dk;kZy; fot;okMk154 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
eaxyfxjh 'kk[kk
Øñ 1&643] igyk ry
xkSre cq) jksM ¼esbZu jksM½]
eaxyfxjh] xqaVwj ftyk] vkañ izñ
fiu 522 503
155 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
esMsiYyh 'kk[kk
Mksj Øñ 2&39] guqeku eafnj ds fudV
esMsiYyh 507158 eqafnxksaMk eaMy]
[kEee ftyk] vka/kz izns'k
156 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
cloiqje 'kk[kk
uañ 01&22] dqMqew# cktkj
cloiqje] 507318] fpardkuh eaMy
[kEee ftyk] vka/kz izns'k
157 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dksMohMw 'kk[kk
dksMohMw xkao] ,MykikMw eaMy]
xqaVw# 522529 vka/kz izns'k
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5237
158 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lrsuiYyh 'kk[kk
Mksj uañ 18&7&36] lw;kZ Vkdht jksM]
Mkd o eaMy lrsuiYyh 522 403]
xqaVq# ftyk] vka/kz izns'k
159 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
nsojkiYyh 'kk[kk
Mksj Øñ 4&131 esbu jksM] dksOow# jksM]
nsojkiYyh 534 313
if'pe xksnkojh ftyk
vka/kz izns'k
160 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ek#Vs# 'kk[kk
Mksj uañ 5&91] Mkd o xkao ek#Vs#
yk i xwMse ikydksy jksM] isuqea=k eaMy]
ek#Vs# 534 122] iñ xksnkojh
ftyk vka/kz izns'k
161 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
taxkjsM~MhxwMse 'kk[kk
dksOow: jksM] dsñ dsñ dkEiysDl]
njoktk Øñ 5&2&29@2
xaxkuEek eafnj ds fudV]
taxkjsM~MhxwMse 534447
vka/kz izns'k
162 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
fiMqxqjkYyk 'kk[kk
Mksj Øñ 7&4&07] foXus'kojk
dkEiysDl] esbZu jksM]
Mkd o eaMy fiMqxqjkYyk 522 413
xqaVw# ftyk vka/kz izns'k
163 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
fr#ow# 'kk[kk
Mksj uañ 5&147] dkyst jksM]
cksl ckseek ds ikl]
MsoyiesaV CykWd] fr#ow# 521 235
d`".kk ftyk fot;okMk
164 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
cq/kokj ekdsZV iñ xksnkojh ftyk 'kk[kk
Mksj uañ 16&2&207] ih ih jksM]
cq/kokj ekdsZV]
Hkheoje 534 201] iñ xksnkjh ftyk]
vka/kz izns'k
165 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ujlkjko isV 'kk[kk
Mksj Øñ 9&9&44] d LVªhV vjaMy isV]
ujlkjko isV 522 601 xqaVw#
ftyk vka/kz izns'k
{ks=h; dk;kZy;
166 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
foÙkh; lekos'ku 'kk[kk] yDdoje
eSu jksM] xzke yDdoje
pksMoje&eaMye
ftyk fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke ¼vkñizñ½
fiu 531075
167 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
isanwrhZ 'kk[kk] 80 QhV jksM] jRufxjh uxj
fpUuk
eqf'kfjokMk] isanqrhZ ftyk fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
vkañizñ fiu&530051
168 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
psiyk mIikMk 'kk[kk
xzke ,oa iksLV&psiyk mIikMk
HkheqfuiVue eaMy
ftyk fo'kk[kkiV~V.ke
vkañizñ fiu&531163
169 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
bZrkdksVk 'kk[kk
xzke ,oa iksLV bZrkdksVk
jkmyikyse eaMy
ftyk&iwoZ xksnkojh
vkañizñ 533238
{ks=h; dk;kZy; flyhxM+h 170 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
Hkkyqdk jksM 'kk[kk
elkyng cktkj] iksLV&dfj;kyh
ftyk ekynk ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 732125
171 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
dfyaxiksax 'kk[kk
Fkkuk njk] iksLV dfyaxiksax]
ftyk% nktZfyax 734401
¼if'pe caxky½
172 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
fc'uqiqj'kk[kk] xzke o iksLV fc'uqiqj
ok;k% jkeiqjgkV ftyk% chjHkwe
fiu 731244 ¼iñcañ½
173 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
cksyiqj 'kk[kk
fe'ku dEikm.M]
iksLV cksyiqj] ftyk chjHkwe
¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 731204
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5238
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
174 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
Mkcxzke 'kk[kk
558] lw;kZ uxj]
1 uañ Mkcxzke flyhxqM+h
ftyk nkthZfyax ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 734006
175 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
nkthZfyax 'kk[kk
5] MkW ,l ,e nkl jksM]
vkuan iSysl gksVy] ¼igyh eafty½
iksLV o ftyk nkthZfyax
¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 734101
176 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
ns'kca/kq ikMk 'kk[kk] flyhxqM+h
ns'kca/kq jksM] iksLV% flyhxqM+h Vkmu
ftyk nkthZfyax] fiu 734004
177 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
/kwixMh 'kk[kk
ch vkj dkWEIysDl] igyh eafty]
QykdkaVk jksM] /kwixMh]
ftyk tykibZxqMh ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu% 735210
178 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
xaxk/kkjh 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV% xaxk/kkjh]
ftyk eqf'kZnkckn ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu% 742121
179 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
xaxVksd 'kk[kk
,uñ,pñ 31] ,e th ekxZ]
xaxVksd ¼flfDde½
fiu 737101
180 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
xhftax 'kk[kk]
isek;kaXRls ekWusLVjh] xhftax cktkj]
vksYM vík fcfYMax]
xhftax] ftyk if'pe flfDde
fiu% 737111
181 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
tyikbZxqMh 'kk[kk]
240@, igyh eafty] VSEiy LVªhV]
ftyk% tyikbZxqMh ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 735101
182 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
tksjFkax 'kk[kk] tksjFkax cktkj]
iksLV u;k cktkj] tksjFkax
¼nf{k.k flfDde½
fiu 737 121
183 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
dqany 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV dqany
ftyk eqf'kZnkckn ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 731246
184 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
dquqjh 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV% dquqjh
ftyk% chjHkwe ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu 731252
185 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
ekjxzke 'kk[kk]
xzke o iksLV ekjxzke]
ftyk chjHkwe ¼if'pe caxky½]
fiu 731 217
186 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
eaxu 'kk[kk] eaxu cktkj
eaxu ftyk mÙkjh flfDde]
fiu 737 116
187 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
ukjk;.kiqj 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV ukjk;.kiqj
ok;k jkeiqjgkV] ftyk chjHkwe
¼if'pe caxky½
fiu% 731 239
188 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
iqfyank 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV iqfyank
ftyk eqf'kZnkckn ¼if'pe caxky½]
fiu 742 121
189 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
jkeiqjgkV 'kk[kk
xzke o iksLV jkeiqjgkV
ftyk chjHkwe ¼if'pe caxky½
fiu% 731 224
190 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
jkuhiwy 'kk[kk]
,u ,p 31,] jkuhiwy
ftyk iwoZ flfDde
fiu&737 138
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5239
191 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
lsafFk;k 'kk[kk] ut#y bLyke lkjuh]
iksLV% lsafFk;k] ftyk chjHkwe ¼iñcañ½
fiu 731 234
192 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
'kkYnkeksj 'kk[kk
iksLV% ,e Mh cktkj]
ftyk chjHkwe ¼iñcañ½
fiu 731 127
193 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
flyhxqMh eq[; 'kk[kk]
d`".kk gkml] fgy dkVZ jksM]
flyhxqMh ¼iñcañ½
fiu 734 001
194 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
flaxVkWe 'kk[kk] esu jksM]
iksLV flaxVkWe] ftyk iwohZ flfDde
fiu 737 134
195 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
floMh 'kk[kk]
U;w naxyikMk]
u;k cl LVS.M ds ikl]
iksLV floMh fiu 731101
ftyk chjHkwe ¼iñcañ½
196 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
flfDde ef.kiky baLVhV~;wV
vkWQ VSDukykWth 'kk[kk ¼,l,evkbZVh½
ekthrkj] ftyk iwohZ flfDde]
fiu 737 132
197 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
flyhxqMh egkdqek ifj"kn]
¼,l,eh½ flyhxqMh 'kk[kk
flyhxqMh] ¼iñcañ½] fiu% 734001
198 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
flyhxqMh bULVhV~;wV vkWQ VsDukykWth]
,l vkbZ Vh 'kk[kk] lycjh] lqduk]
flyhxqMh] ftyk nkthZfyax ¼iñcañ½
fiu% 734 225
199 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
QkykdkVk 'kk[kk] lqHkk"k iYyh]
QkykdkVk]
ftyk% tyikbZxqMh ¼iñcañ½]
fiu 735 211
200 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
ckyqj?kkV 'kk[kk] izeksn Hkou]
yhyk ykWt ds lkeus] ukjk;.kiqj]
ckyqj?kkV]
ftyk nf{k.k nhuktiqj ¼iñcañ½]
fiu 733 101
201 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
lsok 'kk[kk] lq[klnu]
37] fcfiu iky ljuh]
dkWyst ikMk] flyhxqMh ¼iñcañ½
fiu 734 001
202 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;]
lfpu lkSjo vikVZesaV]
v'kqrks"k eq[kthZ jksM]
dkWyst ikMk] flyhxqMh ¼iñcañ½]
fiu 734 001
{ks=h; dk;kZy; xksok
203 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
dkjeksuk 'kk[kk
lkydsVs] iksñ dkjeksuk] xksok
nf{k.k xksok
fiu 403 717
204 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
QksaMk?kkV 'kk[kk
342@2 ch mxkbZ dkWEIysDl]
cktkj iFk] ftyk flU/kqnqxZ
egkjk"Vª] fiu 406 601
205 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
nkiksyh 'kk[kk
,p ,.M Mh gkÅl] Qsafeyh ekWy jksM]
rkñ nkiksyh] ftyk jRukfxjh]
fiu 415 712
206 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
lsok 'kk[kk] ekWMy jsflMsUlh 'kkWi uañ 6] 7] 8
lkafrust ppZ jksM] lkafrust
i.kth ftyk% mÙkj xksok] fiu 403001
207 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
dqojHkkc 'kk[kk]
Jh leFkZ d`ik] iMosokMh ehjtksfy]
xzke dqokjHkko] ftyk jRukfxjh
egkjk"Vª] fiu 415 639
208 ;wfu;u c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
xqgkxj 'kk[kk]
xqgkxj ,l Vh fMiks ds ikl
iksLV ,oa rkyqdk xqgkxj
ftyk jRukfxjh] egkjk"Vª] fiu 415 703
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
5240
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;
209 ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fr:ouariqje
dkarywj 'kk[kk] dksfoydMoq] 210@8]
lgk;fxjh iksñ vkñ bMqDdh
ftyk&620 685
210- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ikyk 'kk[kk] ewUl Hkou]
fefu flfoy LVs'ku ds lkeus]
ikyk 686 557&dksV~V;e ftyk]
211- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iksUdUue] 'kk[kk ¼ok"kwj½
oV~VdkV~Vq Hkou] dsfo,e,l taD'ku]
,u,p] iksUdqUue]
220&ftyk dksV~V;e fiu&686 575
212- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
oSde 'kk[kk] df.k;aijafcy] vkdsZM]
ofy; doy cl LVS.M] oSde]
ftyk dksV~V;e fiu&686 141
213- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
v:j 'kk[kk]
Mksj Øñ VII@896&fc] 47 ,uñ,pñthñ
ihñ,pñ lsUVj vkSj xzkeh.k dk;kZy; ds ikl
v#jvkyIiq"ik]
214- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dkfrZdiYyh 'kk[kk]
dksPpqijafcy Hkou] vkyIiq"ik]
fiu&690 516
215- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dkMqrqjFkh ¼oSde½ 'kk[kk]
igyh eafty] dqekj dkWEIysDl]
lsUVªy dkWEIysDl] dqMqr:Fkh]
oSde rkyqd dksV~V;e ftyk
fiu&686 604
216- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqfefy 'kk[kk]
nqckbZ dkWEIySDl] ,uñ,pñ 220
dqfefy fiu&685 509
217- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
oafMIisfj;kj 'kk[kk] t;k Hkou]
dsñdsñ jksM]
ofMIisfj;kj iksñvkñ] bMqDdh ftyk
fiu&685 533
218- ;wfu;u cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqekjiqje 'kk[kk ¼fr:ouariqje½]
nsoh LdSUl~ Hkou] dqekjiqje]
esfMdy dkWyst] iksñ vkñ 7-
fr:ouariqje fiu&695 011
jktHkk"kk fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10 ¼4½ ds varxZr vf/klwfpr dh tkus
okyh 'kk[kkvksa dh lwph
fnYyh {ks=
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
219- e;wj fogkj Qsl III&2442
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
IykWV uañ 7 ,oa 8] vxzoky Vkoj
MhMh,] 'kkWfiax dsUnz]
dksaMyh ?kjkSyh] e;wj fogkj
Qsl&III] fnYyh&110 096
220- ukaxyksbZ] fnYyh&2443
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
,&20] v/;kid uxj
ut+Qx<+ jksM
guqeku eafnj ds lkeus
ukaxyksbZ]
fnYyh&110 041
221- esgjkSyh] fnYyh&2444
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
893&,@8] Hkwry] eSu cktkj
esgjkSyh
fnYyh&110 030
222- }kjdk lsDVj&20] 2445
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
th&4] Hkwry]
euh"k gkbZ Iyktk
IykWV uañ 25
lsok dsUnz] lsDVj 20] }kjdk
ubZ fnYyh&110 075
223- v'kksd fogkj&2259
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
,&6 v'kksd fogkj
Qsl&II
ukFkZ fMfLVªDV
ubZ fnYyh&110 052
224- ekS;Z bUDyso
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
29] 30] 31 dsñihñ CykWd
isflfQd ekWy] ihre iqjk ¼osLV½
ekS;Z bUDyso
ukFkZ osLV fMfLVªDV
ubZ fnYyh 110 034
225- utQx<+&2261
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
vkjñ tsM&15 Hkwry
iqjkuk jks'kuiqjk
utQx<+
osLV fMfLVªDV
ubZ fnYyh&110 043
{ks=h; dk;kZy; dk uke Øñ lañ 'kk[kk@dk;kZy; dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5241
226- vkuUn fogkj&2356
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
th&1] IykWV uañ 11
psru dEIySDl
III lwjt ey fogkj
yksdy 'kkWfiax lsUVj
vkuUn fogkj
ubZ fnYyh&110 092
227- eq.Mdk&2357
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
[kljk uañ 428@4
xkWo% eq.Mdk
fnYyh 110 041
228- eghiky iqj&2358
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
,&7] czgeiq= gkÅl
fnYyh&110 037
229- lapkj Hkou
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
lapkj ,oa lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh foHkkx]
lapkj Hkou
lapkj ea=ky;] Hkkjr ljdkj
v'kksd jksM
ubZ fnYyh&110 001
230- bZLV vkWQ dSyk'k 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
lh&36] jktk glu ekxZ
bZLV vkWQ dSyk'k
ubZ fnYyh&110 048
231- e;wj fogkj Qst+&II 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
23 izFke ry
d`".kk vkdsZM
,yñ,lñlhñ] e;wj fogkj Qst+&II
ubZ fnYyh&110 092
y[kuÅ {ks=
232- v;ks/;k] 2369
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
iqjkuk cl LVSaM] guqekux<h]
v;ks?;k]&224133&mñizñ
233- fp=dwV /kke ¼dohZ½&2472 bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
440@2] }kfjdkiqjh]
eankfduh jksM
iqjkuh cktkj
dohZ&mñ izñ] fiu&210205
234- xkslkbZxat&2516
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
IykV uañ 28] lnjiqj djksjk]
xkslkbZxat]
ftyk&y[kuÅ
mñ izñ] fiu&227125
235- bVkSatk&2517
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
IykV uañ 215] okMZ uañ 7
uxj iapk;r]
bVkSatk]
ftyk&y[kuÅ
mñ izñ fiu&226205
236- ykyxat&2370
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
dkdkdqat] egs'k uxj]
egs'k uxj] ykyxat
ftyk&jk;cjsyh] mñ izñ 229 206
237- egksuk&2512
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
edku uañ 533] 'ks[k Vksyk
bVkSatk&dqlhZ] egksuk
ftyk&y[kuÅ] mñ izñ&227205
238- eÅ vkbek&2471
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
172] LVs'ku jksM]
eÅ vkbek]
ftyk&bykgkckn
mñ izñ&212501
239- iV~Vh&2511
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
edku uañ 1] okMZ uañ 2]
flfoy ykbu] iV~Vh Vkmu]
ftyk&izrkix<+] mñ izñ&230135
240- lhrkiqj&2181
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
esu ekdsZV jksM]
lhrkiqj&273402] mñ izñ
241- lqYrkuiqj&2386
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
flfoy ykbUl]
cl jksM ds lkeus
lqYrkuiqj&228001] mñ izñ
242- izrkix<+&2362
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
pkoyk vkdsZM]
Hkaxok pwaxh] izrkix<+&230001
mñ izñ
243- tSniqj ¼ckjkcadh½&2361
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
jk;su dkEIysDl]
fl/kksj jksM]
tSniqj&225414]
ftyk&ckjkcadh mñ izñ
244- pUnkSyh&2572
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
IykV uañ 453] 'kadj flag]
vLirky ds ikl]
pUnkSyh&232104] mñ izñ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5242
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
245- ekrh&2571
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
IykV uañ 56] ekrh cktkj] jSnqvk
iYgjh]
fpugVnsok jksM] iksñ&eqjknkckn]
ekrh&225301
ftyk&ckjkcadh&mñ izñ
246- egkjkxat&2557
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
989] 'kkL=h uxj]
uxjikfydk ifj"kn]
egkjktxat] 273303&mñ izñ
247- egsok iV~Vh&2556
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
46Mh] banyiqj jksM]
iqfyl pkSdh ds lkeus]
,eih pkSjkgk] uSuh]
bykgkckn&211007&mñ izñ
esjB {ks=
248- Hkkfu;kokyk&2503
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
vk'khZokn Hkou] nqxkZ pkSd]
_f"kds'k jksM]
Hkkfu;kokyk iksLV&MksbZokyk]
ftyk nsgjknwu&248198
249- tykyiqj&2467
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad
tgkj ohj eafnj ds ikl]
[kSj jksM] dksbZy uglh]
xzke tykyiqj&202 001]
250- dk'khiqj
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2217
pkeq.Mk dkWEiySDl]
jkeuxj jksM] dk'khiqj] fiu &
244713]
ftyk & m|e flag uxj
¼mÙkjk[k.M½
251- d.kZ iz;kx
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2529
gksVy ikdZnhi] iksñvkñ xk¡/khuxj]
d.kZ iz;kx]
ftyk & pekSyh] fiu & 246444]
x<+oky]
mÙkjk[k.M
252- jkeuxj
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2216
baxoky Vkoj]
,eñihñ dkWyst QhYM ds lkeus
jkeuxj] fiu & 244715]
ftyk & uSuhrky ¼mÙkjk[k.M½
253- #nziz;kx
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2530
u;s cl LVS.M ds ikl]
#nziz;kx]
ftyk & #nziz;kx]
mÙkjk[k.M] fiu & 246171
254- LVsfM;e jksM] cjsyh
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2365
ig&5@15] LVsfM;e jksM+]
MhMh iqje]
cjsyh] fiu & 243005
255- lqíksokyk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2305
23 xzkñ lqíksokyk]
iksñvkñ >k>jk rkyqd
fodkl uxj]
CykWd uxj] CykWd lgliqj]
nsgjknwu] fiu & 248007
256- Jhuxj & x<+oky
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2528
lat; VkWdht fcfYMax]
Jhuxj & x<+oky]
cnzhukFk eSu jksM]
iksñvkñ ikWM+h x<+oky]
mÙkjk[k.M
257- fodkl uxj
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2502
c[rkoj flag ekxZ]
eq[; cktkj] fodkl uxj]
ftyk & nsgjknwu] fiu & 248198
iVuk {ks=
258- iwf.kZ;k 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
e/kqcuh cktkj lgjlk jksM+]
iwf.kZ;k] fiu & 854301
ftyk & iwf.kZ;k] fcgkj
259- cksfjax jksM 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
U;w ikVfyiq= dkWyksuh]
lhñvkbZñ,lñ,Qñ dk;kZy; ds ikl
cksfjax jksM]
iVuk] fiu & 800013
ftyk & iVuk]
fcgkj
260- floku 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
okMZ lañ 16]
LVs'ku jksM ckcwfu;k eksM+]
floku] fiu & 841226
ftyk & floku] fcgkj
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5243
261- xksikyxat 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
pwuk xyh ¼dsujk c®d ds ikl½
tknoiqj jksM+
xksikyxat] fiu & 841428
ftyk & xksikyxat] fcgkj
262- fcgkj 'kjhQ 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
jkejkt dkWEiysDl]
jkepUnziqjh]
fcgkj'kjhQ] fiu & 803101
ftyk & ukyUnk] fcgkj
263- e/kqcuh 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
okVlu bUVj dkWyst ds ihNs]
vLirky jksM] e/kqcuh]
fiu & 847211
ftyk & e/kqcuh] fcgkj
264- Nijk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
guqeku eafnj ds ikl]
ekSuk xksyk jksM+] Nijk]
fiu & 841301
ftyk & lkju] fcgkj
265- csxwljk; 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
';ke dkef'kZ;y dkWEiySDl]
dpgjh jksM+] csxwljk;]
fiu & 851101
ftyk & csxwljk;
266- dgyxk¡o 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
uo psruk dsUnz Fkkuk jksM+]
dgyxk¡o jksM+]
fiu & 813203
ftyk & Hkkxyiqj] fcgkj
267- cDlj 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
uonqxkZ dkWEiySDl dysfDVª;V jksM]
vEcsndj pkSd]
cDlj] fiu & 802103
ftyk & cDlj] fcgkj
268- vkjk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
egkjk.kk izrki uxj]
U;w iqfyl ykbZu jksM+]
vkjk] fiu & 802301
ftyk & Hkkstiqj
269- fguw] jk¡ph 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
fguw] jk¡ph 'kk[kk]
vkbZysDl f'kokaxh dkWEiySDl ds ihNs]
esu jksM+ fguw] jk¡ph]
fiu & 834002
ftyk & jk¡ph] fcgkj
270- lkfgcxat 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
lkfgcxat 'kk[kk]
Vkmu Fkkuk] pkSd cktkj ds ikl]
'kf'k Hkw"k.k jksM+] lkgscxat]
fiu & 816109
ftyk & lkgscxat] fcgkj
271- ljk;<syk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
ljk;<syk 'kk[kk]
okMZ lañ 28 eSu jksM+] ljk;<syk
/kuckn ftyk & /kuckn]
fcgkj
272- pkbZcklk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
,yñ Mhñ gkml] veyk Vksyk lnj
cktkj LVs'ku jksM+]
pkbZcklk] fiu & 833201]
ftyk & if'pe flagHkwe] fcgkj
273- lkdph 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
66] isUukj jksM+ lkdph]
te'ksniqj] fiu & 831001]
ftyk & iwoZ flagHkwe] fcgkj
274- dksMjek 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
IykWV lañ 3409] okMZ lañ 6]
iatkc gksVy ds ikl] iVuk jk¡ph
jksM] dksMjek]
fiu & 825410] ftyk & dksMjek]
fcgkj
275- flejh 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
izFke ry flejh xksfoUniqj]
flejh Fkkuk ds ikl iksLV vkWfQl
dalh flejh]
ftyk & njHkaxk] fiu & 847106]
fcgkj
276- f'k{kk Hkou 'kk[kk]
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
fcgkj jktHkk"kk ifj"kn~ dSEil]
vkpk;Z f'koiwtu lgk; iFk lSniqj]
ftyk & iVuk] fiu & 800004
277- yksgjnxk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
izFke ry] ,eñ,eñ ekdsZV jkuk pkSd]
yksgjnxk] ftyk & yksgjnxk]
fiu & 835302
278- gkthiqj 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
izFke ry ,lñ,lñ dkWEiySDl]
tkSgjh cktkj gkthiqj]
oS'kkyh] fcgkj] fiu & 844101
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5244
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
279- Hkxokuiqj 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
izFke ry]
xksiky ekdsZV] Hkxokuiqj pV~Vh]
jsok jksM+] eqt¶Qjiqj] fiu &
842001
280- xksM~Mk 'kk[kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
izFke ry] okMZ lañ 6] ihji®rh jksM+]
gfV;k pkSd] xksM~Mk]
fiu & 814133] >kj[kaM
Hkksiy {ks=
281- fofn'kk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2167
IykWV uañ 60] okMZ uañ 7]
,u,p&86] cl LVS.M ds ikl]
fonh'kk] fiu & 464001
282- lhihvkjvkbZ & Hkksiky
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2171
lsUVªy ikWoj fjlpZ baLVhV~;wV]
xksfoUniqjk] Hkksiky] fiu & 460 023]
283- xksfoUniqjk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2233
6 iatkch ckx] xksfoUniqjk]
Hkksiky] fiu & 402023]
ftyk & Hkksiky
284- eaMhnhi
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2327
2&,] bfUnjk uxj] ,pbth eaMhnhi
ds lkeus]
ftyk & jk;lsu]
Hkksiy ¼e iz½] fiu & 462046
285- yky?kkVh & Hkksiky
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2413
39 tkudh uxj] xqQk eafnj jksM+]
xqQk eafnj] yky?kkVh]
Hkksiky] fiu & 462002
286- lhgksj
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2419
edku uañ 40] t;Urh dkWyksuh]
lsdMk[ksMh jksM+] lhgksj]
eñizñ] fiu & 466001
287- xqyeksgj dkWyksuh & bUnkSj
bf.M;u vksojlht+ c®d]
2415
lqHknzk gkml] 11
t; fcYMlZ dkWyksuh] lkdsr]
xqyeksgj dkWyksuh ds ikl]
bUnkSj] fiu & 452018
288
eqjokjk&dVuh
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2418
cMZLys bafXy'k Ldwy dSEil]
eqjckjk fe'ku pkSd] dVuh]
okMZ lañ 5] pUnz'ks[kj vktkn okMZ]
edku lañ436 ls 436@9dVuh]
eñizñ] fiu&483 501
289
gks'kaxkckn
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2416
IykV lañ 1 vkuUn uxj]
gks'kaxkckn] eñizñ] fiu&461 001
290
f'koiqjh
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2420
edku lañ 1326] DokVZj lañ3]
jke vkdsZM] >kalh frjkgk]
,ñchñjksM]
f'koiqjh] eñizñ& 473 551
291
eqjSuk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2417
160@3] okMZ lañ 34
,lih caXyk ds lkeus]
,eñ,lñ eqjSuk] eñizñ] fiu&476 001
292
nsokl
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2414
01- ekyok 'kgukbZ dkWEIysDl]
visDl gkLihVy ds lkeus]
fryd uxj] ,ñ chñ jksM]
nsokl] eñizñ] fiu&455 001
293
jk;x<+
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2466
izFke ry] eksnh Iyktk]
txriqj jksM] jk;x<+]
NRrhlx<+] fiu & 496 001
294
fVYMk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2323
vkjñdsñ,lñ Iyktk] [kjksjk jksM]
fVYMk] Mkd[kkuk & fuvksjk]
ftyk & jk;iqj] NRrhlx<+]
fiu & 493 114
295
ekuk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2324
}kjk xkSjh tksíkj]
ekuk dSai esu jksM]
u;ksn; DokVlZ ds lkeus]
ftyk&jk;iqj]
NRrhlx<+] fiu & 491 107
296
mrbZ
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2325
vk'kk dkWEIysDl ¼ikVu iqy½]
esu jksM] mrbZ] ftyk & nqxZ]
NRRkhlx<+] fiu & 491 107
297
/kuksjk
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2326
}kjk nkeksnj izlkn lkgw]
xzke&/kuksjk] Mkd[kkuk&guksnk]
ftyk&nqxZ] NRrhlx<+]
fiu&491 001
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5245
t;iqj {ks=
298
ciqbZ 2696
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
fVdkuk ciqbZ xzke]
ciqbZ] cksyh rglhy
lokbZ ek/kksiqj] 322023 jktLFkku
299
Vksad 2682
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
}kfjds'k] uuj ckx iSysl jksM]
Vksad&304001 jktLFkku
300
pkaniksy 2426
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
1193] mfu;kjksa dk jkLrk]
pkaniksy cktkj]
t;iqj] fiu&313324 jktLFkku
301
fo|k/kj uxj 2427
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
'kkWi ua 20&24] xzkmaM ¶yksj]
vyadkj Iyktk]
lsaVªy Likbu]
fo|k/kj uxj] 303303 jktLFkku
302
tSlyesj 2428
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
ch&453] eafnj iSysl ds lkeus]
rkft;k Vkoj ds ikl]
tSlyesj] fiu&321001 jktLFkku
303
jktlean 2429
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
ixfj;k bLVsV] ixfj;k ekdsZV]
eq[kthZ lfdZy]
jktlean] fiu&306401 jktLFkku
304
ckM+esj 2430
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
xksLokeh Vkoj]
jkW; dkWyksuh jksM]
flfoy gkWfLiVy fcfYMax]
ckM+esj] fiu&322001 jktLFkku
305
fpÙkkSMx<+ 2431
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
bukuh jslhMsalh]
HkhyokM+k jksM]
fpÙkkSM+x<+] fiu&332001 jktLFkku
306
nkSlk 2432
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
IykWV ua 1&2&3] us'kuy gkbos&11]
t;iqj vkxjk jksM]
nkSlk] fiu & 312001 jktLFkku
307
cwanh 2433
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
nsoJh dkWEIysDl]
ckbZikl jksM]
cwanh] fiu & 302023 jktLFkku
308
Hkjriqj 2434
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
fla?ky ujflag gkse]
dkyh dh cxhph ds lkeus]
ldZqyj jksM]
Hkjriqj] fiu & 344001 jktLFkku
309
lokbZ ek/kksiqj 2435
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
'kqDyk Hkou] xkso/kZu dkWyksuh]
U;w xzsu eaMh jksM]
lokbZ ek/kksiqj] fiu & 323001
jktLFkku
310
lhdj 2436
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
ckbLdksi izkbosV fyfefVM ds ikl]
'kkL=h uxj]
jkuh lrh jksM]
lhdj] fiu & 302001 jktLFkku
311
guqekux<+ 2437
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
ckck ';ke flag dkWEIysDl]
guqekux<+] fiu & 345001 jktLFkku
312
ikyh 2438
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
t; ukjk;.k O;kl dkWyksuh]
ikyh] fiu & 335512
313
egok 2540
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
iqfyl LVs'ku ds lkeus] t;iqj
vkxjk jksM]
egok]
nkSlk] fiu & 321608 jktLFkku
314
fuokbZ 2539
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
uxj ikfydk
t;iqj dksVk jksM tekr
fuokbZ] fiu & 304021 jktLFkku
315
ykylksV 2541
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
vukt eaMh ds ikl]
lokbZ ek/kksiqj jksM]
ykylksV] fiu & 303503 jktLFkku
316
iq"dj 2542
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
cl LVSaM jksMos ds ikl
xq#}kjs ds lkeus
iq"dj&vtesj] fiu & 305022
jktLFkku
317
vkcq jksM 2330
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
okMZ uañ 3 euiqj] ekmaV jksM]
vkcq jksM]
fljksgh] fiu & 307206
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5246
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
318
uhejkuk 2307
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
'kkWi uañ 32] baMfLVª;y ,fj;k]
uhejkuk]
vyoj] fiu & 301706 jktLFkku
319
ckanhdqbZ 2607
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
izFke ry] iqtkjh dk dVyk 16 jktk
cktkj]
xYlZ dkWyst ds ihNs]
ckanhdqbZ] fiu & 303313 jktLFkku
320 jktx<+ 2608
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
[kljk 551@0-5 ,fDll cSad
,lchchts ds chp]
jktx<+] ftyk vyoj]
fiu & 301408 jktLFkku
321
ckalokM+k 2698
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
rglhy vkWfQl ds lkeus ckalokM+k]
t;iqj jksM eksgu dkWyksuh]
ckalokM+k 327001 jktLFkku
322
esgjk tkVwokl 2595
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
cl LVSaM iVokj?kj ds ikl]
[kljk uañ 108]
esgjk tkVwokl]
>a>quq] fiu & 333036 jktLFkku
323
ukxkSj 2893
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
xkaèh pkSd
jsyos LVs'ku
ukxkSj&341001 jktLFkku
324
vtesj jksM 2790
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
125] Kku fogkj
U;w jksek ufl±x gkse]
Mhlh,e] vtesj jksM] jktLFkku
325
jksgrk 2597
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
5 oS".kks fogkj vkxjk gkbos
jksgrk
vkxjk 282001 mñ izñ
326
fdjkoyh 2538
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
d`f"k izlkj Hkou ds ikl
ckbZikl jksM
fdjkoyh
vkxjk 283122 mñ izñ
327
,rekn~iqj 2674
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
Hkhe ekdsZV cjgu jksM
,rekn~iqj
vkxjk 283203 mñ izñ
328
vNusjk 2329
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
2414 vxzoky fcfYMax
xzke vNusjk]
vkxjk mñ izñ
329
Qrsgkckn 2895
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
iqfyl LVs'ku ds ikl]
lnj cktkj]
Qrsgkckn&283111
330
fldanjk jksM 2894
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
fugky dkWEiysDl] lsDVj 5]
mÙkj izns'k vkokl fodkl dkWyksuh
fldanjk jksM]
ftyk&vkxjk&282007 mñ izñ
331
n;ky ckx 2911
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
8@30 dkS'ky iqj] ckbZ ikl jksM]
n;ky ckx
vkxjk&282005 mñ izñ
332
fcpiqjh 2916
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
vkxjk fcpiqjh eSu jksM]
LVsV cSad vkWQ bafM;k ds lkeus]
fcpiqjh] ftyk&vkxjk&283105
mñ izñ
333
lat; Iysl 2912
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
'kkWi uañ 1&10 xzkmaM ¶yksj
54 izrhd Vkoj
,pMh,,lh cSad ds lkeus]
lat; Iysl&vkxjk&282002 mñ izñ
334
dhFke 2331
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
dhFke
ftyk&vkxjk mñ izñ
335
Qjg 2611
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
dSyk'k uxj ckbZikl
Qjg ftyk&eFkqjk 28112 mñ izñ
336
xksdqy 2613
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
uUn}kj]
xksdqy
ftyk&eFkqjk 281303 mñ izñ
337
jk;k 2614
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
195 jsyos LVs'ku ds lkeus jk;k]
eFkqjk 281204 mñ izñ
338
xksoèZu 2697
bf.M;u vksojlht+ cSad]
dqat fcgkjh lsok lnu
jkèk dqaM jksM ]
cl LVSaM ds lkeus
xksoèZu&281502 mñ izñ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa
'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5247
339
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ckadk]
dVkfj;k jksM] ckadk
iksLV&ckadk]
ftyk&ckadk ¼fcgkj½
340
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
'ks[kiqjk
pkanuh pkSd] flusek jksM
iksñ 'ks[kiqjk ftyk&'ks[kiqjk ¼fcgkj½
341
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tEgksj
,ñ ,uñ jksM tEgksj
iksñ tEgksj]
ftyk&vkSjaxkckn ¼fcgkj½
342
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
eksgfu;k
pkanuh pkSd
LVqvkVZ xat
iksñ eksgfu;k]
ftyk&dSewj ¼fcgkj½
343
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vadjksgk]
xzkñiksñ
vadjksgk]
ftyk% vkSjaxkckn ¼fcgkj½
344
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tgkukckn] vacsMdj pkSd] dksVZ ,fj;k]
iksñ tgkukckn]
ftyk&tgkukckn] ¼fcgkj½
345
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ohñ dsñ ,lñ ;wñ fo'ofo|ky;]
dfVjk jksM+ vkjk] iksñ&vkjk]
ftyk&Hkkstiqj ¼fcgkj½
346
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,lñ ,uñ flUgk dkWyst dSail]
iksñ vkSjaxkckn]
ftyk&vkSjaxkckn ¼fcgkj½
347
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,ñ ,eñ dkWyst]
,ñ ,eñ dkWyst dSail]
dVkjh ghy jksM]
iksñ vkjñ ,lñ x;k]
ftyk&x;k ¼fcgkj½
348
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,lñ chñ dkWyst]
,lñ chñ dkWyst fcfYMax
iksñ&idM+h ftyk&Hkkstiqj ¼fcgkj½
349
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dsñ ,yñ ,lñ dkWyst]
xkaèhuxj] uoknk]
3 uañ cl LVSaM ds ikl]
iksñ uoknk]
ftyk&uoknk ¼fcgkj½
350
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fdlku dkWyst dSail]
iksñ lksgljk;]
ftyk&ukyank ¼fcgkj½
351
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Qqyckjh 'kjhQ]
[kxkSy jksM] dkyh eafnj]
iksLV&Qqyckjh 'kjhQ
ftyk% iVuk ¼fcgkj½
352
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xaxknsoh efgyk dkWyst]
xaxknsoh efgyk dkWyst ifjlj]
dadM+ckx]
yksfg;k uxj]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
353
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iVuk fo'ofo|ky;]
iVuk dkWyst ifjlj]
v'kksd jktiFk]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
354
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Vhñihñ,lñ dkWyst]
Vhñihñ,lñ dkWyst ifjlj]
fpjS;kVkaM]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
355
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
egsUnzq] pkS/kjh ekdsZV]
egsUnzq iksLV vkWfQl ds ikl]
v'kksd jktiFk]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
356
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
uksVZMªse ,dsMeh]
,uñMhñ,ñ ifjlj]
baMfLVª;y bLVsV] esu jksM]
iksLV&ihñihñ dkWyuh]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5248
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
357
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
pkSèjh Vksyk]
txUukFk flag ysu]
iksLV&pkSèjh Vksyk]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
358
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lhñMhñ,ñ
lhñMhñ,ñ ifjlj]
jktsUnz iFk]
iVuk ¼fcgkj½
359
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fgUnh fo|kihB]
chñ,uñ>k jksM] nso?kj]
ftyk&nso?kj ¼>kj[kaM½
360
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lxek]
Mkd?kj&dVgjdyk]
ftyk&x<+ok] ¼>kj[kaM½
361
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dqjifu;k]
vkuUn cktkj] dqjifu;k]
Mkd?kj&laMs cktkj]
iz[kaM&csjeks]
ftyk&cksdkjks ¼>kj[kaM½
362
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,eth,e] cksdkjks 'kk[kk]
,eth,e Ldwy] cksdkjks] lsDVj IV]
ftyk&cksdkjks ¼>kj[kaM½
363
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,uñ jksM te'ksniqj]
fVLdks ,u xsV]
ftyk&iwohZ flagHkwe ¼>kj[kaM½
364
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xksfoUniqj]
fr:ifr dkWEiysDl] thñ Vhñ jksM] xksfoUniqj]
Mkd?kj&xksfoUniqj
ftyk&èuckn ¼>kj[kaM½
365
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
uogV~Vk]
xzke o iksñ uogV~Vk
ftyk&lgjlk ¼fcgkj½
366
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iwjc cktkj]
ftyk&lgjlk ¼fcgkj½
367
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lgjlk dkWyst]
ftyk&lgjlk ¼fcgkj½
368
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xzke ,oa iksñ vegk]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
369
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Mkd?kj&cgksjok]
ijlk Ogk;k fiijk cktkj]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
370
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lq[kklu]
Mkd?kj&Jhiqj]
Ogk;k&[kjfoV~Vk]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
371
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Mkd?kj&osygh]
Ogk;k&fueyh]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
372
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iqjSuh cktkj]
Mkd?kj&x.ks'kiqj]
ftyk&eèsiqjk ¼fcgkj½
373
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Mkd?kj&gjnh]
Ogk;k xEgfj;k]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
374
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iapk;r Hkou]
vkyeuxj]
ftyk&eèsiqjk ¼fcgkj½
375
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vk'kk iSysl]
dkyh LFkku]
ftyk&csxq ljk; ¼fcgkj½
376
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Mkd?kj&xkSjk]
xkSjk]
Ogk;k cjkSuh M~;ksjh]
ftyk&csxqljk; ¼fcgkj½
377
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
yrkSuk]
f=osuhxat]
ftyk&lqikSy ¼fcgkj½
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5249
378
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
csykjh]
Mkd?kj csykjh]
Ogk;k cqèek]
ftyk&eèsiqjk ¼fcgkj½
379
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
bljkbudyk
Mkd?kj & tnqvk iV~Vh
ftyk & e/ksiqjk ¼fcgkj½
380
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
cjkSuh] jktsUnz jksM]
ftyk & csxqljk; ¼fcgkj½
381
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vetniqj]
Mkd?kj & fi<kSyh]
ftyk & csxqljk; ¼fcgkj½
382
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
egs'k[kwaV]
ds'kjh ekdsZV]
ftyk&[kxfM;k ¼fcgkj½
383
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vyhjktiqj 'kk[kk]
20] uxj ikfydk ekxZ]
vyhjktiqj & 457887
ftyk% vyhjktiqj
e/; izns'k
384
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
>kcqvk 'kk[kk]
flVh iksLV vkWfQl ds ihNs]
galk ykWt]
>kcqvk & 457661
ftyk% >kcqvk
385
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tkeks cktkj 'kk[kk]
xzke $ iksLV% tkeks cktkj iz[kaM]
xksfj;kdksBh
vuqeaMy% egkjktxat]
ftyk% floku]
Mkd lwpdkad 841 413 ¼fcgkj½
386
lsUVªy c®d vkWQ bafM;k]
iapnsoMh 'kk[kk]
xzke$iksLV% iapnsoMh]
ftyk% xksikyxat]
Mkd lwpdkad 841 437 ¼fcgkj½
387
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Mhñ,ñohñ dkWyst] floku 'kk[kk]
Mhñ,ñohñ dkWyst ifjlj] floku]
ftyk% floku
Mkd lwpdkad 841 226 ¼fcgkj½
388
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
gluiqjk 'kk[kk
xzke% iksLV gluiqjk]
gluiqjk iqy ds ikl]
ftyk% floku]
Mkd lwpdkad 841 236 ¼fcgkj½
389
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ipy[kh 'kk[kk
xzke% iksLV ipy[kh]
Fkkuk% ukSru] ftyk% floku]
Mkd lwpdkad% 841 436 ¼fcgkj½
390
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ijlk 'kk[kk
xzke% ijlk] iksLV% ijlk] cktkj]
Fkkuk $ iz[kaM% ,dek
ftyk% lkj.k ¼Nijk½]
Mkd lwpdkad% 841 220 ¼fcgkj½
391
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
tkekiqj 'kk[kk]
xzke% tkekiqj] i=ky;% thjknsbZ]
iz[kaM% thjknsbZ]
vuqeaMy% floku]
ftyk% floku]
Mkd lwpdkad% 841 245 ¼fcgkj½
392
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
ekykfetkZ VqdM+k 'kk[kk]
tsñihñ ;wfuoflZVh dSEil]
i=ky;% Nijk
ftyk% lkj.k ¼Nijk½
Mkd lwpdkad% 841 301 ¼fcgkj½
393
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
txnEc dkWyst 'kk[kk]
txnEc dkWyst ifjlj] i=ky;% Nijk
ftyk% lkj.k ¼Nijk½
Mkd lwpdkad% 841 301 ¼fcgkj½
394
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fo|k fodkl eaMy dkWyst 'kk[kk]
dkWyst dkWEiysDl]
isMk] eM+xko] xksok 403 601
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5250
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
395
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
lsaV tsfo;j dkWyst 'kk[kk]
vYVhuks] Egkilk]
ftyk% mRrj xksok]
xksok 403507
396
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dyaxqV 'kk[kk]
vyxjoh jhVªhV]
iksjckoknnq] dyaxqV] cjMh>
ftyk% mRrj xksok]
xksok 403 516
397
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
uosyh 'kk[kk]
dksyeksM v'kh"k fcfYMax]
dkjokj eMxkao jksM] uosyhe]
lkylsV] ftyk% nf{k.k xksok]
xksok 403 707
398
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,uvkjvkbZ 'kk[kk]
nkeksnj fcfYMax]
xkseard fudsru fcfYMax ds cktq esa]
LVs'ku ekxZ] eMxkao 403 601
lkylsV] ftyk% nf{k.k xksok]
399- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
,ñihñ,eñlhñ 'kk[kk]
d`f"k mRikn cktkj lfefr ifjlj
csfr;k&845438
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k
Qksu% 06254243608
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
400- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
cjoy 'kk[kk]
iksLV% cxgk]
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k&845301
Qksu% 06251227750
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
401- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
puifV;k 'kk[kk]
iksLV% puifV;k]
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k&845438
Qksu% 06254266139
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
402- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
nyir folquiqj 'kk[kk]
iksLV% nyir folquiqj]
ok;k iapidMh]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845427
Qksu% 06250282233
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
403- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
nsokiqj 'kk[kk]
iksLV% iapidjh]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845427
Qksu% 06250250133
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
404- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Madu gksLihVy 'kk[kk]
Madu gksLihVy ifjlj]
jDlkSy]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845305
Qksu% 06255220963
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
405- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xksjk 'kk[kk]
'kuhpjh pkSd] ok;k ykSfj;k]
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k&845543
Qksu% 06254254243
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
406- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
da/kokfy;k 'kk[kk]
LFkku da/kokfy;k]
iksLV% cxkgh]
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k&845106
Qksu% 06256264463
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
407- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dsgqfu;k 'kk[kk]
gjfn;k pkSd] ujdfV;kxat]
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k&845455
Qksu% 06253242028
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
408- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
dslfj;k 'kk[kk]
CykWd jksM%
iksLV% dslfj;k
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845412
Qksu% 06257269875
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5251
409- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
iVuh 'kk[kk]
LFkku + iksLV% jkex<ok]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845433
Qksu% 06255233714
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
410- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Qsugkjk 'kk[kk]
LFkku + iksLV% Qsugkjk]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845420
Qksu% 06259277153
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
411-
lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
fljhuxj 'kk[kk]
iksLV% Mqejh cktkj]
ftyk% if'peh pEikj.k&845452
Qksu% 06254224322
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
412- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
rkSykgka 'kk[kk]
LFkku + iksLV% jkeuxj]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845105
Qksu% 062596224073
bZ&esy% bmmoti [email protected]
413- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vxz.kh ftyk dk;kZy;] iwohZ pEikj.k]
cgqvk Vky] eksfrgkjh]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845401
Qksu% 06252232793
bZ&esy% [email protected]
414- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
vxz.kh ftyk dk;kZy;] if'peh pEikj.k]
yky cktkj] csfr;k
ftyk% if'peh pEikj.k&845438
Qksu% 06254242311] QSDl% 06254232261
bZ&esy% [email protected]
415- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
{ks=h; dk;kZy;]
cgqvk Vky] eksfrgkjh]
ftyk% iwoZ pEikj.k&845401
Qksu% 06252232448
bZ&esy%
416- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
xks<ok 'kk[kk]
LFkku + iksLV% xks<ok]
ftyk% iwohZ pEikj.k
417- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k]
Qrsgiqj 'kk[kk]
ePNjxkaok
ftyk% if'pe pEikj.k
418- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
vfCcxsjs 'kk[kk Jh Ldank dkEiysDl]
^,Q* Økl] vfCcxsjs esu jksM] vfCcxsjs]
csaxyw: & 560 090
419- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
cUusj?kV~Vk 'kk[kk] 383@1,] gqfyekow]
cUusj?kV~Vk jksM]
csaxyw: & 560 076
420- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
,pñ,lñvkjñ ys vkmV 'kk[kk
uañ 395] 10oha esu] 7oka lsDVj]
eqfUu;Iik dkWEiysDl ds ihNs]
,pñ,lñvkjñ ys vkmV]
csaxyw: & 560 102
421- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
tjxugYyh 'kk[kk
uañ1] 1 ØkWl jktho xka/kh jksM]
tjxugYyh ¼tsñihñ uxj½]
csaxyw: & 560 078
422- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
t;uxj IX CYkkWd 'kk[kk]
vkjñtsñ vkdsZM] uañ 1029@41]
27oha ^,* esu] 100 QhV fjax jksM]
9oka CykWd] t;uxj]
csaxyw: & 560 041
423- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dsEikiqjk gsCcky 'kk[kk 26 ,oa 29]
vkjñ,lñ dkWEiysDl] vkatus;k VsEiy LVªhV]
dsEikiqjk] csaxyw: & 560 024
424- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dksfMxsgYyh 'kk[kk] uañ 20]
dsEisxkSMk uxj jksM] fo:ikD'kiqjk]
VsyhdkWe ldZy ds ikl] fo|kj.;kiqjk iksLV]
dksfMxsgYyh]
csaxyw: & 560 097
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5252
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
425- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
efFkdsjs 'kk[kk
907@6] Jh dkWEiysDl] ,e bZ ,l fjax jksM]
eqR;ky uxj]
csaxyw: & 560 054
426- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
vkjñVhñ uxj 'kk[kk uañ 9] MhñvkjñIyk>k]
fnUuwj esu jksM] csaxyw: & 560 034
427- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
fot;uxj 'kk[kk
Jh d`".kk] uañ 29] 1 yh eathy esu jksM]
,e lh ys vkmV] fot;uxj]
csaxyw: & 560 040
428- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
;syadk 'kk[kk
98 ,oa 99 ,y vkbZ th] osadVs'ojk dkWEiysDl]
707] IV Qst] xoesZUV Ldwy ds ikl]
;syadk U;w VkÅu]
csaxyw: & 560 064
429- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ppZ vkWQ lkmFk bafM;k 'kk[kk]
ppZ vkWQ lkmFk bafM;k]
dkSUlhy QkWj pkbZYM dsvj lsUVj]
csaxyw:] 26] ykosyh jksM]
csaxyw: & 560001
430- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lsUVªy flYd cksMZ 'kk[kk] lh ,l ch dkWEiysDl]
ch Vh ,e ys vkmV eMhokyk]
csaxyw: & 560 068
431- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lksfQ;k gkbZ Ldwy 'kk[kk] 47 iSysl jksM]
csaxyw: & 560001
432- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
fofM;k ¼bafM;k½ fyfeVsM 'kk[kk] csaxyw: 8@9]
ekbZy] rqedwj jksM]
csaxyw: & 560 073
433- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
bafM;u baLVhV~;wV vkWQ gkjfVdYpj jhlpZ]
¼vkbZ vkbZ ,p vkj½ 'kk[kk]
ysd iksLV] gslj?kV~Vk 560 089
csaxyw: xzkeh.k ftyk
434- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
e.M;k 'kk[kk uañ 5] 28@1121@3] rhljk esu jksM]
v'kksd uxj] e.M;k]
e.M;k ftyk&571401
435- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
rqedwj 'kk[kk] fot; dkWEiysDl]
lkses'ojiwje] esu jksM]
rqedwj 572102
436- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
nÙkxYyh 'kk[kk uañ 22@23] dudnkl uxj]
usrkth ldZy ,oa Mcy jksM] nÙkxYyh]
eSlwj 570023
437- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
gksldksVs 'kk[kk] uañ 211] ukxns VsEiy ds ikl]
cl LVS.M jksM]
gksldksVs 562114
438- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
dudiqjk 'kk[kk] jkeuxj ftyk
602@655] ,eñthñ jksM]
jsUt QkjsLV vkWQhl ds lkeus]
dudiqjk 562117
439- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lsUVªy lsjhdYi Vsªfuax ,aM fjlpZ bfULV~P;qV
¼lh ,l Vh vkj vkbZ½ 'kk[kk]
eSlwj] ekuanokMh jksM] Jhjkeiqj]
eSlwj 570 008
440- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
lsaV vykWf'k;l dkWyst 'kk[kk]
eSaxyqj]ykbZV gkÅl fgy]
eSaxyqj 575003
441- lsUVªy cSad vkWQ bafM;k
efMdsjh 'kk[kk uañ 115@81,] CykWd uañ 2] ry eafty
xkSyhchMh] dksfguwj jksM] efMdsjh 571201
flafMdsV c®d] jktHkk"kk izHkkx] iz/kku dk;kZy;% ef.kiky&576104
442- flafMdsV cSad
gq.klwj 'kk[kk
#3739@1
chñ,eñckbZ ikl jksM
gq.klwj
ftyk % eSlwj
jkT; % eSlwj
fiu % 571 105
443- flafMdsV cSad
fl)kFkZ uxj 'kk[kk
#147@13
esu jksM
fl)kFkZ dkWEiysDl
fl)kFkZ uxj
ftyk % eSlwj
jkT; % eSlwj
fiu % 570 011
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5253
444- flafMdsV cSad
vkn'kZ uxj 'kk[kk
Mh&27&28] jktu ckcw jksM
vkn'kZ uxj
jkT; % fnYyh
fiu % 110 033
445- flafMdsV cSad
ekWMy Vkmu 'kk[kk
'kadj VkWolZ
ds&1@1 ekWMy VkWmu&III
iksLV vkWfQl ds ikl
jkT; % fnYyh
fiu % 110 009
446- flafMdsV cSad
fgEeruxj 'kk[kk
jru lkxj dkWEysDl
lgdkjh ftapj jkLrk
Nkifj;k jksM
fgEeruxj
ftyk % lcjdkaBk
jkT; % xqtjkr
fiu % 383 001
447- flafMdsV cSad
ckeS;k 'kk[kk
C/o xzke iapk;r
dfeVh gky
ckeS;k rkyqd
ftyk % ikVu
jkT; % xqtjkr
448- flafMdsV cSad
ikyuiqj 'kk[kk
1]2]3 ,pñdsñ VkWolZ
guqeku VsdMh
vkcw gkbos] ikyuiqj
ftyk % cukldkaBk
jkT; % xqtjkr
fiu % 385 001
449- flafMdsV cSad
izrkix<+ 'kk[kk
Jh xksfoanukFkth gosyh
xksikyxat
izrkix<+
ftyk % izrkix<+
jkT; % jktLFkku
fiu % 312 605
450- flafMdsV cSad
jktlean 'kk[kk
esu ekdsZV
fHkyokM+k jksM
tsñ dsñ doZ
gkfFkukMk dadjksyh
ftyk % jktlean
jkT; % jktLFkku
fiu % 313 324
451- flafMdsV cSad
cw¡nh 'kk[kk
okMZ uañ 25]
yadk xsV jksM
cw¡nh
ftyk % cw¡nh
jkT; % jktLFkku
fiu % 323 001
452- flafMdsV cSad
Jhdj.kiqj 'kk[kk
5&lh CykWd
okMZ uañ 15
vkschlh ds lkeus
Jhdj.kiqj
ftyk % Jhxaxkuxj
jkT; % jktLFkku
fiu % 335 073
453- flafMdsV cSad
cxgk 'kk[kk
xkao ,oa Mkd?kj cxgk
ftyk % lhrke<+h
jkT; % fcgkj
fiu % 843 332
454- flafMdsV cSad
ckadk 'kk[kk
gjsan ekdsZV
dVksfj;k jksM
ftyk % ckadk
jkT; % fcgkj
fiu % 813 102
455- flafMdsV cSad
cfygkj 'kk[kk
xzke % cfygkj
Mkd?kj ,oa Fkkuk lwjtiqjk
cfygkj
ftyk % jksgrkl
jkT; % fcgkj
fiu % 802 226
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5254
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
456- flafMdsV cSad
cygk 'kk[kk
xzke ,oa Mkd?kj cygk
}kjk iwlk
Fkkuk % pdegs'kh
ftyk % leLrhiqj
jkT; % fcgkj
fiu % 848 209
457- flafMdsV cSad
csxqljk; 'kk[kk
lR;ohj 'kkafr Iyktk
ghjkyky pkSd
vkj,l,l csxqljk; ds ikl
csxqljk;
ftyk % csxqljk;
jkT; % fcgkj
fiu % 851 101
458- flafMdsV cSad
fpÙkyksfj;k 'kk[kk
xzke% fpÙkyksfj;k
Mkd?kj% fM;kslax fpÙkyksfj;k
ftyk% nso?kj
jkT;% >kj[kaM
fiu% 814 112
459- flafMdsV cSad
/kkscxkek 'kk[kk
xzke ,oa Mkd?kj /kkscxkek
Fkkuk iwlk
ftyk% leLrhiqj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 848 125
460- flafMdsV cSad
nkSyriqj pkanh 'kk[kk
xzke% nkSyriqj pkanh
ftyk% oS'kkyh
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 844 146
461- flafMdsV cSad
Mqejh 'kk[kk
xzke% cfygkj
Mkd?kj% [kcjk
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 843 146
462- flafMdsV cSad
xksM~Mk 'kk[kk
esu pkSd] xksM~Mk
ftyk% xksM~Mk
jkT;% >kj[kaM
fiu% 814 133
463- flafMdsV cSad
galMhgk 'kk[kk
galMhgk pkSd
ftyk% nqedk
jkT;% >kj[kaM
fiu% 814 145
464- flafMdsV cSad
gjpank 'kk[kk
xzke% gjpank
Mkd?kj% ikuiqj dfj;kj
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 843 146
465- flafMdsV cSad
dapuiqj 'kk[kk
xzke% dapuiqj
tyek pkSd
Mkd?kj% yqiqax
CykWd% dVdkelanh
ftyk% gtkjhckx
jkT;% >kj[kaM
fiu% 825 319
466- flafMdsV cSad
ekjik 'kk[kk
xzke% ekjik
Mkd?kj% Qqyofj;k
ftyk% lhrke<h
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 843 317
467- flafMdsV cSad
eksrhgkjh 'kk[kk
dpgjh jksM
cyqok pkSd
eksrhgjh
ftyk% eksrhgkjh
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 845 401
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5255
468- flafMdsV cSad
jkeiqj egs'kiqj 'kk[kk
xzke ,oa Mkd?kj% jkeiqj egs'kiqj
ftyk% leLrhiqj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 848 130
469- flafMdsV cSad
leLrhiqj 'kk[kk
chvkjch dkyst ds lkeus
eksguiqj jksM leLrhiqj
ftyk% leLrhiqj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 848 101
470- flafMdsV cSad
'ks[kiqjk 'kk[kk
esu ekdsZV
pkanuh pkSd Økflax
ftyk% 'ks[kiqjk
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 811 105
471- flafMdsV cSad
rjkSjk 'kk[kk
xzke% rjkSjk
Mkd?kj% ihjc/kkSuk
}kjk% uxjukSlk
rjkSjk
ftyk% iVuk
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 801 305
LVsV c®d vkWQ eSlwj] iz/kku dk;kZy;
472- 'kk[kk izca/kd] , Mh ch e.M~;k
uñ Mh&2@1849@366 esu caMhxkSMk
ysvkÅV eaM~;k dukZVd 571 401
473- 'kk[kk izca/kd] v?kky;
larsckpgYyh }kjk v?kky;k] ds vkj
isV rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 436
474- 'kk[kk izca/kd] csyxqyk
ds vkj ,l esu jksM] csyxqyk
JhjaxiV~V.k rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 606
475- 'kk[kk izca/kd] csydokfM I
ih ch uñ 1] esu jksM csydokMh]
eyoYyh rglhy eaM~;k] dukZVd 571 417
476- 'kk[kk izca/kd] Yykys
csYykys] ikMaoiqjk rglhy eaM~;k
dukZVd 571 434
477- 'kk[kk izca/kd] fcfUnxufoys
uañ 71] cl LV®M jksM fcfUnxufoys]
ukxeaxyk rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 802
478- 'kk[kk izca/kd] cwfdudsjs
cwfdudsjs ds vkj isV
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 812
479- 'kk[kk izca/kd] fpudqjyh
ih ch uañ 1] fpudqjyh ikaMoiqjk
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 455
480- 'kk[kk izca/kd] xqFkyq
jhtsaV dkaIysDl] xqFkyq jksM eaM~;k
eaM~;k dukZVd 571 403
481- 'kk[kk izca/kd] gkM~yh
esxykiqjk ldZy] gkMyh eyoYyh
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 430
482- 'kk[kk izca/kd] gYyxsjs
gYyxsjs cljkyq gkscyh
eaM~;k dukZVd 571 146
483- 'kk[kk izca/kd] gksyyq ¼cYykjh½
ih ch uañ 1] esu jksM gksyyw
gwfougMxyh] rglhy cYykjh
dukZVd 583 217
484- 'kk[kk izca/kd] gksa xgYyh
ih ch uañ 1] gksaxgYyh JhjaxiV~V.k
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 607
485- 'kk[kk izca/kd] dMcYyh
fcUnfxufoys gksCyh ukxeaxyk
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 418
486- dk 'kk[kk izca/kd] yeqíunksM~Mh
uañ 145¼1½] gyxwj jksM Hkkjrh uxj]
dsñ,eñ nksM~Mh eíwj
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 422
487- 'kk[kk izca/kd] dYdq.kh
uañ 147] LVsV cSad jksM] dqYdq.kh
eyoYyh] rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 424
488
'kk[kk izca/kd] fdDdsjh
ih ch uañ 1] uañ 117] esu jksM
fdDdsjh ds vkj isV
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd 571 423
489
'kk[kk izca/kd] dksÙkÙkh
e.M~;k&cUuwj jksM dksÙkÙkh
eaM~;k dukZVd 571 402
490- 'kk[kk izca/kd] D;krugYyh
uañ 327¼1½] esu jksM D;krugYyh
ikaMoiqjk] rglhy eaM~;k
dukZVd 571 427
Ø ñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Ø ñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5256
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
491- 'kk[kk izca/kd] d`".kjktisV
ih ch uañ 1] uañ 259 esu jksM
d`".kjktisV
eaM;k dukZVd&571 426
492- 'kk[kk izca/kd] e.M;k
ih ch uañ 1] fo'osj¸;k jksM e.M~;k
eaM~;k dukZVd&571 401
493- 'kk[kk izca/kd] esyqdksVs
uañ 20 ekfjxqMh LVªhV esyqdksVs
ikaMoiqjk] rglhy eaM~;k
dukZVd&571 431
494- 'kk[kk izca/kd] usyeaxyk
uañ] 1755] eSlwj&caxywj jksM
ukxeaxyk eaM~;k dukZVd&571 432
495- 'kk[kk izca/kd] uxwugYyh
pUnxy jksM uxwugYyh JhjaxiV~V.k
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd&571 805
496- 'kk[kk izca/kd] ikygYyh
ikygYyh JhjaxiV~V.k
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd&571 438
497- 'kk[kk izca/kd] f'koleqnze
ih ch uañ 1] ua- Mh&17] ,l ,u ih ysu
f'koleqnze eyoYyh
rglhy eaM~;k dukZVd&571 437
498- 'kk[kk izca/kd] JhjaxiV~V.k
ih ch uañ 1] uañ 994947 gksVsy
gfjizlkn ds ikl JhjaxiV~V.k rglhy
eaM~;k dukZVd&571 438
499- 'kk[kk izca/kd] oh lh QkeZ
ih ch uañ 1] oh lh QkeZ
eaM~;k dukZVd&571 405
LVsV c®d vkWQ chdkusj ,.M t;iqj
iz/kku dk;kZy;] t;iqj
'kk[kk ftls jktHkk"kk fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10¼4½ ds vUrxZr jkti=
esa vf/klwfpr djuk gSA
500- dkijsu 'kk[kk
irk%
iksLV&dkijsu
ftyk&cawnh
fiu&323 301
jktLFkku
501- lhlokyh
irk%
izrki pkSd] cl LVSaM
iksLV&lhlokyh
ftyk&ckajk
fiu&325206
jktLFkku
502- rkysMk
irk%
dsl'kksjkb ikVu frjkgk
ftyk&cawnh
fiu&323021
jktLFkku
503- bUnzx<
irk%
dE;wfuVh Hkou] okMZ uñ 8
iksLV&bUnzx<
fiu&323613
jktLFkku
504- :iux<+
irk%
:iux<+ cl LVSaM ds utnhd
iksLV&:iux<+
ftyk&vtesj
fiu&305814
jktLFkku
505- vajkbZ
irk%
ikoj gkml pkSjkgk ds utnhd
iksLV&vajkbZ
ftyk&vtesj
fiu&305814
jktLFkku
506- feuh lfpoky;] >kyokM+
irk%
iksLV& >kyokM+
ftyk&>kyokM+
fiu&326001
jktLFkku
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5257
507- vkjñlhñihñlhñ >kyokM
irk%
x<+ >kykokM+ ds utnhd
iksLV&>kyokM+
ftyk&>kyokkM+
fiu&326001
jktLFkku
508- foKku uxj
irk%
dYir# dkWEiysDl
iksLV&foKku uxj
ftyk&dksVk
fiu&324005
jktLFkku
509- vkjñlhñihñlhñ lokbZ ekèksiqj
irk%
,lchchts] ctjax Hkou
iksLV&lokbZ ekèksiqj
ftyk&lokbZ ekèksiqj
fiu&322001
jktLFkku
510- nsbZ 'kk[kk
irk%
uSuok jksM] d`f"k mit eaMh ds ikl
iksLV&nsbZ
ftyk&cawnh
fiu&323802
jktLFkku
511-
dobZ 'kk[kk
irk%
xk¡o&dobZ
iksLV&ckjk¡
ftyk&ckjk¡
fiu&325219
jktLFkku
512- lqdkj 'kk[kk
irk%
iksLV&lqdj
rglhy&ckeuokl
ftyk&lokbZ ek/kksiqj
fiu&322212
jktLFkku
513- eksrhiqjk pkSdh
irk% lhVhVhih jsftMsfU'k;y dkWyksuh
pkSdh eksrhiqjk
rglhy&NkcM+k
ftyk&ckjk¡
fiu&325220
jktLFkku
514- esMhdy dkWyst] vtesj
irk%
esfMdy dkWyst dEikm.M
ja?k cM+h jksM
lgj&dksVk
ftyk&dksVk
fiu&324005
jktLFkku
515- vkj ,l ,e bZ lh lh] mn;iqj
irk%
izFke ry psrd ldZy
iksLV&mn;iqj
fiu&313001
jktLFkku
516- fgj.k exjh lsDVj&14
irk%
2 th Cykd
lkeqnkf;d dsanz ds lkeus
fgj.k exjh lsDVj&4
mn;iqj] jktLFkku
517- izrkix<+
irk%
egkRek xk¡/kh jksM
izrkix<+
fiu&312605
jktLFkku
518- lsFkha 'kk[kk
irk%
,&23 ckiq uxj] eq[; lM+d
lsaFkh ¼fprkSM+x<+½
fiu&312001
jktLFkku
519- oLlh 'kk[kk
irk%
ftyk&Mqxjiqj
fiu&314036
jktLFkku
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5258
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
520- lkoyk 'kk[kk
irk%
cl LVSaM ds ikl
mn;iqj jksM] lkoyk
fiu&314022
jktLFkku
521- fcNokMk 'kk[kk
irk%
Nfi;k dkEiysDl
eq[; cktkj fcNokMk
ftyk&Mwax:iqj
fiu&314801
jktLFkku
522- dkuksM+ 'kk[kk
irk%
mn;iqj jksM
iksLV&dkuksM >kMksyk
fiu&313603
jktLFkku
523- ydM+okl 'kk[kk
irk%
ftyk&mn;iqj
fiu&313012
jktLFkku
524- jkLesd&de&lkdZ
irk%
HkhyokM+k
ftyk&HkhyokM+k
fiu&311001
jktLFkku
525- dq#{ks= 'kk[kk
irk%
,l lh vks 66] lsDVj 17
ftyk&dq#{ks=
fiu&136118
jkT;&gfj;k.kk
jktHkk"kk fu;e 1976 ds fu;e 10¼4½ ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj ds
jkti= esa vf/klwfpr fd, tkus okys bafM;u c®d ds
dk;kZy;ksa@'kk[kkvksa dh lwph
vapy dk;kZy;&paMhx<+
526- bafM;u c®d
VSxksj uxj 'kk[kk
1105] fdj.k foyk
VSxksj uxj & ch
flfoy ykbu]
yqf/k;kuk & 151505
ftyk & yqf/k;kuk
527- bafM;u c®d
Qrsgx<+ ukSckn 'kk[kk
}kjk & xq: dk'kh fo'ofo|ky;
ljnwyx<+ jksM
ryoaMh lkcks Qrsgx<+ ukSckn 151302
ftyk & cfBaMk ¼iatkc½
528- bafM;u c®d
tq>kj uxj 'kk[kk
39 osLV ds lkeus
eyks;k jksM
xkao% tq>kj uxj 160014
csgyksiqj
ftyk% eksgkyh ¼iatkc½
529- bafM;u c®d
ekulk 'kk[kk
uhe okyh xyh
ekulk & 151505
ftyk & ekulk
iatkc
530- bafM;u c®d
lejkyk 'kk[kk
,e th dEIysDl ds lkeus
[kUuk jksM
lejkyk 141114
ftyk & yqf/k;kuk
iatkc
531- bafM;u c®d
eksfjaMk 'kk[kk
277&278 okMZ uañ & 8 jsyos jksM
eksfjaMk 140101
ftyk & :iuxj
iatkc
532- bafM;u c®d
nksjkgk 'kk[kk
vtSc flag dkWEiysDl
¶ykb vksoj ds lkeus
th Vh jksM
nksjkgk 136 118
ftyk & yqf/k;kuk
iatkc
533- bafM;u c®d
,lñlhñvksñ% 244&245
¼izFke ,oa f}rh; ry½
lSDVj & 12
djuky & 132001 ¼gfj;k.kk½
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5259
534- bafM;u c®d
vkb ,e Vh ekuslj 'kk[kk
'kks:e % 4&5&7&8] jgstk
xzkmaM ¶yksj] Qza V lkbM
vkb ,e Vh ekuslj & 122050
ftyk xqM+xkao ¼gfj;k.kk½
535- bafM;u c®d
[kkaMlk jksM] 'kk[kk pkSgku deflZ;y dEIysDl
fgjks gksaMk pkSd ds ikl
[kkaMlk jksM
xqM+xkao & 122001 ¼gfj;k.kk½
536- bafM;u c®d
lq'kkar yksd 'kk[kk
th & 3] foiqy Ldos;j
Cykd ch] Qsl & 1
lq'kkar yksd
xqM+xkao 122002 ¼gfj;k.kk½
537- bafM;u c®d
lsDVj & 17] xqM+xkao 'kk[kk
580 gkmflax cksMZ dkyksuh
lSDVj & 17 , ekdsZV
xqM+xkao 122001 ¼gfj;k.kk½
538- vkU/kzk c®d
nEebZxqMk 'kk[kk
nqxkZ ,LVsV] nhfIr Jhuxj]
enhukxqMk] lsfjfyaxeiYyh eaMy]
jaxkjsM~Mh ftyk] gSnjkckn & 500 049
539- vkU/kzk c®d
gfLrukiqje 'kk[kk
IykWV uañ 8] losZ uañ 30@2] 3 ,oa 4]
lkxj fjax jksM] gfLrukiqje
gSnjkckn & 500 079
540- vkU/kzk c®d
HkkX;uxj 'kk[kk
oanuk vkdsZM] nñ uañ 2&28&298@8,oa
2&28&298@8@1] HkkX;uxj
dqdViYyh] gSnjkckn 500 072
541- vkU/kzk c®d
ekSyk&vyh 'kk[kk
40&52@4] ekSyk&vyh] gSnjkckn & 500 040
542- vkU/kzk c®d
ds oh ,p ch dkWyksuh 'kk[kk
IykWV uañ 19 ,oa 20] rhljk Qsl]
dqdViYyh] gSnjkckn &500 072
543- vkU/kzk c®d
uknjxqy 'kk[kk
uknjxqy xkaWo] l:juxj eaMy]
gSnjkckn & 501 510
544- vkU/kzk c®d
psosYyk 'kk[kk
,e ch ,u vkj dkWEIysDl] esbu jksM]
psosYyk] jaxkjsM~Mh ftyk & 501 503
545- vkU/kzk c®d
ukudjkexqMk 'kk[kk
vkU/kzk c®d ,isDl dkWyst dSEil]
IykWV uañ 27&29] QkbuSfU'k;y fMfLVªDV]
ukudjkexqMk] gSnjkckn & 500 032
546- vkU/kzk c®d
pkSVqIiy 'kk[kk
nñ uañ 5&390]
eq[; jLrk]
okSVqIiy & 508252
547- vkU/kzk c®d
fpV~;kyk 'kk[kk
eñ uañ 8&150
iqfyl LVs'ku ds lkeus
fpV~;kyk & 508114
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
(Department of Financial Services)
New Delhi, the 24th January, 2013
S.O. 1995.—In pursuance of sub-Rule(4) of
Rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purpose
of the Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the central
Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks
under the control of Department of Financial Services,
M/O Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
S.No. Name of Banks
Naumber of branches
1.
Union Bank of India
218
2.
Indian Oversees Bank
120
3.
Central Bank of India
103
4.
Syndicate Bank
30
5.
State Bank of Mysore
28
6.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur
26
7.
Indian Bank
12
8.
Andhra Bank
10
Total
547
[No. 11016/3/2013-Hindi]
MIHIR KUMAR, Director (O.L.)
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
Øñ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa 'kk[kk dk irk
lañ
dksM uañ
5260
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
UNION BANK OF INDIA
Official Language Implementation Division, Central
Office, Mumbai
Branches/Offices recommended for notification under
Official Language Rule 10(4)
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Regional Office, Delhi
1.
Union Bank of India
(South)
Pataudi Branch House No. 1
Ward No. 6, Baba Attawala
Chowk, Pataudi Haili Mandi
Road, Gurgaon 122504
2.
Union Bank of India
Bhondasi Branch
Village Bhondasi
Dist. Gurgaon 122102
3.
Union Bank of India
Ujina Branch
P.O. Ujina, Dist Mewat,
Haryana
Regional Office,
4.
Union Bank of India
Delhi (North)
Bhorgarh Branch
House No. 7/2,
Railway Crossing,
Narela, New Delhi 110040
5.
Union Bank of India
Gokalpur Branch
A-51, Gokalpur
P.O. Gokalpur, New Delhi
110094
6.
Union Bank of India
Union Loan Point West Vihar
Branch
B-2/15, Pashchim Vihar
Delhi 110063
Region Office, Jaipur
7.
Union Bank of India
Dooni Branch
Panchayat Bhavan
Village and Post Dooni
Tehsil-Deoli District-Tonk
Rajasthan 304802
8.
Union Bank of India
Neemrana Branch
Village and Post Neemrana
Tehsil Behrorr, District Alwar,
Rajasthan, Pin Code 301 705
9.
Union Bank of India
Liri Branch
Village and Post LIRI, Tehsil
Peesangan
District Ajmer, Rajasthan,
Pin Code 305 203
Regional Office, Jaipur
10.
Union Bank of India
Baghsuri Branch
Village and Post Bagsuri
Tehsil Nasirabad, District
Ajmer
Rajasthan, Pin Code 305401
Regional Office, Karnal
11.
Union Bank of India
Union Loan Point, Faridabad,
Branch
SCO-60, HUDA Market
Sector-7, Faridabad,
Dist. Faridabad 121001
(Haryana)
12.
Union Bank of India
Sector-3, Karnal
SCO-16, Sector-3, Karnal
Dist. Faridabad 132001
(Haryana)
Regional Office,
13.
Union Bank of India
Azamgarh
Sameda Branch (Fi Branch)
Village and Post Sameda
District-Azamgarh,
Pin Code 276128
14.
Union Bank of India
Devara Zadid Branch
(Fi Branch)
Village and Post Devara Zadid
Via
Maharajganj,
Dist.
Azamgarh Pin Code 276137
15.
Union Bank of India
Mahul Branch
Village and Post Mahul
District-Azamgarh,
Pin Code 223225
16.
Union Bank of India
Tanda Branch
Village and Post Tanda
District Ambedkar Nagar
Pin Code 224 190
17.
Union Bank of India
Devagaon Branch
Village and Post Devgaon
District Azamgarh,
Pin Code 276202
18.
Union Bank of India
Mittupur Branch
Village and Post Mittupur
Block
Jahanganj Dist., Jahanaganj,
Azamgarh Pin 276131
19.
Union Bank of India
Kohada Branch
Village and Post Kohada
Block
Pawai,
District
Azamgarh Pin 276288
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5261
Regional Office,
20.
Union Bank of India
Azamgarh
Jokahara Branch
Village and Post Jokahara
Block Haraiya, District
Azamgarh Pin 276136
21.
Union Bank of India
Bhakhara Branch
Block Phoolpur
Village and Post Bhakhara
District Azamgarh, Pin 223226
22.
Union Bank of India
Thatheri Bazar
Mohalla No. 10, Main Road,
Saraimeer, Nizamabad, Dist.
Azamgarh Pin 276305
Region Office,
23.
Union Bank of India
Gorakhpur
Barhaj Branch
Station Road, AT & Post
Barhaj
Dist Deoria 274601 (U.P.)
24.
Union Bank of India
Harraiya Branch
Samratnagar, Main Market
At & Post Harraiya
Dist Basti 272 155 (U.P.)
Regional Office, Patna
25.
Union Bank of India
Baxar Branch
Thatheri Bazar, Buxar
Distt. Rohtas, Bihar,
Pin Code 821115
26.
Union Bank of India
Sasaram Branch
Near Sahu Talkies
G.T. Road, Sasaram
Dist. Sasaram, Bihar,
Pin Code 802101
27.
Union Bank of India
Sabour Road Br. Bhagalpur
Tilka Manjhi Hatia Road
Distt. Bhagalpur, Bihar,
Pincode 812001
28.
Union Bank of India
Madhubani Branch
Near Head Post Office
Main Road, Distt. Madhubani,
Bihar, Pincode 847227
29.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Branch Dhutauli
At and Post Dhutauli
Near Malpa Chawk, Via
Chautham Distt. Khagaria,
Bihar, Pincode 851201
Regional Office, Patna
30.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Branch Ajnaul
Village Bhatgama
Mansoor Chak Road
Post Dal Singh Sarai
Dist Samastipur, Bihar
Pin 848114
31.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Branch Shambhupatti
Village and Post
Shambhupatti
Dist. Samastipur, Bihar
Pin 848129
32.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Bishunpur Harnarain
Branch Village Basouli Himmat
Singh Post Mahpur, Dist
Muzaffarpur, Bihar,
Pin 843103
33.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Branch Labhgaon Branch
Village and Post Labhgaon
Dist. Khagaria, Bihar,
Pin 851204
34.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Branch Pitaunjhia Branch
Village and Post Pitaunjhia
Dist. Khagaria, Bihar,
Pin 843117
Regional Office, Bhopal
35.
Union Bank of India
Bareilly Branch
1, Bhutada Colony, J.J. Road,
Bareilly, Raisen (M.P.)
Regional Office, Indore
36.
Union Bank of India
Nanakheda Branch
13/4-C Block,
Mahakal Vanijya Kendra
VIP Road, Nanakheda
Ujjain (M.P.) 456010
37.
Union Bank of India
Specialised Financial Inclusion
Branch
Bada Bangarda, Post Palakhedi
Distt. Indore (M.P.) 453112
Regional Office, Indore
38.
Union Bank of India
Piplyakumar Branch
S.S. Aangan
90-91 Deep Palace Colony
Village: Piplyakumar
Distt. Indore (M.P.) 452010
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5262
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Regional Office, Raipur
39.
Union Bank of India
Bijapur Branch
Main Road,
(In front of HP Petrol Pump)
Bijapur
Distt. Bijapur (C.G.) 494444
40.
Union Bank of India
Dantewada Branch
Near Maa Danteshwari
Temple
Main Road, Dantewada
(C.G.) 494449
41.
Union Bank of India
Jashpur Nagar Branch
Old Palace, B.S. Market,
Main Road,
Jashpur (C.G.) 496331
42.
Union Bank of India
Baikunthpur Branch
Baisagar Pare, Behind Bank of
India
Baikunthpur, Distt. Koriya
(C.G.) 497625
43.
Union Bank of India
Financial Inclusion Branch
Dumartarai
Main Road, Dumartarai,
Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
44.
Union Bank of India
Narayanpur Branch
Main Road, Near Jai Stambh
Narayanpur (C.G.) 494661
Regional Office, Reewa
45.
Union Bank of India
Amarpatan Branch
128/2, Nagar Panchayat Road
Shubhas Chowk, Amarpatan,
Distt. Satna Madhya Pradesh
495775
46.
Union Bank of India
Panna Branch
13, Near Shashikiya Grih
Nirman
Sansthan, B.T.I. Road,
Distt. Panna Madhya Pradesh
488001
47.
Union Bank of India
Anuppur Branch
Ward No. 7, Near Amarkantak
Tiraha,
Anupur Madhya Pradesh
484224
Regional Office, Reewa
48.
Union Bank of India
Transportnagar Satna Branch
2/1, Transport Nagar,
Satna Rewa Road, Satna,
Madhya Pradesh 485001
49.
Union Bank of India
Atraila Branch
At post Atraila Tehsil Teothar
Distt. Rewa Madhya Pradesh
485001
50.
Union Bank of India
Rahat Branch
241, Gram Rahat,
Post Rahat, Rewa 484446
51.
Union Bank of India
Tendua Branch
Rewa Road, Gram Tendua,
Post
Padkhuri, Distt. Sidhi 486669
52.
Union Bank of India
Bagaiya Branch
Panchayat Building,
Rest House Gram,
Bagaiyan, Tehsil, Chitrangi,
Distt. Singrauli 486001
Regional Office, Allahabad 53.
Union Bank of India
Kurmaicha Branch
G.T. Road, Kurmaicha,
Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar
(Bhadohi)
Uttar Pradesh 211003
54.
Union Bank of India
Baraut Branch
Post Baraut, Block Handia,
Distt.
Allahabad U.P. 221502
55.
Union Bank of India
Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj
Nagar
Gauriganj Branch
Distt. Chhatrapati, Shahuji
Maharaj Nagar,
Amethi, U.P. 227409
56.
Union Bank of India
Bina Branch
Northern Coalfields Ltd.,
Bina
Project,
Distt.:
Sonbhadra. U.P. 231220
Regional Office, Allahabad
57.
Union Bank of India
Shantipuram Branch
G-2, Gohri Road, Shantipur,
Fafamau,
Distt. Allahabad, U.P. 211013
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5263
58.
Union Bank of India
Agiuna Branch
Rizvi Institute and Technology,
Agiuna, Manjhanpur,
Distt. Kaushambi, U.P. 212207
59.
Union Bank of India
Jamunipur Branch
Post Modh, Distt. Sant Ravidas
Nagar, U.P. 221406
60.
Union Bank of India
Kaulapur Branch
Near Rajpat Dhaba, Post
Gopiganj,
Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar, U.P.
223103
61.
Union Bank of India
Veerampur Branch
Block Abhauli
Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar,
U.P. 221308
62.
Union Bank of India
Bhurki Branch
Vikas Bhavan, Distt. Head
Quarter,
Post Gyanpur, Distt.Sant
Ravidas Nagar,
U.P. 221304
63.
Union Bank of India
Natwan Aurangabad Branch
Post Khamariya,
Distt. Sant Ravidas Nagar,
U.P. 221306
64.
Union Bank of India
Mahjuda Bazar Branch
Post Bhori,Distt. Sant Ravidas
Nagar, U.P. 221404
Regional Office, Kanpur
65.
Union Bank of India
Gulamau (F.I.) Branch
Gram & Post Gulamau
Block Bhavan, Distt. Hardoi,
Pin 241001
Regional Office, Lucknow 66.
Union Bank of India
Bhinga Branch
Mohalla Tandawa,
Post Bhinga 271831
67.
Union Bank of India
Sector Q Branch
Saraswati Vidya Mandir
Sector Q, Alliganj,
Lucknow 226024
68.
Union Bank of India
U. P. State Agro Branch
U.P. Agro Industrial
Corporation
Vidhan Sabha Marg,
Lucknow 226001
69.
Union Bank of India
U.P. State Sugar Corporation
Branch
Vipin Khand,Gomati Nagar,
Lucknow 226010
70.
Union Bank of India
2, Batalian PAC Sitapur
Branch
PAC, Lucknow Road,
Sitapur 261001
71.
Union Bank of India
Laharpur Branch
Riyaz Market, Main Mazashah
Crossing
Laharpur, Sitapur 260135
72.
Union Bank of India
Sidhouli Branch
Sumandapam Marriage Hall
Sidhouli, Sitapur,
73.
Union Bank of India
Aashiayana Branch
M-1/A, Sector I
Aashiyana, Lucknow 226012
74.
Union Bank of India
Sector O Branch
City Montessory School
Sector O, Aliganj
Lucknow 226024
75.
Union Bank of India
Vibhuti Khand Branch
Vibhuti Khanad,
Near Mantri Awas, Gomati
Nagar,
Lucknow 226010
Regional Office, Lucknow 76.
Union Bank of India
Kusmaha Branch
Village & Post Kusmaha
Faizabad Akarpur Road,
Faizabad 224135
77.
Union Bank of India
32, Batalian PAC Lucknow
Branch
32, Batalian PAC Alambagh
Lucknow 226005
78.
Union Bank of India
Hardoia Branch
CPL Inter College,
Hardoia, Adampur,
Lucknow
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5264
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
79.
Union Bank of India
Moura Branch
Santha Crossing, Dubagga
Mall Road,
Charak Instittue, Lucknow
227107
80.
Union Bank of India
Kuchera Branch
Kuchera Bazar, Faizabad
Jagdishpur Road,
Faizabad 224158
Regional Office Dehradun 81.
Union Bank of India
Union Loan Point Branch
Industrial Area, Near Indresh
Hospital
Patel
Nagar,
Uttarakhand 248001
82.
Union Bank of India
Ghansali Branch
Shah Bhawan, Chamiyala
Road,
Distt. Tehri Garhwal,
Uttatrakhand
83.
Union Bank of India
Badasi Grant Branch
Post Badasi Grant,
Block Raipur
Tehsil Dehradun Sadar
District Dehradum 248008
Regional Office Jabalpur
84.
Union Bank of India
TFRI Branch
Village Neemkhera Post
RAFRC
Mandla Road, Jabalpur
482021
85.
Union Bank of India
Waraseoni Branch
Katangi Raod, Wara Seoni
481331
86.
Union Bank of India
Tewar Branch
Bheraghat Road, Tewar
Jabalpur 482001
Regional Office, Ranchi
87.
Union Bank of India
Kandra Branch
Guru Govind Singh
Educational Societies
Technical Campus
Kandra, Chas, Distt. Bokaro,
Jharkhand Pin 827004
88.
Union Bank of India
Jamtara Branch
204, New Towen, Jamtara,
Distt. Jamtara, Jharkhand,
Pin 815351
89.
Union Bank of India
Chas Branch
564150 Rajlakshmi Tower
Bypass Road, Chas post-Chas,
Bokaro
Dist. Bokaro, Jharkhand
Pin 827013
90.
Union Bank of India
Chandwa Branch
Main Road, Chandwa
Dist. Latehar, Jharkhand
Pin 827013
91.
Union Bank of India
Chatra Branch -564567
Sushila Complex, Gudri Bazar
Chatra Gaya Road
Distt. Latehar, Jharkhand
Pin 829203
92.
Union Bank of India
ULP, Jamshedpur Branch
1st Floor, Kamani Center
Bishtupur, Jamshedpur,
Distt. East Singhbhum
Jharkhand 831001
Regional Office Gazipur
93
Union Bank of India
Karhiya Branch
Village & Post Pakhanpura,
Michati
District Ghazipur
Pin Code 233227
94.
Union Bank of India
Yuvrajpur Branch
Village & Post Yuvrajpur
Block Reotipur, Tahsil Sadar
District Ghazipur, Pin 232332
95.
Union Bank of India
Kamupur Branch
Village & Post Kamupur
Block Barchavar, Tahsil
Barchavar
District Ghazipur, Pin 232229
96.
Union Bank of India
Matsa Branch
Village & Post Jeevpur,
Block
Zamania,
Tahsil
Mohammadabad
District Ghazipur, Pin 232340
97.
Union Bank of India
Kuchaura Uparvar Branch
Village & Post Kuchaura
Uparvar
Block Karanda, Tahsil Sadar
District Ghazipur, Pin 232224
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5265
98.
Union Bank of India
Nari Pachdewara Branch
Village
&
Post
Nari
Pachdewara Branch
Block Deokali, Tahsil Sadar
District Ghazipur, Pin 233002
99.
Union Bank of India
Arakhpur Branch
Village & Post Arakhpur
Block Birano, Tahsil Sadar
District Ghazipur, Pin 233005
100.
Union Bank of India
Sauri Branch
Village & Post Sauri
Block Manihari, Tehsil
Saidpur
District Ghazipur, Pin 275205
101.
Union Bank of India
Padumpur Ramrai Branch
Village & Post Padumpur
Ramrai Block Jakhania,
Tehsil Jakhania
District Ghazipur, Pin 275203
102.
Union Bank of India
Sarahula Branch
Village & Post Sarahula
Block Reotipur,
Tahsil Zakhania
District Ghazipur, Pin 232326
106.
Union Bank of India
Birpur Branch
Village & Post Birpur
Block Bhanwarkol,
District Ghazipur
Pin 233231
Regional Office, Agra
104.
Union Bank of India
BCS Agra Branch
4 West, Govind Nagar,
Bhartiya Charm Udyog Sangh,
Saket,
New Shahgang, Distt. Agra,
U.P. 282010
105.
Union Bank of India
Shaheed Nagar Branch
Near
Raipur
Chungi,
Shamshabad Road
Agra, U.P. 282007
106.
Union Bank of India
Vikas Bhawan Dabarai Branch
New Collectorate Premises
Vikas Bhawan,
Shikohabad Road,
Dabarai, Distt Firozabad,
U.P. 283203
107.
Union Bank of India
Kosikalan Branch
Nandgaon Road,
Before Railway Station,
Mathura, U.P. 281403
108.
Union Bank of India
Chandausi Branch
Chandausi Bal Vidya Mandir
Munsif Marg, Bhimnagar,
U.P. 202412
109.
Union Bank of India
F.I. Paintha Branch
Paintha, Block Govardhan,
Distt. Mathura, U.P. 281502
110.
Union Bank of India
Service Branch Agra
1st Floor, Friendswasan Plaza,
Sanjay Place, Agra,
U.P. 282002
111.
Union Bank of India
Shikohabad Branch
Rukanpur Before Adarsh
Cinema,
Manpuri Road,
Distt. Firozabad 205135
Regional Office,
112.
Union Bank of India
Ahmedabad
Nagvasan Branch
At Nagvasan, Post Nagvasan
Taluka Sidhpur, Distt. Patan
384151, Gujarat
113.
Union Bank of India
Kujad Branch
Opp. Datar Chamber
Kathlal High Way
Tluka:
Dascroi
Distt.,
Ahmedabad
382 430 State Gujarat
Regional Office,
114.
Union Bank of India
Rajkot
Jamkhambaliya Branch
Rajada Shopping Centre
Jodhpur Gate, Jamkhambaliya
Distt. Jamnagar 361305
115.
Union Bank of India
Gondal Branch
Shop No. 37, Kailash Complex
'A' Wing, Near Gundala Gate,
Opp. Gundala Petrol Pump,
Gondal, Distt. Rajkot,
Gujarat 360311
116.
Union Bank of India
Jasdan Branch
Geeta Nagar, Near Khadi
Bhavan,
Khanpur Road, Jasdan,
Distt. Rajkot, Gujarat 360050
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5266
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
117.
Union Bank of India
Pipalva Branch
Near bus stand,
Village & Post-Pipalva
Dist. Junagadh, Gujrat
118.
Union Bank of Inida
Kadukka (FI) Branch
Navratri Chowk,
Village. post Kadukka
Via Lilapur, Distt. Rajkot
Pin 360050
119.
Union Bank of India
Ramparvekra Branch
Sri Vekra Swaminarayan
Mandir
Village Ramparvekra
Dist.-Kutch, 370445
Regional Office, Nasik
120.
Union Bank of India
Brahamanwada (Financial
Inclusion) Branch
Tahsil Sinnar (Via Nasik Road)
Distt. Nasik, Maharashtra
422109
121.
Union Bank of India
Wadi Budruk Branch
Shop No. 23 to 25, 40 & 41
Suman Heights, Phase II,
Knorak Vihara, Pharade Nagar,
Wadi (Budruk), Tal. & Distt.
Nanded
Maharashtra 431605
122.
Union Bank of India
Raver Branch
Shop No. 101, 102, 103 & 104
& 105
Chhoriya Market, Raver,
Th. Raver, Distt. Jalgaon
Regional Office, Kolhapur123.
Union Bank of India
Mahadwar Road Kolhapur
Branch
Binkhambi Ganesh Mandir
Mahadwar Road, Kolhapur
416412
124.
Union Bank of India
Mohol Branch
At Post Mohol, Tal. - Mohol
Dist.-Solapur (Maharashtra)
Pin 413307
125.
Union Bank of India
Market Yard, Sangli Branch
Opp. Vasantdada Market,
Market Yard, Sangli
Distt .Sangli (Maharashtra)
Pin 416416
126.
Union Bank of India
Kedgaon Branch
House No. 410, Gate No. 78,
Tal. Karnataka, Distt. Solapur
Pin 413 202
Regional Office, Surat
127.
Union Bank of India
Specialised
Financial
Inclusion Branch
At Post Mandav Khadak,
Taluka Chikhli, Distt. Navsari,
Pin 396060
Regional Office,
128.
Union Bank of India
Mumbai (W)
Nallasopara East Branch
Shop No. 4, 5, 6 Opp. Jay
Vijay Nagar 100ft. Vasai
Nallasopara Link Road
Nallasopara (East), Distt.
Thane 401209 Maharashtra
Regional Office,
129.
Union Bank of India
Mumbai (S)
Bandra (East) Branch
Renuka Co. Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.
Behind Gurunanak Hospital
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400
051
Regional Office,
130
Union Bank of India
Mumbai (N)
Kawad Khurd (Finan. Inclu.)
Branch
Post
Angoan,
Bhiwandi-wada Road,
Taluka Bhiwandi, Pin 421302
131.
Union Bank of India
Union Loan Point Kharghar
Branch Shop No. 1-4, Plot
No. 7 & 18 Daffodils, Sector
No. 19 Kharghar, Navi
Mumbai, Pin 410210
132.
Union Bank of India
Kelavane Branch
H.No. 722, At Post Kelavane
Taluka: Panvel, Distt. Raigarh
Pin 410206
133.
Union Bank of India
Sanpada Branch
Shop No. 14-15, Akhurath
Co.Op.Hsg.Soc., Plot No. 11,
Sector-14, Near Pam Beanch
Road, Vashi, Sanpara, New
Mumbai 400705
134.
Union Bank of India
Luiswadi Branch
Ratna Umed Residency
Umed Nagar, Pipe Line Road,
Luiswadi, Thane (West)
400604
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5267
135.
Union Bank of India
Station Road Chembur (West)
Branch
Swastik Pride, Ground Floor,
D.K. Sandu Marg, Chembur
(West)
Mumbai 400 071
136.
Union Bank of India
Railway Station Thane (West)
Branch
Gala No. 15, 16, Ground Floor
Paradise heights, Shivaji Path,
Thane (West) 400 602
137.
Union Bank of India
New Panvel Branch
Gala No. 16 to 19, Sri Darshan
Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Sector 9,
Plot No. 34,
Khanda Colony, New Panvel
(West)
Navi Mumbai 410 206
Regional Office, Nagpur 138.
Union Bank of India
Kandri (Kanhan) Branch
Post Kandri (Kanhan) Taluka
Parshivani
Nagpur-Jabalpur Highway,
Dist. Nagpur 441401
139.
Union Bank of India
Tembhurkheda Branch (F.I.)
Post Tembhurkheda, Taluka
Warud
Dist.-Amravati 444911
Regional Office, Baroda
140.
Union Bank of India
Clearing House & MICR CPC
Branch
Shantinath Complex, Mayfair
Road,
Opp. Union Bank Anand
Dist. Anand, Gujarat
Pin 385 001
141.
Union Bank of India
Manjusar Branch
115/116, GIDC Savli
Village Manjusar, Gujarat,
Pin 385 001
142.
Union Bank of India
Karelibaug Branch
Shrusti Avenue, Shop No. 1-4
Opp. Amrapali Complex
Water
Tank
Road,
PO Karelibagh
Dist. Vadodara
143.
Union Bank of India
Chhota Udepur Branch
House No. 5/704
Vikas Path, Near Kusum Sagar,
Dist. Vadodara 391165
144.
Union Bank of India
Narsanda Branch
At Post Narsanda, Tal. Nadiad,
Dist. Kheda, Gujarat 387345
145.
Union Bank of India
Manjalpur Branch
Ground Floor, Hansa Party
Plot
Vrajdham Mandir Road,
Manjalpur,
Dist. Baroda, Gujarat 390011
146.
Union Bank of India
Latipura Branch
At Post Latipura, Tehsil Padra
Dist Vadodara,
Gujarat
391 440
147.
Union Bank of India
Sansrod Branch
Kamal Said Residence
Near Brahmin Falia, Dist.
Baroda
392220, Gujarat
Regional Office,
148.
Union Bank of India
Belgaum
MICR Branch
Bankers Clearing House,
1049/B2,
Khanapur Road,
(Opp. Reliance Petroleum),
Tilakwadi
Belgaum 590006 Karnataka
Regional Office,
149.
Union Bank of India
Hyderabad
Survey of India Branch
Survey of India Office
Complex
Uppal
Road,
Hyderabad 500039
(Andhra Pradesh)
150.
Union Bank of India
Gayatrinagar Branch
Plot No. 3, Gayatrinagar X
Road,
Gayatrinagar, Karmanghat,
Hyderabad
500 097 (Andhra Pradesh)
151.
Union Bank of India
Rudraram Branch
Gitam Univertsity Campus,
Rudraram Village, Mandal
Patancheru, Dist.
Medak (AP.),
Pin Code 502 329
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5268
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
152.
Union Bank of India
Ambala Branch
H.No. 6-4/3, Sriramulapalli,
Village-
Ambala, Mandal-Kamlapur,
Dist. Karim Nagar,
Andhra Pradesh-505102
153.
Union Bank of India
Annaram Branch
H.No. 4-67, Main Road, Opp.
Grampanchayat,
Village-Annaram, Mandal-
Manakonduru.
Dist.-
Karimnagar,
Andhra Pradesh-505469
Regional Office,
154.
Union Bank of India
Vijaywada
Mangalgiri Branch
No. 1-643, First Floor,
Gautham Buddha Road, (Main
Road),
Mangalgiri-522 503
Gunnturu Dist A.P.
155.
Union Bank of India
Medepalli Branch
Door No. 2-39, Near Hanuman
Temple,
Medepalli 507158, Mudigonda
Mandal
Dist. Khammam, A.P.
156.
Union Bank of India
Baswapuram Branch
No. 1-22, Kudumuru Bazara,
Baswapuram
507318,
Chintakani
Mandal, Dist. Khammam, A.P.
157.
Union Bank of India
Kondaveedu Branch
Village Edlapadu Mandal
Gunturu 522529 A.P.
158.
Union Bank of India
Sattenapalli Branch
Door No. 18-7-36, Surya
Talkies Road
(Post & Mandal) Sattenapalli
522 403 Dist. Gunturu,
Andhra Pradesh
159.
Union Bank of India
Devara Palli Branch
Door No. 4-131, Main Road,
P.O. Devrapalli, Kovvuru
Road,
Devarapalli 534313,
W. Godavari,
Dist. A.P.
160.
Union Bank of India
Maruteru Branch
Door No. 5-91, Post & at
Maruteru,
TP Gudem-Palakol Road,
Maruteru
534 122, Penumantra Mandal,
W. Godavari, Dist. A.P.
161.
Union Bank of India
Jangareddi Gudem Branch
Door No. 5-2-29/2, Kovvuru
Road,
KK
Complex,
Near
Ganganamma
Temple, Jangareddi Gudem
534 447
W. Godavari, A.P.
162.
Union Bank of India
Pidugurlla Branch
Door No. 7-4-07,
Vigneswara Complex, Main
Road,
(Post & Mandal), Pidugurlla
522413,
Dist. Gunturu, Andhra Pradesh
163.
Union Bank of India
Thiruvur Branch
Door No. 5-147, College Road
Near
Bose Bomma, Dev. Block
Thiruvuru
521235 Distt. Krishna,
Andhra Pradesh 521235
164.
Union Bank of India
Budhwar Market Branch
Door No. 16-2-207, P.P. Road,
Budhwar Market, Bhimavaram
534201
W. Godawari, Dist. A.P.
165.
Union Bank of India
Narsarao Pet Branch
Door No. 9-9-44, Bank Street,
Arandal
Pet, Narsarao Pet 522 601.
Gunturu Dist. A.P.
Regional Office,
166.
Union Bank of India
Visakhapatnam
Financial
Inclusion
Lakkavaram Branch
Main
Road,
Village
Lakkavaram,
Chodavaram-Mandalam
Dist. Visakhapatnam (A.P.)
Pin 531075
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5269
167.
Union Bank of India
Pendurthi Branch
80 feet Road, Ratnagiri Nagar,
Chinna
Mushiriwada,
Pendurthi, Dist. Visakha-
patnam. A.P. 530 051
168.
Union Bank of India
Chepala Uppada Branch
At
Chepala
Uppada,
Bheemunipatnam
Mandal, Dist. Visakhapatnam,
A.P. 531 163
169.
Union Bank of India
Eethakota Branch
At Eethakota, Ravulapalem
Mandal, Dist. East Godavari,
A.P. 533 238
Regional Office
170.
Union Bank of India
Siligudi
Bhaluk Road Branch
Masaldah Bazr, Post Kaariali
Dist. Malda, Pin 732125
(West Bengal)
171.
Union Bank of India
Kalingpong Branch
Thana Dara, Post Kalinpong
Distt. Darjeeling, Pin 734401
(West Bengal)
172.
Union Bank of India
Bishnupur Branch
At & Post Bishnupur, Via -
Rampurhat
Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731244
(West Bengal)
173.
Union Bank of India
Bolapur Branch
Mission Compound,
Post-Bolpur, Dist-Birbhum
Pin 731 204 (West Bengal)
174.
Union Bank of India
Dabgram Branch
558, Surya Nagar
1 No. Dabgram,
Siliguri 734 006
Dist. Darjeeling, West Bengal
175.
Union Bank of India
Darjeeling Branch
5, Dr. S.M. Das Road,
Anand Palace Hotel, 1st Floor,
Post & Dist. Darjeeling,
Pin 734 101, West Bengal
176.
Union Bank of India
Desh Bandhu Para Branch
Siliguri, Deshbandhu Road,
PO-Siliguri Town, Dist.
Darjeeling
Pin 734004,West Bengal
177.
Union Bank of India
Dhupguri Branch
B.R. Comlpex, First Floor,
Falakata Road,Dhupguri,
Dist.-Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 210
(West Bengal)
178.
Union Bank of India
Gangadhari Branch
At & Post Gangadhari,
Dist.
Murshidabad,
Pin 742 121,W.B.
179.
Union Bank of India
Gangtok Branch
N.H. 31, M.G. Road,
Gangtok-737101, Sikkim
180.
Union Bank of India
Geyazing Branch
Pemayangtse Monastery
Geyazing Bazar, Old Adda
Building
Geyazing, Pin 737 111
Distt. West Sikkim
181.
Union Bank of India
Jalpaiguri Branch
240/A, 1st Floor, Temple
Street,
Distt. Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 101,
W.B.
182.
Union Bank of India
Jorethang Branch
Jorethang Bazar. PO Naya
Bazar,
Dist.
South
Sikkim,
Pin 737 121
183.
Union Bank of India
Kundal Branch
At & Post Kundal
Dist.
Murshidabad,
Pin 731 246 W.B.
184.
Union Bank of India
Kunuri Branch
At & Post ;Kunuri
Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731 252,
W.B.
185.
Union Bank of India
Margram Branch
At & Post Margram
Dist. Birbhum, Pin 731 217
(West Bengal)
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5270
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
186.
Union Bank of India
Mangan Branch
Mangan Bazar,
Mangan
Pin
737
116
Dist. East Sikkim
187.
Union Bank of India
Narayanpur ; Branch
At & Post Narayanpur
Via-Rampurhat,
Dist.
Birbhum,
Pin-731 239, West Bengal
188.
Union Bank of India
Pulinda Branch
At & Post Pulinda
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742 121, W. B.
189.
Union Bank of India
Rampurhat Branch
At & Post Rampurhat
Dist Birbhum, Pin 731 224,
W.B.
190.
Union Bank of India
Ranipool Branch
N.H. 31 A, Ranipool,
Pin 737 138, Dist.-East Sikkim
191.
Union Bank of India
Sainthia Branch
Najrul Islam Sarani
Post - Sainthia, Dist - Birbhum,
Pin-731 234, (W.B.)
192.
Union Bank of India
Saldhamore Branch
Post-M.D
Bazar,
Dist Birbhum,
Pin 731 127 (W.B.)
193.
Union Bank of India
Siliguri (Main) Branch
Krishna House, Hill-Cart
Road,
Siliguri, Pin 734 001 (W.B.)
194.
Union Bank of India
Singtam Branch
Main Road, Post-Singtam
Dist. East Sikkim, Pin 737 134
195.
Union Bank of India
Suri Branch
New Dangalpara
Near to new Bus Stand, Post-
Suri
Dist.-Birbhum, Pin 731 101
(W.B.)
196.
Union Bank of India
Sikkim Manipal Institute of
Technology (SMIT) Branch
Majithar, Dist. East Sikkim
Pin 737 132
197.
Union Bank of India
Siliguri Mahakurma Parishad
(SMP)
Siliguri Branch
Siliguri 734 001
198.
Union Bank of India
Siliguri Institute of Technology
(SIT)
Branch
Salbari, Sukna Siliguri
Distt Darjeeling , Pin 734225
(W.B.)
199.
Union Bank of India
Falakata Branch
Subhas Pally, Falakata,
Dist.-Jalpaiguri, Pin 735 211
(W.B.)
200.
Union Bank of India
Balurghat Branch
Promoda
Bhawan,
Opposite Lila
Lodge, Narayanpur, Balurghat,
Dist. Dakshin Dinazpur
Pin 733 101 (W.B.)
201.
Union Bank of India
Service Branch
Sukh Sadan. 37, Bipin Paul
Sarani,
College Para, Siliguri,
Pin 734 001 (W.B.)
202.
Union Bank of India
Regional Office Siliguri
Sachin Saurav Apartment
Ashutosh Mukherjee Road,
College Para, Siliguri,
Pin 734 001 (W.B.)
Regional Office, Goa
203.
Union Bank of India
Carmona Branch
At & Post Carmona, Salcete,
District-Sourth Goa, Goa
Pin 403 717
204.
Union Bank of India
Phondaghat Branch
342/2B, Ugwai Complex
Bazarpeth,
Dist. Sindhudurg,
Maharashtra,
Pin 406 601
205.
Union Bank of India
Dapoli Branch
H & D House, Family Mall
Road, Tal. Dapoli, Dist.
Ratnagiri Pin 415 712
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5271
206.
Union Bank of India
Service Branch
Model Residency, Shop No. 6,
7, 8
St. Inez Church Road,
ST. INEZ
Dist. North Goa, Pin-403001
207.
Union Bank of India
Kuwarbav Branch
Shree Samartha Krupa
Padvewadi, Mirjole, Gram
Kuwarbav,
Dist.Ratnagiri, Maharashtra,
Pin 415 639
208
Union Bank of India
Guhagar Branch, Pahat,
Near Guhagar Depot,
Guhagar Chiplun Road,
At Post & Tal. Guhagar,
Maharashtra,
Pin 415 703
Regional Office,
209.
Union Bank of India
Trivendrum
Kanthaloor Branch
8/210, Kovikadavu, Sahayagiri
P.O., Idukki, Dist. 685 620
210.
Union Bank of India
Pala Branch
Moons Building
Opp. Mini Civil Station, Pala,
Kottayam Dist. 686 575
211.
Union Bank of India
Ponkunnam (Vazhoor) Branch
Vattakattu Building, KVMS
Junction.
NH-220, Ponkunnam,
Kottayam 685 506
212.
Union Bank of India
Vaikom Branch
Kaniamparambil Arcade,
Valiya Kavala Bus Stand
Vaikom-686141, Kottayam
Dist.
213.
Union Bank of India
Aroor Branch
Door No. VII/896-B.G. NH 47,
Near PH Centre & Village
Office, Aroor, Alappuzha
214.
Union Bank of India
Karhikappally Branch
Kochuparambil Building
Alappuzha 690 516
215.
Union Bank of India
Kaduthuruthy (Vaikom)
Branch, Ist Floor, Kumar
Complex, Central Complex,
Kaduthuruthy,
Vaikom taluk Pin 686604
Kottayam District
216.
Union Bank of India
Kumily Branch
Dubai Complex
NH 220, Kumily 685509
217.
Union Bank of India
Vandiperiyar Branch
Jaya Building, K.K. Road,
Vandiperiyear P.O.,
Idukki, Dist. 685533
218.
Union Bank of India
Kumarapuram Branch
(Thiruvananthapuram),
Devi
Scans
Building,
Kumarapuram,
Medical College P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram 695 011
Delhi Region
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
219. Mayur Vihar Phase III
Indian Overseas Bank
2442
Plot No. 7 & 8
Agarwal Tower
DDA Shopping Centre
Kondli Gharoli
Mayur Vihar Phase III
Delhi 110 096
220. Nangloi 2443
Indian Overseas Bank
A-20 Adhyapak Nagar
Nazafgarh Road
Opp. Hanuman Mandir
Nangloi,
Delhi 110 041
221. Mehrauli 2444
Indian Overseas Bank
893-A/8, Ground Floor Main
Bazar
Mehrauli
Delhi 110030
222. Dwarka
Indian Overseas Bank
Sector 20, 2445
G-4 Ground Floor
Manish High Plaza
Plot No. 25
Service Centre
Sector 20
Dwarka, New Delhi 110 075
223. Ashok Vihar 2259
Indian Overseas Bank
A-6 Ashok Vihar
Phase-II
North District
New Delhi 110 052
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
Name of the Regional
No.
Name and Address
Office
of Branch/Office
5272
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
224.
Maurya Enclave 2260
Indian Overseas Bank
29, 30, 31-P Block
Pacific Mall
Pitampura (West)
Maurya Enclave
North West District
New Delhi 110 034
225.
Najafgarh 2261
Indian Overseas Bank
RZ-15 Ground Floor Oil
Roshanpura
Najafgarh
West Distrct
New Delhi-110 043
226.
Anand Vihar 2356
Indian Overseas Bank
G-1 Plot No. 11
Chetan Complex
Suraj Mal Vihar
Local Shopping
Anand Vihar
New Delhi 110 092
227.
Mundka 2357
Indian Overseas Bank
Khasra No. 428/4
Village:Mundka
Delhi 110 041
228.
Mahipalpur 2358
Indian Overseas Bank
A-7, Brahamputra House
Delhi 110 037
229.
Sanchar Bhawan 2565
Indian Overseas Bank
DOC & IT
Sanchar Bhawan
Ministry of Communication
Ashok Road
New Delhi 110 001
230.
East of Kailash 2668
Indian Overseas Bank
C-36, Raja Hessan Marg East
of Kailash
New Delhi 110048
231.
Mayur Vihar
Indian Overseas Bank
Phase-II 2661
23 Ist Floor
Krishna Arcade
LSC Mayur Vihar Phase-II
New Delhi 110 092
232.
Ayodhya-2369
Indian Overseas Bank
Old Bus Stand
Hanumangari
Ayodhya-224 133-U.P.
233.
Chitrakoot Dham
Indian Overseas Bank
(Karwi) 2472
440/2, Dwarikapuri,
Mandakini Road, Purani
Bazar, Karwi-
210 205 U.P.
234.
Gosaigang 2516
Indian Overseas Bank
Plot No. 28,
Sadarpur Karora Gusainganj
Dist- Lucknow, U.P. 227 125
235.
Itaunja 2517
Indian Overseas Bank
Plot No. 215, Ward No. 7
Nagar Panchayat
Itaunja District-Lucknow,
U.P. 226 205
236. Lalganj-2370
Indian Overseas Bank
Kakajunj, Mahesh Nagar,
Lalganj-229 206
District-Rae Bareli, U.P.
237.
Mahona 2512
Indian Overseas Bank
House No. 533, Itaunja-Karsi
Road,
Mahona, District Lucknow,
U.P. 227 205
238.
Mau Aima 2471
Indian Overseas Bank
172, Station Road, Mau Aima,
District-Allahabad,
U.P. 212 501
239.
Patti 2511
Indian Overseas Bank
House No.1, Ward No. 2, Civil
Line, Patti
Town Distrcit-Pratapgarh,
U.P. 230 135
240.
Sitapur 2181
Indian Overseas Bank
Main Market Road,
Sitapur-273 402, U.P.
241.
Sultanpur 2386
Indian Overseas Bank
Civil Lines, In front of Bus
Road,
Sultanpur 228 001, U.P.
242.
Pratapgarh 2362
Indian Overseas Bank
Chawla Arcade, Bhangwa
Changi,
Pratapgarh-230 001, U.P.
243.
Zaidpur
Indian Overseas Bank
(Barabanki) 2361
Rayan Complex, Sidhor Road,
Zaidpur-225 414,
Distt. Barabanki U.P.
244.
Chandauli 2572
Indian Overseas Bank
Plot No. 453, Near Shankar
Singh hospital,
Chandauli 232 104, U.P.
245.
Mati 2571
Indian Overseas Bank
Plot ;No. 56, Mati Bazar,
Renduva Palhari,
Chinhat Deva Road,
Post-Muradhbad,
Mati-225 301
District-Barabanki-U.P.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5273
246.
Maharajganj 2557
Indian Overseas Bank
989, Shastri Nagar,
Nagar Palika Parishad,
Maharajganj 273 303 U.P.
247.
Maheva Patti 2556
Indian Overseas Bank
46-D, Indalpur Road, in front
of Police Chowki, M.P.
Chauraha, Naini, Allahabad-
211 007 U.P.
Meerut Region
248.
Baniawala 2503
Indian Overseas Bank
Ashirvad Bhavan, Durga
Chowk,
Rishikesh Road,
Baniawala,
Post-Doyiwala,
District-Dehradun-248 198
249.
Jalalpur 2467
Indian Overseas Bank
Near Jahar Veer Mandir,
Khair Road, Koeel Tehsil,
Village Jalalpur, 202 001
Distrct-Aligarh
250.
Kashipur 2217
Indian Overseas Bank
Chamunda Complex,
Ramnagar Road,
Kashipur-244 713,
District-Udhyam Singh Nagar
(Uttarkhand)
251.
Karna Prayag
Indian Overseas Bank
2529
Hotel Parkdeep,
P.O. Gandhinagar,
Karna Prayag,
District-Chamoli-246 444,
Gadwal, Uttarkhand
252.
Ramnagar 2216
Indian Overseas Bank
Ingwal Tower,
Opposite M.P. College Field,
Ramnagar-244 715
District-Nainital (Uttarakhand)
253.
Rudraprayag
Indian Overseas Bank
2530
Near New Bus Stand,
Rudraprayag,
District-Rudraprayag,
Uttarakhand-246 171
254.
Stadium Road, Bareli
Indian Overseas Bank
2365
P-5/15, Stadium Road,
D.D. Puram,
Bareli-243 005
255.
Sudhowala
Indian Overseas Bank
2305
23 Gra, Sudhowala,
P.O. Jhajhara Taluk,
Vikas Nagar, Block Nagar,
Block-Sahaspur, Dehradun-
248 007
256.
Srinagar-Gadwal
Indian Overseas Bank,
2528
Sanjay Talkies Building,
Sri Nagar - Gadwal,
Badrinath Main Road,
P.O. Paudi Gadwal,
Uttarakhand 246174
257.
Vikas Nagar
Indian Overseas Bank,
2502
Bhaktawar Singh Marg,
Main Bazar,
Vikas Nagar,
District - Dehradun,
PIN - 248 198
Patna Region
258. Purnea Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Madhubani Bazar,
Saharsa Road,
Purnia
Distt.-Purnia
PIN - 854301
259.
Boring Road Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
New Patliputra Colony,
Near CISF Office,
Boring Road Patna,
Distt.-Patna
PIN - 800013
260.
Siwan Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Ward No. 16,
Station Road,
Babunia More Siwan,
Distt.-Siwan
PIN - 841226
261.
Gopalganj Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Chuna Gali (Near Canara
Bank),
Jadawpur Road,
Gopalganj,
Distt.-Gopalganj
PIN - 841428
262.
Biharsharif Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Ram Raj Complex,
Ramchandrapuri,
Bihar Shariff,
Distt. Nalanda
PIN - 803101
263.
Madhubani Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Opp. Watson Inter College,
Hospital Road,
Madhubani,
Distt. Madhubani
PIN - 847211
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5274
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
264.
Chapra Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Hanuman Mandir,
Mouna Gola Road,
Chapra,
Distt. Saran
PIN-841301
265.
Begusarai Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Shyam Commercial Complex,
Kachahari Road,
Begusarai,
Distt. Begusarai
PIN-851 101
266.
Kahalgaon Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Nav Chetna Kendra,
Thana Road,
Kahalgaon Road,
Distt. Bhagalpur
PIN-813 203
267.
Buxar Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Nav Durga Complex,
Collectorate Road,
Ambedkar Chowk, Buxar,
Distt. Buxar
PIN-802103
268.
Arrah Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Maharana Pratap Nagar,
New Police Line Road,
Arrah,
Distt. Bhojpur
PIN-802 301
269.
Hinoo, Ranchi Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Opp. Eyelex Complex,
Main Road,
Hinoo, Ranchi,
Distt. Ranchi
PIN-834 002
270.
Sahibganj Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Town Thana Chowk
Bazar,
Shashi Bhushan Rai Road,
Sahebganj,
Distt.-Sahebganj
PIN - 816 109
271.
Saraidhela Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Ward No. 28,
Main Road,
Saraidhela, Dhanbad,
Distt. Dhanbad
272.
Chaibasa Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
L.D. House, Amla Tola,
Sadar Bazar, Station Road,
Chaibasa,
Distt. Paschim Singhbhum
PIN-833 201
273.
Sakchi Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
66, Pennar Road,
Sakchi, Jamshedpur,
Distt.-East Singhbhum
PIN-831001
274.
Koderma Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Plot No. 3409, Ward No. 6,
Near Punjab Hotel, Patna
Ranchi Road, Koderma,
Distt.-Koderma
PIN-825410
275.
Simri Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, Simri-Govindpur,
Near Simri Thana,
Post Office-Kansi Simri,
Distt.-Darbhanga
PIN-847106, Bihar
276.
Shiksha Bhawan Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
Bihar Rajbhasha Parishad
Campus,
Acharya Shivpujan Sahay
Path,
Saidpur, Patna
Distt-Patna,
PIN-800004
277.
Lohardaga Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, M.M. Market,
Rana Chowk, Lohardaga,
Distt.-Lohardaga,
PIN-835302
278.
Hazipur Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, S.S. Complex,
Johri Bazar, Hazipur, Vaishali
Bihar,
PIN-844101
279.
Bhagwanpur Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, Gopal Market,
Bhagwanpur Chatti, Rewa
Road,
Muzaffarpur,
PIN-842001
280.
Godda Branch
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, Ward No. 6,
Pirpainti Road,
Hatia Chowk, Godda,
PIN-814 133, Jharkhand
BHOPAL REGION
281. Vidisha 2167
Indian Overseas Bank,
Plot No. 60, Ward No. 7,
NH-86, Near Bus Stand,
Vidisha, District - Vidisha,
PIN-464 001
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5275
282.
CPRI Bhopal 2171
Indian Overseas Bank,
Central Power Research
Institute,
Govindapura, P.O. Bhopal,
District - Bhopal,
PIN-460 023
283.
Govindapura 2233
Indian Overseas Bank,
6 Punjabi Bagh,
Govindapura, Bhopal,
District - Bhopal,
PIN-462 023
284.
Mandideep 2327
Indian Overseas Bank,
2A, Indira Nagar,
Opp. Heg Mandideep,
District - Raisen, Bhopal
(MP),
PIN-462 046
285.
Lalghati - Bhopal 2413
Indian Overseas Bank,
39, Janki Nagar,
Gufa Mandir Road,
Lalghati, Bhopal-462 002
286.
Sehore 2419
Indian Overseas Bank,
House No. 40, Jayanti Colony,
Sekadakhedi Road,
Sehore - 466 001
287.
Gulmohar Colony 2415
Indian Overseas Bank,
Subhadra House,
11 Jai Builders Colony, Saket,
Gulmohar Colony,
Indore - 452 018
288.
Murwara-Katni 2418
Indian Overseas Bank,
Bardsley English School
Campur,
Murwar Mission Chawk,
Katni, Ward No. 5,
Chadrashekhar Azad Ward,
House No. 436 to 436/9,
Katni, M.P. 483 501
289.
Hoshangabad 2416
Indian Overseas Bank,
Plot No. 1, Anand Nagar,
Hoshangabad, M.P. 461 001
290.
Shivpuri 2420
Indian Overseas Bank,
House No. 1326,
Quarter No. 3, Ram Arked,
Jhansi Triraha, A.B. Road,
Shivpuri,
M.P.
PIN - 473 551
291.
Morena 2417
Indian Overseas Bank,
160/3, Ward No. 34,
Opp. S.P. Bunglow,
M.S. Morena, M.P. 476 001
292.
Devas
Indian Overseas Bank,
01, Malwa Shanai Complex,
Opp. Apex Hospital, Tilar
Nagar, A.B. Road, Devas,
M.P. - 496 001
293.
Raigarh 2466
Indian Overseas Bank,
First Floor, Modi Plaza,
Jagatpur Road, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh - 496 001
294.
Tilda 2323
Indian Overseas Bank,
R.K.S. Plaza, Kharora Road,
Tilda, PO-Neora,
District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
PIN-493 114
295.
Mana 2324
Indian Overseas Bank,
Gauri Joddar, Mana Camp
Main Road,
Front of Novodaya Quarters,
District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh, PIN-491 107
296.
Utai 2325
Indian Overseas Bank,
Asha Complex (Patan Pul),
Main Road, Utai, District
Durg,
Chhattisgarh, PIN - 491 107
297.
Dhanora 2326
Indian Overseas Bank,
Damodar Prasad Sahu,
Village Dhanora,
PO - Hanoda,
District-Durg, Chhattisgarh,
PIN - 491 001
JAIPUR REGION
298. Bapui 2696
Indian Overseas Bank,
Gadh Bapui,
Boli Tehsil,
Sawai Madhopur - 322023
(Rajasthan)
299.
Tonk 2682
Indian Overseas Bank,
Dwarikesh Nazarbagh
Palace Road,
Tonk-304001 (Rajasthan)
300.
Chandpole 2426
Indian Overseas Bank,
1193, Uniyaro Ka Rasta,
Chandpole Bazar,
Jaipur-313324 (Rajasthan)
301.
Vidhyadhar Nagar 2427
Indian Overseas Bank,
Shop No. 20—24, Gr. Floor,
Alankar Plaza,
Central Spine,
Vidhyadhar Nagar-303303
(Rajasthan)
302. Jaisalmer 2428
Indian Overseas Bank,
B-453, Opp. Mandir Palace,
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5276
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Near Tajia Tower,
Jaisalmer-321001 (Rajasthan)
303.
Rajsamand 2429
Indian Overseas Bank,
Pagaria Estate, Pagaria
Market,
Mukherjee Circle,
Rajasmand - 306401
(Rajasthan)
304.
Barmer 2430
Indian Overseas Bank,
Goswami Tower, Roy Colony
Road,
Opp. Civil Hosp. Building,
Barmer-322001 (Rajasthan)
305.
Chittorgarh 2431
Indian Overseas Bank,
Innai Residency,
Bhilwara Road,
Chitorgah-332001 (Rajasthan)
306.
Dausa 2432
Indian Overseas Bank,
Plot No. 1-2-3,
National Highway-11,
Jaipur
Agra
Road,
Dausa-312001 (Rajasthan)
307.
Bundi 2433
Indian Overseas Bank,
Devshree Complex,
Bye Pass Road, Bundi-302023
(Rajasthan)
308.
Bharatpur 2434
Indian Overseas Bank,
Singhal Nursing Home,
Infront of Kali ki Bagichi,
Main Circular Road,
Bharatpur-344001 (Rajasthan)
309.
Sawai Madhopur 2435
Indian Overseas Bank,
Shukla Bhawan,
Goverdhan
Colony,
New Grain Mandi Road,
Sawai Madhopur-323001
(Rajasthan)
310.
Sikar 2436
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Biscope Pvt. Ltd.,
Shastri Nagar, Rani Sati Road,
Sikar-302001 (Rajasthan)
311.
Hanumangarh 2437
Indian Overseas Bank,
Baba Shyam Singh Complex,
Hanumangarh-345001
312.
Pali 2438
Indian Overseas Bank,
Jai Narayan Vyas Colony,
Pali -35512 (Rajasthan)
313.
Mahwa 2540
Indian Overseas Bank,
Opp.
Police
Station
Jaipur-Agra Road,
Mahwa,
Dausa-321608 (Rajasthan)
314. Newai 2539
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Nagar Palika,
Jaipur Kota Road,
Jamat Newai,
Tonk-304021 (Rajasthan)
315.
Lalsot 2541
Indian Overseas Bank,
New Anaj mandi Sawai
Madhopur Road,
Lalsot Dausa-303503
316.
Pushkar 2542
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Roadways Bus Stand,
Opp. Gurudwara Pushkar,
Ajmer-305022
(Rajasthan)
317.
Abu Road 2330
Indian Overseas Bank,
Ward No. 3 Manpur,
Mount Road,
Abu Road,
Sirohi-307206 (Rajasthan)
318.
Neemrana 2307
Indian Overseas Bank,
Shop No. 32,
Industrial Area,
Neemrana, Alwar (Rajasthan)
319.
Bandikui 2607
Indian Overseas Bank,
Ist Floor Pujari Ka Katla
16, Raja Bazar Behind Girl's
College,
Bandikui 303313 (Rajasthan)
320.
Rajgarh 2608
Indian Overseas Bank,
Khasra 551/0.5 Between Axis
Bank & SBBJ,
Rajgarh 301408 (Rajasthan)
321.
Banswara 2698
Indian Overseas Bank,
Opp. Tehsil Office,
Banswara Jaipur (Rajasthan)
322.
Mehra Jatuwas 2595
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Bus Stand Patwargarh,
Kharsa No. 108,
Mehra Jatuwas,
Jhunjhunu-333036
(Rajasthan)
323.
Nagaur 2893
Indian Overseas Bank,
Gandhi Chowk,
Railway Station,
Nagpur-341001 (Rajasthan)
324.
Ajmer Road 2790
Indian Overseas Bank,
125, Gyan Vihar, New Roma
Nursing Home,
D.C.M.
Ajmer
Road
(Rajasthan)
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5277
325.
Rohta 2597
Indian Overseas Bank,
5 Vaishno Vihar Agra Highway,
Rohta
Agra-282001 (U.P.)
326.
Kirawali 2538
Indian Overseas Bank,
Agra Fatehpur Sikri Road,
Galla Mandi,
Kirawali (Agra)-283122
(U.P.)
327.
Etmadpur 2674
Indian Overseas Bank,
Bheem Market Brahan Road,
Etmadpur
Agra-283202
(U.P.)
328.
Achhnera 2329
Indian Overseas Bank,
2414, Agarwal Building,
Village Achhnera,
Agra, (U.P.)
329.
Fatehabad 2895
Indian Overseas Bank,
Near Police Station,
Sadar Bazar,
Fatehabad-283111 (U.P.)
330.
Sikandara Road 2894
Indian Overseas Bank,
Nihal Complex, Sector 5,
Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas
Colony,
Sikandra Agra-282007 (U.P.)
331.
Dayal Bagh 2911
Indian Overseas Bank,
8/13 I Kaushal Pur,
By Pass Road,
Dayal Bagh Agra-282005
(U.P.)
332.
Bichpuri 2916
Indian Overseas Bank,
Agra Bichpuri Main Road,
Opp. State Bank of India,
Bichpuri, District Agra-
283105 (U.P.)
333.
Sanjay Place 2912
Indian Overseas Bank,
Shop No. 1 & 10 Ground Floor,
54 Prateek Tower Opp. to
HDFC Bank,
Sanjay Place, Agra-282002
(U.P.)
334.
Keetham 2331
Indian Overseas Bank,
Keetham Zila,
Agra (U.P.)
335.
Farah 2611
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kailash Nagar,
Bypass Farah,
Mathura-281122 (U.P.)
336.
Gokul 2613
Indian Overseas Bank,
Nand Dwar,
Gokul,
Distt.-Mathura-281303 (U.P.)
337.
Raya 2614
Indian Overseas Bank,
Plot No. 195,
Infront of Railway Station,
Raya,
Dist.-Mathura-281204 (U.P.)
338.
Goverdhan 2697
Indian Overseas Bank,
Kunj Bihari Sewa Sadan,
Radha Kund Road,
Opposite Bus Stand,
Goverdhan, Distt.-Mathura
PIN-281502 (U.P.)
339.
Central Bank of India,
Banka
Kateria Road, Banka
P.O. Banka
Distt. Banka (Bihar)
340.
Central Bank of India,
Shekhpura,
Chandni Chowk, Cinema
Road,
P.O. Shekhpura
Distt.: Shekhpura (Bihar)
341.
Central Bank of India,
Jamhore,
A.N. Road Jamhore,
P.O. Jamhore,
Distt.: Aurangabad (Bihar)
342.
Central Bank of India,
Chandni Chowk,
Stuart Ganj, Mohania,
P.O. Mohania,
Distt. Caimur (Bihar)
343.
Central Bank of India,
Ankorha
P.O. Ankorha,
Distt. Aurangabad (Bihar)
344.
Central Bank of India,
Jehanabad,
Ambedkar Chowk
Court Area,
P.O. Jehanabad
Distt.: Jehanabad (Bihar)
345.
Central Bank of India,
V.K.S.U. University,
Katira Road, Ara
P.O.: Ara
Distt. Bhojpur (Bihar)
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch,
Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5278
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
346.
Central Bank of India,
S.N. Sinha College,
S.N. Sinha College Campus,
P.O. Aurangabad,
Distt.: Aurangabad (Bihar)
347. Central Bank of India,
A.M. College,
A.M. College Campus,
Katari Hill Road,
P.O.: R.S. Gaya,
Distt. Gaya (Bihar)
348. Central Bank of India,
S.B. College,
S.B. College building,
P.O.-Pakari,
Distt.-Bhojpur
349. Central Bank of India,
K.L.S. College,
Gandhi Nagar, Nawada,
Near No. 3, Bus Stand,
P.O. Nawada,
Distt. Nawada (Bihar)
350. Central Bank of India,
Kisan College,
Kisan College Campus
P.O. Sohsarai,
Distt. Nalanda (Bihar)
351. Central Bank of India,
Phulbari Sharif,
Khagaul Road,
Kali Mandir,
Post Phulbari Sharif,
Patna (Bihar)
352.
Central Bank of India,
Ganga Devi Mahila College,
Ganga Devi Mahila College Premises,
Kankarbag,
Lohiya Nagar,
Patna (Bihar)
353. Central Bank of India,
Patna University,
Patna College Premises,
Ashok Rajpath,
Patna (Bihar)
354. Central Bank of India,
T.P.S. College,
T.P.S. College Premises,
Chiraya Tand,
Patna (Bihar)
355. Central Bank of India,
Mahendru, Choudhary Market,
Near Mahendru Post Office,
Ashok Rajpath,
Patna (Bihar)
356. Central Bank of India,
Nortdame Academy,
N.D.A. Premises,
Industrial Estate,
Main Road,
Post P.P. Colony,
Patna (Bihar)
357. Central Bank of India,
Choudhary Tola,
Jagannath Singh Lane,
Post Choudhary Tola,
Patna (Bihar)
358. Central Bank of India,
C.D.A.
C.D.A. Premises,
Rajendra Path,
Patna (Bihar)
359.
Central Bank of India,
Hindi Vidyapeeth,
B.N. Jha Road,
Distt. Deoghar (Jharkhand)
360. Central Bank of India,
Sagma,
P.O. Kataharkala,
Distt. Garhwa (Jharkhand)
361. Central Bank of India,
Kurpania,
Anand Bazar, Kurpania,
P.O. Sunday Bazar,
Block: Bermao,
Distt. Bokaro (Jharkhand)
362. Central Bank of India,
MGM Bokara,
MGM School, Bokaro, Sector IV,
Distt. Bokaro (Jharkhand)
363. Central Bank of India,
N. Road Jamshedpur,
Tisco N. Gate,
Distt. East Singhbhum (Jharkhand)
364.
Central Bank of India,
Govindpur,
Tirupati Complex,
G.T. Road, Govindpur,
P.O. Govindpur,
Disstt. Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5279
365.
Central Bank of India,
Navhatta,
Vill. & P.O. Navhatta,
Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)
366. Central Bank of India,
Purab Bazar,
Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)
367. Central Bank of India,
Saharsa College,
Distt. Saharsa (Bihar)
368. Central Bank of India,
Amha,
Vill. & P.O. - Amha,
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
369. Central Bank of India,
P.O. Bahorva,
Parsa Via Pipra Bazar,
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
370. Central Bank of India,
Sukhasan
P.O. Shripur,
Via Kharvitta,
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
371. Central Bank of India,
P.O. Velhi,
Via-Nirmali,
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
372. Central Bank of India,
Puraani Bazar,
P.O. Ganeshpur,
Disstt. Madhepura (Bihar)
373. Central Bank of India,
Hardi,
P.O. Hardi,
Via Gamharia
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
374. Central Bank of India,
Panchayat Bhawan,
Alam Nagar,
Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)
375.
Central Bank of India,
Asha Palace, Kali Sthan,
Disstt. Begusarai (Bihar)
376. Central Bank of India,
P.O. Gaura,
Via Barauni Dyori,
Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)
377.
Central Bank of India,
Latona,
P.O. Triveni Ganj,
Distt. Sapaul (Bihar)
378. Central Bank of India,
Belari,
P.O. Belari,
Via Budhma,
Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)
379. Central Bank of India,
Israinkala,
P.O. Jadua Patti,
Distt. Madhepura (Bihar)
380. Central Bank of India,
Baurani,
Rajendra Road,
Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)
381. Central Bank of India,
Amjadpur,
P.O. Pidholi,
Distt. Begusarai (Bihar)
382.
Central Bank of India,
Mahesh Khoont,
Keshri Market,
Distt. Khagaria (Bihar)
383. Central Bank of India,
Alirajpur Branch,
20 Nagar Palika Marg,
Alirajpur-457887
Distt. Alirajpur
Madhya Pradesh
384.
Central Bank of India,
Jhabua Branch
Behind City Post Office
Hansa Lodge
Jhabua-457661
Distt: Jhabua
385. Central Bank of India,
Jamo Bajar Branch,
At+PO: Jamo Bajar,
Block: Goriakothi
Sub-division: Maharajganj
Distt: Siwan,
Postal Index No. 841413 (Bihar)
386. Central Bank of India,
Panchdeorhi Branch
At+P.O.: Panchdeorhi,
Distt: Gopalganj
Postal Index No. 841437 (Bihar)
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5280
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
387. Central Bank of India,
D.A.V. College Siwan Branch,
D.A.V. College Campus Siwan,
Distt.: Siwan,
Postal Index No. 841226 (Bihar)
388. Central Bank of India,
Hasanpura Branch
At+PO: Hasanpura,
Near Hasanpura Bridge,
Distt: Siwan
Postal Index No. 841236 (Bihar)
389. Central Bank of India,
Pachlakhi Branch
At+PO: Pachlakhi
P.S. Nautan
Distt.: Siwan
Postal Index No. 841436 (Bihar)
390. Central Bank of India,
Parsa Branch,
At: Parsa, PO: Parsa-Bajar,
Block+P.S. Ekma
Dist: Saran (Chhapra)
Postal Index No. 841 220 (Bihar)
391. Central Bank of India,
Jamapur Branch,
At: Jamapur, PO: Jiradei,
Block: Jiradei
Sub-division: Siwan
Dist: Siwan,
Postal Index No. 841 245 (Bihar)
392.
Central Bank of India,
Malamirja Tukada Branch
J.P. University Campus
PO: Chhapra,
Dist: Saran (Chhapra)
Postal Index No. 841301 (Bihar)
393. Central Bank of India,
Jagadamba College Branch,
Jagadamba College Campus
PO: Chhapra,
Dist: Saran (Chhapra),
Postal Index No. 841 301 (Bihar)
394. Central Bank of India,
Vidya Vikas Mandal College
Branch,
College Complex,
Pedda, Margon,
Goa 403601
395
Central Bank of India,
St. Javier College
Alteno, Mapuca,
Dist: North Goa,
Goa 403 507
396. Central Bank of India
Calangute Branch
Algarvi Retreat
Porbavaddo, Calngute,
Barddez, Dist: North Goa,
Goa 403 516
397. Central Bank of India
Naveli Branch
Colmorod Aishs Building,
Carwar, Madgaon Road,
Navelim, Salset,
Dist: South Goa,
Goa 403 707
398. Central Bank of India
NRI Branch
Damodar Bldg,
Station Road,
Near Gomantak Niketan Bldg.,
Margao 403 601, Salcete,
Dist: South Goa,
399. Central Bank of India
APMC Branch
Krishi Utpad Bajar Samiti Campus,
Bettiah-845438
Dist: West Champaran
Tel: 06254243608
E-Mail: [email protected]
400.
Central Bank of India
Barwal Branch
At+Post: Bagaha II
Dist: 06251227750
E-Mail:[email protected]
401. Central Bank of India
Chanpatia Branch
At+Post: Chanpatia
Dist: West Champaran-845438
Tel: 06254266139
E-Mail: [email protected]
402. Central Bank of India
Dalpat Vishunpur Branch
At+Post: Dalpat Vishunpur
Via Panchpakadi
Dist: East Champaran-845427
Tel: 06250282233
E-Mail: [email protected]
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5281
403. Central Bank of India
Devapur Branch
At+Post: Panchpakadi
Dist: East Champaran-845427
Tel: 06250250133
E-Mail: [email protected]
404. Central Bank of India
Duncan Hospital Branch
Duncan Hospital Campus
Raxaul
Dist: East Champaran-845305
Tel: 06255220963
E-Mail: [email protected]
405. Central Bank of India
Gora Branch
At: Shanichari Chauk, Via Lauria
Dist: West Champaran-845543
Tel: 06254254243
E-Mail: [email protected]
406. Central Bank of India
Kandhwalia Branch
At: Kandhwalia
Post: Bagahi,
Dist: West Champaran-845106
Tel: 06256264463
E-Mail: [email protected]
407. Central Bank of India
Kehunia Branch
At: Hardia Chauk
Narkatiaganj
Dist: West Champaran-845455
Tel: 06253242028
E-Mail: [email protected]
408. Central Bank of India
Kesarria Branch
Block Road,
Post: Kesaria
Dist: East Champaran-845301
Tel: 06257269875
E-Mail: [email protected]
409. Central Bank of India
Patani Branch
At+Post: Ramgadhwa
Dist: East Champaran-845433
Tel: 06255233714
E-Mail: [email protected]
410. Central Bank of India
Phenhara Branch
At+Post: Phenhara
Dist: East Champaran-845420
Tel: 06259277153
E-Mail: [email protected]
411.
Central Bank of India
Sirinagar Branch
At: Sirinagar
Post: Dumari Bazar
Dist: West Champaran-845452
Tel: 06254224322
E-Mail: [email protected]
412. Central Bank of India
Taulaha Branch
At+Post: Ramnagar
Dist: West Champaran-845105
Tel: 062596224073
E-Mail: [email protected]
413. Central Bank of India
Lead District Office, East Champaran
Balua Tal, Motihari
Dist: East Champaran-845401
Tel: 06252232793
E-Mail: [email protected]
414. Central Bank of India
Lead District Office, West Champaran
Lal Bazar, Bettiah
Dist: West Champaran - 845438
Dist: 06254242311, Fax: 06254232261
E-Mail:
415. Central Bank of India
Regional Office,
Balua Tal, Motihari
Dist: East Champaran-845401
Tel: 06252232448
E-Mail: [email protected]
416. Central Bank of India
Gorwa Branch
At+Post: Gorwa
Dist: East Champaran
417. Central Bank of India
Fetehpur Branch
Machharaganva
Dist: West Champaran
418.
Central Bank of India
Abbigere Branch
Sri Skanda Complex, "F" Cross,
Abbigere Main Road,
Bangalore-560 090
419. Central Bank of India
Bannerghatta Branch,
383/1A, Hulimavu,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore 560 076
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5282
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
420. Central Bank of India
HSR Layout Branch
No. 395, 10th Main, 7th Sector, Behind Muniyappa
Complex, HSR Layout,
Bangalore 560 102
421. Central Bank of India
Jaraganahalli Branch,
No. 1, 1st Croass, Rajiv Gandhi Road,
Jaraganahalli (J.P. Nagar)
Bangalore 560 078
422. Central Bank of India
Jayanagar IX Block Branch
R J Arcade,
No. 1029/41, 27th A Main, 100 ft Ring Road,
9th Blcok, Jayanagar Bangalore 560 041
423. Central Bank of India
Kemoapura Hebbal Branch 26&29, R.S. Complex,
Anjaneya Temple Street,
Kempapura, Bangalore 560 024
424.
Central Bank of India
Kodigehalli Branch
No. 20, Kempegowda Nagar Road,
Virupakshapura, Near Telecom Circle,
Vidhyaranyapura Post,
Kodigehalli,
Bangalore 560 097
425. Central Bank of India
Mathikere branch, 907/6, Sir Complex,
MES Ring Road, Muthyal Nagar,
Bangalore 560 054
426. Central Bank of India
Ramamurthy Nagar Branch, 72/73, Maruthi
Complex, Hoysala Nagar, 4th Main, T.C. Palya Main
Road, Ramamurthy Nagar Extn.,
Bangalore 560 016
427. Central Bank of India
R.T. Nagar Branch, No. 9 D.R. Plaza, Dinnur Main
Road, Bangalore 560 034
428.
Central Bank of India
Vijayanagar Branch,
Sir Krishna, No. 29, 1st Floor,
Magadi Main Road, M.C. Layout,
Vijayanagar, Bangalore 560 040
429. Central Bank of India
Yelahanka Branch, 98 & 99,
LIG Venkateshwara Complex, 707, 4th Phase,
Near Govt. School,
Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore 560 064
430.
Central Bank of India
Church of South India Branch
Church of South India Council for Child Care,
Centre,
Bangalore, 26, Lavelle Road,
Bangalore 560 001
431. Central Bank of India
Central Silk Board Branch
C.S.B. Complex, BTM Layout,
Madiwala, Bangalore 560 068
432. Central Bank of India
Sophia High School Branch Bangalore,
47, Palace Road, Bangalore 560001
433. Central Bank of India
Widia (India) Ltd., Branch,
Bangalore, 8/9 Mile, Tumkur Road,
Bangalore 560 073
434. Central Bank of India
Indian Institute of Harticultural Research (IIHR)
Branch, Lake Post, Hesaraghatta 560 089
Bangalore Rural Dist.
435. Central Bank of India
Mandhya Branch
No. 5, 28/1121/3,
3rd Main Road,
Ashoknagar, Mandya,
Mandya Dist. 571401
436.
Central Bank of India
Hassan branch, 77/15A, Near Stadium, Vidyanagar,
M.G. Road, Diast. Hassan 573 201
437. Central Bank of India
Tumkur Branch
Vijaya Complex
Someshwarapuram Main Road,
Tumkur 572 102
438. Central Bank of India
Dattagalli Branch
22/23, Kanakadasa Nagar,
Netaji Circle & Double Road,
Dattagalli, Mysore 570 023
439. Central Bank of India
Hosakote Branch
No. 21, Near Nagadeshwara Temple,
Bus Stand Road,
Hossakote 562114
Karnataka
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5283
440. Central Bank of India
Kanakpura Branch
Ramanagara District,
602/655, M.G. Road, Opp. Range Forest Office,
Kanakapura 562 117
441. Central Bank of India
Madikeri Branch
No. 115/81 A, Block No. 2,
Ground Floor, Gowlibeedi,
Kohinoor Road, Madikeri 571 201.
Syndicate Bank, Official Language Division, HO:
Manipal-576 104
442. Syndicate Bank
Hunsur Branch
# 3739/1
B.M. By Pass Road
Hunsur
Dist: Mysore
State: Mysore
Pin : 571 105
443. Syndicate Bank
Siddartha Nagar Branch
# 147/13
Siddartha Complex
Siddartha Nagar
Dist: Mysore
State: Mysore
Pin : 570 011
444. Syndicate Bank
Adarsh Nagar Branch
D-27-28, Rajan Babu Road
Adarshnagar
State: Delhi
Pin : 110 033
445. Syndicate Bank
Model Town Branch
Sanker Towers
K-1/1 Model Town-111
Near Post Office
State: Delhi
Pin : 110 009
446. Syndicate Bank
Himmatnagar Branch
Ratan Sagar
Sahkari Jinchar Rasta
Chhaparia Road
Himmathnagar
Dist: Sabarkantha
State: Gujarat
Pin : 383 001
447. Syndicate Bank
Vamaiya Branch
C/o Gram Panchayat
Committee Hall
Vamaiya Taluk
Dist: Patan
State: Gujarat
448. Syndicate Bank
Palanpur Branch
1,2,3, H.K. Towers
Hanuman Tekari
Abu Highway, Palanpur
Dist: Banaskantha
State: Gujarat
Pin : 385 001
449. Syndicate Bank
Pratapgarh Branch
Sri Govindnathji Haweli
Gopalganj
Pratapgarh
Dist: Pratapgarh
State: Rajasthan
Pin : 312 605
450. Syndicate Bank
Rajasamand Branch
Main Market
Bhilwara Road
J.K. Curve
Hathina M K Kankroli
Dist: Rajsamand
State: Rajasthan
Pin : 313 324
451. Syndicate Bank
Bundi Branch
Ward No. 25
Lanka Gate Road
Bundi
Dist: Bundi
State: Gujarat
Pin : 323 001
452. Syndicate Bank
Sri Karanpur Branch
5-C Block
Ward No. 15
Opp. OBC
Sri Karanpur
Dist: Sriganganagar
State: Rajasthan
Pin : 335 073
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5284
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
453. Syndicate Bank
Bagha Branch
Village & P.O. Bagha
Dist: Sitamarhi
State: Bihar
Pin : 843 332
454. Syndicate Bank
Banka Branch
Harendra Market
Katoriya Road
Dist: Banka
State: Bihar
Pin : 813 102
455. Syndicate Bank
Balihar Branch
Village Balihar
PO & PS Surajpura
Balihar
Dist: Rohtas
State: Bihar
Pin : 802 226
456. Syndicate Bank
Balha Branch
Village & P.O. Balha
Via Pusa
Ps. Chakmahesi
Dist: Samastipur
State: Bihar
Pin : 848 209
457.
Syndicate Bank
Begusarai Branch
Satyaveer Shanti Plaza
Hiralal Chowk
Near RSS Begusarai
Dist: Begusarai
State: Bihar
Pin : 851 101
458. Syndicate Bank
Chittaloriya Branch
Village Chittaloriya
P.O. Deosung Chittaloriya
Dist: Deoghar
State: Jharkhand
Pin : 814 112
459. Syndicate Bank
Dhobgama Branch
Village & P.O. Dhobgama
PS Pusa
Dist: Samastipur
State: Bihar
Pin : 848 125
460.
Syndicate Bank
Daulathpur Chandi Branch
Village Daulathpur Chandi
Dist: Vaishali
State: Bihar
Pin : 844 146
461. Syndicate Bank
Dumari Branch
Village Balihar
P.O. Khabra
Dist: Muzaffarpur
State: Bihar
Pin : 843 146
462. Syndicate Bank
Godda Branch
Main Chowk Godda
Dist: Godda
State: Jharkhand
Pin : 814 133
463. Syndicate Bank
Hansdiha Branch
Hansdiha Chowk
Dist: Dumka
State: Jharkhand
Pin : 814 145
464. Syndicate Bank
Harchanda Branch
Village Harchanda
P.O. Panpur Kariya
Dist: Muzaffarpur
State: Bihar
Pin : 843 146
465.
Syndicate Bank
Kanchanpur Branch
Village : Kanchanpur
Jalma Chowk
P.O. Lupung
Block : Katkamasandi
Dist: Hazaribagh
State: Jharkhand
Pin : 825 319
466. Syndicate Bank
Marpa Branch
Village Marpa
P.O. Phulwaria
Dist: Sitamarhi
State: Bihar
Pin : 843 317
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5285
467.
Syndicate Bank
Mothihari Branch
Kutchery Road
Balua Chowk
Motihari
Dist: Motihari
State: Bihar
Pin : 845 401
468.
Syndicate Bank
Ramapur Maheshpur Branch
Village & P.O. Ramapur
Maheshpur
Dist: Samastipur
State: Bihar
Pin : 848 130
469.
Syndicate Bank
Samastipur Branch
Opp. BRB College
Mohanpur Road Samastipur
Dist: Samastipur
State: Bihar
Pin : 848 101
470.
Syndicate Bank
Sheikhpura Branch
Main Market
Chandni Chowk Crossing
Dist: Sheikhpura
State: Bihar
Pin : 811 105
471.
Syndicate Bank
Taraura Branch
Village : Taraura
P.O. Peerbadhouna
Via : Nagarnausa
Taraura
Dist: Patna
State: Bihar
Pin : 801 305
472.
The Branch Manager
ADB Manda
No. D-2/1849/366, I Main
Bandigowda Layout
Mandya Mandya-Karnataka-571401
473.
The Branch Manager
Aghalaya
Via Santhebachahallyaghalaya,
K R Pet Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571436
474.
The Branch Manager
Belagula
KRS Main Road, Belagula
Srirangapatna Taluk
Mandya-Karnataka-571606
475.
The Branch Manager
Belakavadi
PB No. 1, Main
Road Belakavadi, Malavali
Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571417
476.
The Branch Manager
Bellale
Bellale, Pandavapura Taluk
Mandya, Karnataka-571434
477.
The Branch Manager
Bindiganavile
No. 71, Bus Stand Road
Bindiganavile Nagaman-
gala Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571802
478.
The Branch Manager
Bookinakare
Bookinakere R Pet Taluk,
Mandya Karnataka-571812
479.
The Branch Manager
Chinakurali
PB No. 1,
Chinakuralipandavapura
Taluk Mandya, Karnataka-571455
480.
The Branch Manager
Guthalu
Regent Complex, Guthalu
Road Mandya, Mandya
Karnataka-571403
481.
The Branch Manager
Hadli
Megalapura Circle, Hadli
Malavalli Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571430
482.
The Branch Manager
Hallagere
Hallagerebasaralu Hobli
Mandya, Karnataka-571146
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5286
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
483.
The Branch Manager
Holalu (Bellary)
PB No. 1, Main Road
Holaluhuvinahadagali Taluk
Bellary, Karnataka-583217
484.
The Branch Manager
Hongahally
PB No. 1, Hongahally
Srirangapatna Taluk
Mandya, Karnataka-571607
485.
The Branch Manager
Kadaballi
Bindaginavile Hobli
Nagamangala Taluk Mandya
Karnataka -571418
486.
The Branch Manager
Kalamuddanadoddi
No 145(1), Halagur
Roadbharathinagar,
K.M. Doddi Maddur Taluk
Mandya, Karnataka-571422
487.
The Branch Manager
Kalkuni
No. 147, State Bank Road,
Kalkuni, Malavalli Taluk
Mandya, Karnataka-571424
488.
The Branch Manager
Kikkeri
PB No. 1, No. 117, Main Road
Kikkeri K.R. Pet Talu
Mandya, Karnataka-571423
489.
The Branch Manager
Kothathi
Mandya-Bannur Road
Kothathi Mandya
Karnataka-571402
490.
The Branch Manager
Kyathanahalli
No. 327(1), Main Road
Kyathanahalli Pandavapura
Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571427
491.
The Branch Manager
Krishnarajpet
PB No. 1, No. 259, Main Road
Krishnarajapet Mandya
Karnataka-571426
492.
The Branch Manager
Mandya
PB No. 1, Visveshwaraiah
Road Mandya Mandya
Karnataka-571401
493.
The Branch Manager
Melkote
No. 20, Marigudi Street
Melkote Pandavapura Taluk
Mandya Karnataka-571431
494.
The Branch Manager
Nagamangala
No. 1755, Mysore-Bangalore
Road nagamangala Mandya
Karnataka-571432
495.
The Branch Manager
Nagoonahalli
Chandagal Road,
Nagoonahall
Isrirangapatna Taluk
Smandya, Karnataka-571805
496.
The Branch Manager
Palahally
Palahally Srirangapatna
Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571438
497.
The Branch Manager
Sivasamudram
PB No. 1, No D-17, S N P
Laneshivasamudrammal-vali
Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571437
498.
The Branch Manager
Srirangapatna
PB No. 1, No 994947 Opp.
Hotel Hariprasad Srirangapatna
Taluk Mandya
Karnataka-571438
499.
The Branch Manager
V C Farm
PB No. 1, V C Farm
Mandya Karnataka-571405
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5287
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
HEAD OFFICE
JAIPUR
Branch to be notified in the Official Gazette under Rule
10(4) of Official Language Rules, 1976.
500.
KAAPREN
Address:
Po-Kaapren
Dist-Bundi
Pin-323 301
Rajasthan
501.
SISWALI
Address :
Pratap Chowk, Bus Stand
Po-Siswali
Dist-Baran
Pin-325206
502.
TALERA
Address :
Kesshoria Patan Tiraha
Dist-Bundi
Pin-323021
Rajasthan
503.
INDRAGARH
Address :
Community Bhawan, Ward No. 8,
Post-Indragarh
Dist-Bundi
Pin-323613
Rajasthan
504.
ROOPNAGARH
Address :
Near Bus Stand
Po-Roopnagarh
Dist-Ajmer
Rajasthan
505.
ARAIN
Address :
Near Power House Chouraha
Po-Arain
Dist-Ajmer
Pin-305814
Rajasthan
506.
JHALAWAR MINI SECTT.
Address :
Post-Jhalawar
Dist-Jhalawar
Pin-326001
Rajasthan
507.
R.C.P.C. JHALAWAR
Address :
Near Ghar Jhalawar
Post-Jhalawar
Dist-Jhalawar
Pin-326001
Rajasthan
508.
VIGYAN NAGAR
Address :
Kalpataru Complex,
Post-Vigyan Nagar
Dist-Kota
Pin-324005
Rajasthan
509.
SAWAI MADHOPUR
Address :
SBBJ, Bajrang Bhawan
Post-Sawai Madhopur
Dist-Sawai Madhopur
Pin-322001
Rajasthan
510.
DAI BRANCH
Address :
Nainwa Road, Opp Krishi Upaj Bhawan
Post-Dei
Dist-Bundi
Pin-323802
Rajasthan
511.
KAWAI BRANCH
Address :
Village-Kawai
Post-Kawai Salpura
Dist-Baran
Pin-325219
Rajasthan
512.
SUKAR
Address :
Post-Sukar
Tehsil-Bamanwas
Dist-Sawai Madhopur
Rajasthan
513.
CTTP CHOKI
Address :
CTTP Residential Colony
Choki Motipura
Tehsil-Chhabar
Dist-Baran
Pin-325220
Rajasthan
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5288
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
514.
MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTA
Address :
Medical College Compound
Rangh Badi Road
City-Kota
Disti-Kota
Pin-324005
Rajasthan
515.
RSMECC, UDAYPUR
Address:
Ist Floor Chetak Circle
Post-Udaypur
Pin-313001
Rajasthan
516.
HIRAN MAGARI
Address:
2-G Block
Near Community Centre
Hiran Magari Sector-14
Udaypur, Rajasthan
517.
PRATAPGARH
Address:
Mahatama Gandhi Road
Pratapgarh
Pin-312605
Rajasthan
518.
SETHIN
Address:
A-23 Bapu Nagar, Main Road
Sethin (Chittorgarh)
Pin-312001
Rajasthan
519.
VASSI BRANCH
Address:
Dist-Dugarpur
Pin-314036
Rajasthan
520.
SAWALA BRANCH
Address:
Near Bus Stand
Udaypur Road, Sawala
Pin-314002
Rajasthan
521.
BICHWADA BRANCH
Address:
Chhapiya Complex, Main Market Bichwara
Dungarpur
Pin-314801
Rajasthan
522.
KANOD BRANCH
Address:
Udaypur Road
Post-Kanod
Pin-313603
Rajasthan
523.
LAKADWAS BRANCH
Address:
Dist-Udaypur
Pin-313012
Rajasthan
524.
BHILWARA
Address:
Bhilwara
Dist-Bhilwara
Pin-311001
Rajasthan
525.
KURUKSHETRA BRANCH
Address:
SCO 66, Sector-17
Dist-Krukshetra
Pin-136118
Haryana
List of Branches/Offices of Indian Bank to be notified
under Rule 10(4) in the Gazette of Government of India
Zonal Office Chandigarh
526
Indian Bank
Tagore Nagar Branch
1105 Kiran Vila
Tagore Nagar B
Civil Lines
Ludhiana 151505
Dist.-Ludhiana
527
Indian Bank
Fatehgarh Nauban Branch
C/O Guru Kashi University
Sardoolgarh Road
Talwandi Sabo
Fatehgarh Naubad 151302
Dist.-Bathinda (Punjab)
528
Indian Bank
Jujhar Nagar Branch
Opp 39 West
Maloya Road
Village Jujhar Nagar 160014
Behlopur
District Mohali (Punjab)
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5289
529
Indian Bank
Manasa Branch
Neemwali Gali
Manasa 151505
Dist.-Manasa
Punjab
530
Indian Bank
Samrala Branch
Opp. to M G Complex
Khanna Road
Samrala-141114
Dist.-Ludhiana
Punjab
531
Indian Bank
Morinda Branch
277-278, Ward No. 8, Railway Road
Morinda 140101
Dist.-Roopnagar
Punjab
532
Indian Bank
Dhoraha Branch
Ajjaib Singh Complex
Opp. to Flyover
G T Road
Dhoraha 136118
Dist.-Ludhiana
Punjab
Zonal Office Karnal
533
Indian Bank
Zonal Office
SCO 244-245, (FF & SF)
Sector 12
Karnal 132001 (Haryana)
534
Indian Bank
IMT Manesar
Showroom No. 4-5-7-8, Raheja
Ground Floor, Front Side
IMT Manesar 122050
District Gurgaon Haryana
535
Indian Bank
Khandsa Road Branch
Chauhan Commercial Complex
Near Hero Honda Chowk
Khandsa Road
'
Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana)
536
Indian Bank
Sushant Lok Branch
G-3, Vipul Square
Block-B, Phase-1
Sushant Lok
Gurgaon 122002 (Haryana)
537
Indian Bank
Sector-17 Gurgaon Branch
580, Housing Board Colony
Sector 17-A Market
Gurgaon 122001 (Haryana)
vkUèz cSad Andhra Bank
¼Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe A Government of India
Undertaking)
538
Andhra Bank
Dammaiguda Branch
6-40, RGA Estate, Deepthi Srinagar,
Madinaguda, Serilingampalli Mandal
Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad-500049
539
Andhra Bank
Hastinapuram Branch
Plot No. 8, Survey No. 2, 3 & 4,
Sagar Ring Road, Hastinapuram
Hyderabad-500079
540
Andhra Bank
Bhagya Nagar Branch
Vandana Arcade, D.No. 2-28-298/8 &
2-28-298/8/1, Bhagyanagar
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
541
Andhra Bank
Moula-Ali Branch
40-52/4, Moula-Ali,
Hyderabad-500040
542
Andhra Bank
KPHB Colony Branch
Plot No. 19 & 20, III Phase,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
543
Andhra Bank
Nadargul Branch
Nadargul Village, Saroornagar Mandal,
Hyderabad-501510
544
Andhra Bank
Chevella Branch
MBNR Complex, Main Road,
Chevella, Ranga Reddy District-501503
545
Andhra Bank
Nanakramguda Branch
Andhra Bank, Apex College Complex,
Plot No. 27-29, Financial District,
Nanakramguda, Hyderabad-500032
546.
Andhra Bank
Choutuppal Branch
Door No. 5-390,
Main Road
Choutuppal-508252
547
Andhra Bank
Chityala Branch
H. No. 8-150
Opp: Police Station
Chityal-508114
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
Sl.
Name of the Branch, Branch Address
No.
Code No.
5290
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1996.—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad vfèfu;e] 1955 ¼1955
dk 23½ dh èkjk 21d ds lkFk ifBr èkjk 21 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds
[k.M ¼x½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]
Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djds] ,rn~}kjk] Jh fnus'k dqekj ¼tUe
frfFk 26-10-1966½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vfèlwpuk dh rkjh[k ls
rhu o"kZ dh vofè ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys
gks] Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ds fnYyh LFkkuh; cksMZ esa lnL; ukfer
djrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 3@33@2012&chvks&I]
fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 1996.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 21, read with section
21A of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (23 of 1955), the
Central Government, in consultation with Reserve Bank of
India, hereby nominates Shri Dinesh Kumar (DOB:
26.10.1966), as a Member on the Delhi Local Board of State
Bank of India, for a period of three years from the date of
notification of his appointment or until further orders,
whichever is earlier.
[F.No. 3/33/2012-BO-I]
VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
¼dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr½
t;iqj] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1997.—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2 lh , ds
lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961¼1961 dk 43oka½ dh èkjk
10 ds [k.M ¼23 lh½ dh mièkjk ¼vi½ ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq, eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fuèkZj.k o"kZ
2012&13 ,oa vkxs ds fy;s dfFkr èkjk ds mís'; ls ^^nh
vkbZlh,Q,vkbZ ;wfuoflZVh] [kljk uañ 505@1] xkao tkeMksyh] vkxjk
jksM] t;iqj ¼LFkkbZ [kkrk la[;k&AAAJT2439E) dks Lohd`fr
nsrs gSaA
2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e 1962 ds fu;e] 2 lh , ds
lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vfèfu;e] 1961 dh èkjk 10 ds mi[k.M
¼23lh½ dh mièkjk ¼vi½ ds izkoèkuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsA
[vfèlwpuk lañ 09@2013&14@Øekad% eqvkvk@vvkvk@
¼eqñ½@t;ñ@10¼23lh½¼vi½@13&14@3474]
vrqys'k ftany] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr
(Office of the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax)
Jaipur, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 1997.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the
Income-tax Rules, 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-
tax, Jaipur hereby approves “THE ICFAI University, Khasra
No. 505/1, Vill. Jamdoli, Agra Road, Jaipur” for the purpose
of said section for the A.Y. 2012-13 onwards, provided that
the society conforms to and complies with the provisions
of sub-clause(vi) of clause(23C) of section 10 of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules,
1962.
[Notification No. 9/2013-14/No. CCIT/JPR/ITO (Tech)/
10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/3474]
ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax
ubZ fnYyh] 6 twu] 2013
dkñvkñ 1998.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr cSad dh 'kk[kkvksa dks]
ftuds 80% ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh esa
dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
Øñ lañ cSad dk uke
'kk[kkvksa dh la[;k
1-
vkU/kzk cSad
53
2-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
08
dqy
61
[lañ 11016@13@2013&fgUnh]
jktho dqekj] lgk;d funs'kd ¼jkñHkkñ½
vkU/kzk cSad
¼Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe½
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
1-
vkU/kzk cSad
iksnydwj jksM 'kk[kk] in~ekorh lsaVj]
usYyksj&524004 vkañizñ
2-
vkU/kzk cSad
,lñ,lñ,uñ fMxzh dkyst]
eqxew: jksM] vksaxksy&523001 vkañizñ
3-
vkU/kzk cSad
n'khZ 'kk[kk]
,yñihñ jksM] n'khZ&523 427] izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
4-
vkU/kzk cSad
ekVZwj 'kk[kk]
jk"Vªh; ekxZ&5] jftLVªkj vkfQl ds utnhd]
ekVZwj&523301 vkañizñ
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5291
5-
vkU/kzk cSad
Lo.kZ Hkkjr VªLV 'kk[kk]
osadVkpye&524320] usYyksj ftyk] vkañizñ
6-
vkU/kzk cSad
daHke 'kk[kk]
uk;d LVªhV] daHke&523333] izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
7-
vkU/kzk cSad
esnjesV~yk 'kk[kk]
esnjesV~yk&523212] izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
8-
vkU/kzk cSad
dqfjpsMw 'kk[kk]
dqfjpsMw&523304] izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
9-
vkU/kzk cSad
eqÙkqdw: 'kk[kk] eSu jksM] eqÙkqdw:&524344 usYyksj ftyk]
vkañizñ
10-
vkU/kzk cSad
fjEl ¼vkasxksy½ 'kk[kk]
vksaxksy&523001 izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
11-
vkU/kzk cSad
,lñchñ,eñlhñ 'kk[kk]
ciwth ekdsZV dkEiysDl] vksaxksy&523001] vkañizñ
12-
vkU/kzk cSad
/kuy{ehiqje 'kk[kk
¼1834½] eqÙkqdw: jksM] usYyksj&524002] vkañizñ
13-
vkU/kzk cSad
eqluw: 'kk[kk ¼1835½]
eqluw: ¼dkofy½&524201] usYyksj ftyk] vkañizñ
14-
vkU/kzk cSad
chñohñ uxj 'kk[kk
¼1537½] loksZn; dkyst dSEil] usYyksj&524003] vkañizñ
15-
vkU/kzk cSad
foatew: 'kk[kk ¼1905½] fouk;d uxj] foatew:&524228
usYyksj ftyk] vkañizñ
16-
vkU/kzk cSad
rwiqZ uk;qMq ikyse 'kk[kk ¼1933½
rwiqZ uk;qMq ikyse&523272 izdk'ke ftyk] vkañizñ
17-
vkU/kzk cSad
;sjZxksaMikyse ¼1941½
dksÙkeklq dkEiysDl] esu jksM] ;sjZxksaMikyse&523327
vkañizñ
18-
vkU/kzk cSad
iksnydw: 'kk[kk ¼1980½
iksnydw:&524345 usYyksj ftyk vkañizñ
19-
vkU/kzk cSad
csyryk 'kk[kk
Hkw&ry] es?kk Iyktk csyryk fpjkyh csyryk] xqokgkVh
vle&781029
20-
vkU/kzk cSad
nso?kj 'kk[kk]
dksVZ jksM] ohvkbZih pkSd nso?kj uxj fuxe ds lkeus]
nso?kj] >kj[k.M&814112
21-
vkU/kzk cSad
nkmniqj 'kk[kk]
xzke ,oa iksLV & nkmniqj] ftyk&Nijk] fcgkj&841205
22-
vkU/kzk cSad
x;s'kiqj 'kk[kk
vk;Zu fcfYMax x;s'kiqj] gkoM+k&711405
23-
vkU/kzk cSad
fetkZ 'kk[kk
ikoZrh ekdsZV] izFke ry fetkZ] ftyk&dke:i]
vle&781125
24-
vkU/kzk cSad
eksfgmn~nhu uxj 'kk[kk
t;loky ekdsZV] izFke ry] if'pe pkSd] eksghmn~nhu
uxj] leLrhiqj ftyk] fcgkj&845501
25-
vkU/kzk cSad
Nijk 'kk[kk
ekmuk pkSd] Nijk] fcgkj&841301
26-
vkU/kzk cSad
tkuhiqj 'kk[kk
jkW; dkWyksuh] u;k Vksyk] tkuhiqj jksM] Qqyokjh 'kjhQ]
iVuk] fcgkj&801505
27-
vkU/kzk cSad
csxwljk; 'kk[kk
,e ,l dkWEiysDl] fo".kq flusek pkSd] ehjxat] csxwljk;]
fcgkj&851101
28-
vkU/kzk cSad
{ks=h; olwyh dsUnz
9] jfoUnz lkj.kh] dksydkrk&700001
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
5292
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
29-
vkU/kzk cSad
f'kykax 'kk[kk
n vkdsZM] tsy jksM] f'kykax&793001
30-
vkU/kzk cSad
eqjyh/kj xYlZ dkWyst 'kk[kk
ih&411@14] dksydkrk&700029
31-
vkU/kzk cSad]
pØ/kjiqj 'kk[kk
thou chek fuxe Hkou] jkaph&pØ/kjiqj esu jksM]
pØ/kjiqj&833102 >kj[k.M
32-
vkU/kzk cSad
frulqfd;k 'kk[kk
jaxxksjk jksM] viksyks fDyfud ds utnhd] frulqfd;k]
vle&786125
33-
vkU/kzk cSad
lsDVj 44Mh 'kk[kk
,p ,l lh vks 357] lsDVj 44 Mh] paMhx<+&160047
34-
vkU/kzk cSad
dqEczk 'kk[kk
dqEczk xkao] utnhd xksy VSad] lsDVj&68] eksgkyh] ftyk
iatkc&160062
35-
vkU/kzk cSad
thjdiqj 'kk[kk
,l lh vks 18] flYoj flVh esu] thjdiqj] iatkc&140603
36-
vkU/kzk cSad
eksgkyh 'kk[kk
,l- lh ,Q- 93] Qst&7] ,l , ,l uxj] eksgkyh]
iatkc&160062
37-
vkU/kzk cSad
[kjM 'kk[kk
eq[; paMhx<+ jksM] [kjM] ,u ,p&21] Mslqektjk]
ftyk&eksgkyh] iatkc&140301
38-
vkU/kzk cSad
uoka'kgj 'kk[kk
vEcsMdj pkSd] caxk jksM] uoka'kgj] iatkc&144514
39-
vkU/kzk cSad
dqaMyh 'kk[kk
,l lh vks&39&40] ,p ,l vkbZ vkbZ Mh lh] okf.kfT;d
Hkou] dqaMyh] ftyk&lksuhir] gfj;k.kk&131028
40-
vkU/kzk cSad
:M+dh 'kk[kk
74@1] jkeuxj] foijhr&nwjlapkj Hkou] ,u ,p&73]
:Mdh] mÙkjk[kaM&247667
41-
vkU/kzk cSad
jksgrd 'kk[kk
,l lh ,Q&15] rFkk 15 ,] gqMk Hkou] jksgrd]
gfj;k.kk&403507
42-
vkU/kzk cSad
gehjk 'kk[kk
ftyk&diwjFkyk] iatkc&144802
43-
vkU/kzk cSad
gksf'k;kjiqj 'kk[kk
ch&11&1505@,@3] olqa/kjk Hkou] vk;Z lekt jksM] f'keyk
igkM+h pkSd] gksf'k;kjiqj] iatkc&146001
44-
vkU/kzk cSad
fljlk 'kk[kk
Jh izdk'k jru dkWEiysDl] cjukyk jksM] fljlk&125055
45-
vkU/kzk cSad
dqYyw 'kk[kk
paMhx<+&eukyh ,u ,p&21] utnhd iqukjk cl LVSaM]
v[kkM+k cktkj] dqYyw&175101
46-
vkU/kzk cSad
jkeiqj 'kk[kk
jkeiqj xzke iapk;r] jkeiqj xkao] ik;y rglhy]
yqf/k;kuk ftyk] iatkc&141418
47-
vkU/kzk cSad
vEckyk 'kk[kk
gksVy nhi iSysl] 177@1,] jkbZ cktkj] vEckyk Nkouh]
vEckyk] gfj;k.kk&133001
48-
vkU/kzk cSad
fpUukbZxwMse 'kk[kk
dksÙkisVk] fpUukbZxwMse] if'pe xksnkojh ftyk&534316
49-
vkU/kzk cSad
nwcpykZ 'kk[kk
psczksy jksM] nwcpykZ] if'pe xksnkojh ftyk&534112
50-
vkU/kzk cSad
osadVjkeUukxwMse 'kk[kk
MkWñ okbZñ,lñvkjñgkfVZdYpj ;wfuoflZVh dSail]
fpUukbZxwMse] if'pe xksnkojh ftyk&534101
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5293
51-
vkU/kzk cSad
vkflQkckn 'kk[kk
rkjk dkEiysDl] esu jksM] vkflQckn] vkfnykckn
ftyk&504293
52-
vkU/kzk cSad
esyps:ow 'kk[kk
ihñ 'kadj jsM~Mh ifjlj] esyps:ow] uyxksaMk ftyk&508246
53-
vkU/kzk cSad
vkapfyd dk;kZy;
,l- lh- vks- &200&201] lsDVj&17 lh] paMhx<&160017
jktHkk"kk fu;e ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ 1976 ds
fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e 4 ds varxZr vf/klwfpr fd, tkus
okys dk;kZy;ksa dh lwph%—
1-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
{ks=h; O;olk; dk;kZy;]
fLFkr d`f"k fodkl 'kk[kk Hkou] izFke ry]
Mcokyh jksM+] fljlk ¼gfj;k.kk½
fiudksM&125005
2-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
{ks=h; O;olk; dk;kZy;]
fLFkr gksVy LdkbZ gkWd Hkou] izFke ry
fnYyh ckbZ ikl jksM+] jksgrd ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&124001
3-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
gqMk dWef'kZ;y dkWEiysDl]
jksgrd ¼gfj;k.kk½] fiudksM&124001
4-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
eq[; 'kk[kk Hkou] izFke ry]
'kfDr dkWyksuh] djuky ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&132001
5-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
eq[; 'kk[kk Hkou] izFke ry]
th Vh jksM+] ikuhir] ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&132103
6-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
eq[; 'kk[kk Hkou] izFke ry]
fnYyh jksM+] fglkj] ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&125001
7-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
vEckyk 'kgj 'kk[kk Hkou]
vEckyk 'kgj] ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&133003
8-
Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad]
QqVdj ifjlfEifÙk;kWa y?kq ,oa
e/;e m|e 'kgjh _.k dsUnz]
rhljk ry] iz'kklfud dk;kZy; Hkou]
flVh lsUVj] lSDVj&5] iapdwyk] ¼gfj;k.kk½]
fiudksM&134009
New Delhi, the 6th June, 2013
S.O. 1998.—In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the central
Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks
under the control of Department of Financial Services,
M/o Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
S.No.
Name of Banks
Number of
Branches
1.
Andhra Bank
53
2.
State Bank of India
08
Total
61
[No. 11016/13/2013-Hindi]
RAJIV KUMAR, Asst. Director (O.L.)
ANDHRA BANK
(A Government of India Undertaking)
Sl. No.
Name and Address of the Branch
1.
Andhra Bank
Podalakur Road Branch,
Padmavathi Centre, Nellore-5824004 A.P.
2.
Andhra Bank
S.S.N. Degree College Branch,
Mungamur Road, Ongole-523001 A.P.
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
5294
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3.
Andhra Bank
Darshi Branch,
L. P. road, Darsi-523427, Prakasam District A.P.
4.
Andhra Bank
Martur Branch,
N.H.-5, Near Registrar's Office, Martur-523301
A.P.
5.
Andhra Bank
Swarna Bharath Trust Branch,
Venkatachalam 524320, Nellore Distt., A.P.
6.
Andhra Bank
Cumbum Branch,
Naick Street, Cumbum-523333, Prakasam District
A.P.
7.
Andhra Bank
Medarametla Branch,
Medarametla-523212, Prakasam District, A.P.
8.
Andhra Bank
Kurichedu Branch,
Kurichedu-523304, Prakasam District, A.P.
9.
Andhra Bank
Muthukur Branch,
Main Road, Muthukur-524344, Nellore District,
A.P.
10.
Andhra Bank
RIMS Branch,
Ongole-523001, Prakasam District, A.P.
11.
Andhra Bank
S.B.M.C. Branch,
Sri Bapuji Marketing Complex, Ongole-523001,
A.P.
12.
Andhra Bank
Dhanalaxmipuram Branch,
Muthukur Road, Nellore-524002, A.P.
13.
Andhra Bank
Musunur Branch,
Musunur, Kavali-524201, Nellore District, A.P.
14.
Andhra Bank
B.V. Nagar Branch,
Sarvodaya College Campus, Nellore-524003,
A.P.
15.
Andhra Bank
Vinjamur Branch,
Vinayak Nagar, Vinjamur-524228, A.P.
16.
Andhra Bank
T. Naidu Palem Branch,
Thurpunaidu Palem-523272, Prakasam District,
A.P.
17.
Andhra Bank
Yerragondapalem Branch,
Kothamasu Complex, Main Road,
Yerragondapalem, 523327, Prakasam Distt., A.P.
18.
Andhra Bank
Podalakur Branch,
Podalakur-524345 Nellore District A.P.
19.
Andhra Bank
Beltola Branch,
Ground Floor, Megha Plaza, Beltola, Chirali
Beltola, Guwahati-781029.
20.
Andhra Bank
Deoghar Branch,
Court Road, VIP Chowk, Opp., Deoghar Nagar
Nigam, Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112
21.
Andhra Bank
Daudpur Branch,
Vill.+P.O.-Daudpur, Distt-Chapra, Bihar-841205.
22.
Andhra Bank
Gayespur Branch,
Aryan Building, Gayespur, Howrah-711405.
23.
Andhra Bank
Mirza Branch,
Parvati Market, First Floor, Mirza, Distt-Kamrup,
Assam-781125
24.
Andhra Bank
Mohiuddin Nagar Branch,
Jaiswal Market, First Floor, Paschim Chowk,
Vill/P.O.-Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt-Samastipur,
Bihar-845501.
25.
Andhra Bank
Chapra Branch,
Mauna Chowk, Chapra, Bihar-841301
26.
Andhra Bank
Janipur Branch,
Roy Colony, 'Naya Tola Janipur Road', Phulwari
Sarif, Patna Bihar-801505.
27.
Andhra Bank
Begusarai Branch,
MS Complex, Vishnu Cinema Chowk, Mirganj,
Begusarai, Bihar-851101.
Sl. No.
Name and Address of the Branch
Sl. No.
Name and Address of the Branch
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5295
28.
Andhra Bank
Regional Collection Centre,
9, Ravindra Sarini, Kolkata-700 001.
29.
Andhra Bank
Shillong Branch,
The Arcade, Jail Road, Shillong-793001
30.
Andhra Bank
Murlidhar Girls College,
P-411/14, Gariahaat Road, Kolkata-700029.
31.
Andhra Bank
Chakradharpur Branch,
LIC Building, Ranchi-Chakradhapur Main Road,
Chakradharpur-833102. Jharkhand
32.
Andhra Bank
Tinsukia Branch,
Ranga Gora Road, Near Apollo Clinic, Tinsukia
Assam-786125.
33.
Andhra Bank
Sector-44 Branch,
HSCO 357, Sector 44D, Chandigarh-160047.
34.
Andhra Bank
Kumbra Branch,
Kumbra Village (PO), Near Goal Tank,
Sector-68, Mohali, Punjab-160062
35.
Andhra Bank
Zirakpur Branch,
SCO 18, Silver City Main, Zirakpur,
Punjab-140603
36.
Andhra Bank
Mohali Branch,
SCF 93, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali,
Punjab-160062
37.
Andhra Bank
Kharar Main Branch,
Chandigarh Road, Kharar, NH-21, Desumajra,
Distt.-Mohali, Punjab-140301
38.
Andhra Bank
Nawanshahar Branch,
Ambedkar Chowk, Banga Road, Nawan Shahar,
Punjab-144514.
39.
Andhra Bank
Kundli Branch,
SCO 39-40, HSIIDC, Commercial Complex,
Kundli, Distt.-Sonipat, Haryana-131028
40.
Andhra Bank
Roorkee Branch,
74/1, Ramnagar, Opp. Telephone Exchange,
NH-73, Roorkee, (UK)-247667.
41.
Andhra Bank
Rohtak Branch,
SCF 15 & 15A, Huda Complex, Rohtak,
Haryana-403507
42.
Andhra Bank
Hamira Branch,
Hamira, Distt.-Kapurthala, Punjab-144802
43.
Andhra Bank
Hoshiarpur Branch,
B-11-1505/A/3, Vasundhra Building, Arya Samaj
Road, Shimla Pahari Chowk, Hoshiarpur,
Punjab-146001
44.
Andhra Bank
Sirsa Branch,
Shree Prakash Ratna Complex, Barnala Road,
Sirsa-125055
45.
Andhra Bank
Kullu Branch,
Chandigarh-Manauli NH-21, Near Old Bus
Stand, Akhara Bazar, Kullu-175101
46.
Andhra Bank
Rampur Branch,
Rampur Gram Panchayat, Rampur Village, Payal
Tehsil, Ludhiana District, Punjab-141418
47.
Andhra Bank
Ambala Branch,
Hotel Deep Palace, 177/1A, Rai Market,
Ambala Cantt., Ambala, Haryana-133001
48.
Andhra Bank
Chinnaigudem Branch,
Kothapeta, Chinnaigudem,
West Godavari Distt.-534316
49.
Andhra Bank
Doobacherla Branch,
Cebrole Road, Doobacherla,
West Godavari-534112
50.
Andhra Bank
Venkataramannagudem Branch,
Dr. YSR Horticulture University Campus,
Chinnaigudem-534101
51.
Andhra Bank
Asifabad Branch,
Tara Complex, Main Road, Asifabad, Adilabad
Distt.-504293
Sl. No.
Name and Address of the Branch
Sl. No.
Name and Address of the Branch
5296
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
52.
Andhra Bank
Melacheruvu Branch,
P. Shankar Reddy Premises, Melacheruvu,
Nalgonda Distt.-508246
53.
Andhra Bank
Zonal Office,
SCO-200-201, Sector-17C,
Chandigarh-160017
List of Offices to be notified under Sub-Rule 10(4) of Rule
1976 of Official Language Rules (For the official purposes
of Union Government)
1.
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office,
Located at A.D.B. Branch Bhavan,
First Floor, Dabwali Road,
Sirsa (Haryana)
Pincode-125005
2.
State Bank of India
Regional Business Office,
Located at Hotel Sky Hawk Bhavan,
First Floor, Delhi By Pass Road,
Rohtak (Haryana)
Pincode-124001
3.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre,
Huda Commercial Complex,
Rohtak (Haryana)
Pincode-124001
4.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan,
First Floor, Shakti Colony,
Karnal (Haryana)
Pincode-132001
5.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan,
First Floor, G.T. Road, Panipat (Haryana)
Pincode-132103
6.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre, Main Branch Bhavan,
First Floor, Delhi Road, Hisar (Haryana)
Pincode-125001
7.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre,
Ambala City Branch Bhavan,
Ambala City (Haryana)
Pincode-133003
8.
State Bank of India
Retail Assets Small & Medium Enterprises
City Credit Centre, Third Floor
Administrative Office Bhavan, City Centre,
Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana)
Pincode-134009
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1999.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkkla'kksf/kr 1987½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] foÙk ea=ky;] foÙkh;
lsok,a foHkkx ds fu;a=.kk/khu fuEufyf[kr cSad dh 'kk[kkvksa dks]
ftuds 80% ls vf/kd vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh esa
dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
Øñ lañ cSad dk uke
'kk[kkvksa dh la[;k
1-
iatkc us'kuy cSad
33
2-
flafMdsV cSad
24
3-
flMch
3
dqy
60
[lañ 11016@13@2013&fgUnh]
jktho dqekj] lgk;d funs'kd ¼jkñ Hkkñ½
eaMy dk;kZy; ,ulhvkj uks,Mk
1- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
xkao uwj uxj flgkuh
xkft;kckn&201003
fof'k"V la[;k&7562
2- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% jkoyh dyka
xkft;kckn&201003
fof'k"V la[;k&7681
3- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
eaMy dk;kZy;% ,ulhvkj uks,Mk
lh&13] rhljh eafty]
lSDVj&01] uks,Mk
fof'k"V la[;k&7487
Øe lañ
'kk[kk dk uke ,oa irk
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5297
eaMy dk;kZy; cfBaMk
4- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
lkfnd
taM lkfgc ekxZ
iksLV vkWfQl&lkfnd
fiu&151212
fof'k"V la[;k&7526
5- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
egy dyka
iksLV vkWfQl&egy dyka
fiu&148104
fof'k"V la[;k&7527
6- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
lsguk
iksLV vkWfQl&lsguk
fiu&148103
fof'k"V la[;k&7528
eaMy dk;kZy; /keZ'kkyk
7- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% j>wa
mi&rglhy /khjk
rglhy ikyeiqj
ftyk% dkWaxM+k
fgekpy izns'k
fiu% 176065
fof'k"V la[;k&7563
eaMy dk;kZy; t;iqj
8- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% mfu;kjk
Mkd% tSu psrky;] esu ekdsZV
mfu;kjk
rglhy% mfu;kjk
ftyk% Vksad
fiu&304024
¼jktLFkku½
fof'k"V la[;k&7269
9- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% 'kkgiqjk
Mkd% 'kkgiqjk
rglhy% 'kkgiqjk
ftyk% t;iqj
fiu% 303103
jktLFkku
fof'k"V la[;k&7219
10- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% fgjuksnk
Mkd% cl LVSaM ds ikl] fgjuksnk
rglhy% Qqysjk
ftyk% t;iqj
fiu% 303338
¼jktLFkku½
fof'k"V la[;k&7345
11- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% pkdlw
Mkd% uhydaB /keZdkaVk ds ikl] Vksad jksM+
rglhy% pkdlw
ftyk% t;iqj
fiu% 303901
¼jktLFkku½
fof'k"V la[;k&7344
12- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% U;w vkfr'k ekdsZV
,&5] lUuh ekVZ] U;w vkfr'k ekdsZV]
ekuljksoj
rglhy% lkaxkusj
ftyk% t;iqj
fiu% 302020
¼jktLFkku½
fof'k"V la[;k&7504
eaMy dk;kZy; iVuk
13- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% jktho uxj
jksM uañ% 19
iVuk&800024
fof'k"V la[;k&7578
14- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% lxquk eksM+
jket;iky jksM
U;w csyhjksM
iVuk&801503
fof'k"V la[;k&7577
eaMy dk;kZy; cqyan'kgj
15- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% ryliqj dyka
ryliqj dyka jksM] doklhZ
ftyk% vyhx<+
cqyan'kgj% 202001
¼mÙkj izns'k½
fof'k"V la[;k&7508
5298
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
16- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk dk;kZy;% Hkhdeiqj
lEHkkoyh 'kqxj fey ds lkeus ¼Hkhdeiqj½
thñ Vhñ jksM+
vyhx<+
¼mÙkj izns'k½
fof'k"V la[;k&7507
eaMy dk;kZy; eqt¶Qjiqj
17- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% f'kogj
irk% f'kogj
'kgj% f'kogj
ftyk% f'kogj
fiu% 843329
fof'k"V la[;k&4993
18- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% fcnqiqj
irk% f'kogj
'kgj% gkthiqj
ftyk% oS'kkyh
fiu% 844503
fof'k"V la[;k&6016
19- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% ftyk ifj"kn~ Hkou
irk% ftyk ifj"kn Hkou
LVs'ku jksM] eqt¶Qjiqj
'kgj% eqt¶Qjiqj
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 842001
fof'k"V la[;k&6169
20- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqtQ~Qjiqj
,yvkbZlh foHkkx dk;kZy;
irk% v?kksfj;k ckt+kj
n;k dkWEiysDl] eqt¶Qjiqj
'kgj% eqt¶Qjiqj ¼fcgkj½
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj
fiu% 842002
fof'k"V la[;k&6255
21- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% gkthiqj] ufc;knk
irk% gkthiqj] ufc;knk
LVs'ku jksM] eqt¶Qjiqj
'kgj% gkthiqj
ftyk% gkthiqj ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 844001
fof'k"V la[;k&6256
22- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% ,eñ ihñ lkabl dkWyst
irk% xkscj'kkgh pkSd
'kgj% eqt¶Qjiqj
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 842002
fof'k"V la[;k&6306
23- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqnzk frtksjh] Nijk
irk% gFkqvk ekdsZV] Nijk
'kgj% Nijk
ftyk% lkj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 841301
fof'k"V la[;k&7120
24- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqnzk frtksjh] tsñ ,yñ jksM
irk% tokgj yky jksM] eqt¶Qjiqj
'kgj% eqt¶Qjiqj
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 842001
fof'k"V la[;k&7121
25- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqnzk frtksjh] floku
irk% ccqfu;k eksM+] floku
'kgj% floku
ftyk% floku ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 841226
fof'k"V la[;k&7122
26- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqnzk frtksjh] eksfrgkjh
irk% esu jksM+] eksfrgkjh
'kgj% eksfrgkjh
ftyk% iwohZ pEikj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 845401
fof'k"V la[;k&7123
27- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% ih,uch] ujbZiqj
fr#irh 'kqxj fey ds utnhd
cxgk&2
'kgj% cxgk
ftuk% iwohZ pEikj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 845105
fof'k"V la[;k&7164
28- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% pfd;k
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5299
irk% :iegy flusek ds lkeus
Mkd?kj% pfd;k
'kgj% pfd;k
ftyk% iwohZ pEikj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 845412
fof'k"V la[;k&7211
29- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% ujdfV;kxat
irk% mÙkj fcgkj xzkeh.k cSad ds
lkeus] esu jksM
'kgj% ujdfV;kxat
ftyk% if'peh pEikj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 845455
fof'k"V la[;k&7212
30- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% lqjlaM vlyh
irk% lqjlaM pkSd
Mkd?kj% lqjlaM
'kgj% lqjlaM
ftyk% lhrke<+h ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 843331
fof'k"V la[;k&7214
31- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% Hkksjs
irk% MkWñ pkS/kjh Dyhfud] ehjxat ds
lkeus] Hkksjs
'kgj% Hkksjs
ftyk% xksikyxat ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 841426
fof'k"V la[;k&7323
32- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% cjcV~Vk] lksuiqj
irk% Mhvkj,e dk;kZy;
cjcV~Vk] lksuiqj
'kgj% lksuiqj
ftyk% lkj.k ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 841101
fof'k"V la[;k&7555
33- iatkc uS'kuy cSad
'kk[kk% eqt¶Qjiqj] cSd vkWfQl
irk% eqt¶Qjiqj] cSd vkWfQl] tsñ ,yñ
jksM+] fcgkj
'kgj% eqt¶Qjiqj
ftyk% eqt¶Qjiqj ¼fcgkj½
fiu% 842001
fof'k"V la[;k&6873
flafMdsVcSad] jktHkk"kk izHkkx] iz/kku dk;kZy;% ef.kiky&576104
1- flafMdsV cSad
vdcjiqj 'kk[kk
edku lañ&213
u;k ua 175@4] okMZ ua 3
eksgfluiqj] eUlwjiqj
ihñMCY;wñMhñ vkfQl ds lkeus
vdcjiqj
ftyk% vacsMdjuxj
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 224122
2- flafMdsVcSad
fetkZiqj 'kk[kk
29d rFkk 29[k
okMZ ua 8 pkScs Vksyk
Mafduxat
ftyk% fetkZiqj
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 231001
3- flafMdsVcSad
jkek MsUVy dkyst 'kk[kk
y[kuiqj] A-1@8
ftyk% dkuiqj
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 208024
4- flafMdsVcSad
egkjktxat 'kk[kk
Hkwry] IykWV ua&1066
okMZ ua&14
QjsUMk jksM
ftyk% egkjktxat
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 273303
5- flafMdsVcSad
gjnksbZ 'kk[kk
ifjlj ua&471
ykbZuiqjok
flfoy ykbUl
ftyk% gjnksbZ
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 241001
6- flafMdsVcSad
ea>uiqj 'kk[kk
vkjkth uañ 249
U;w gksysaM VªsDVj ,tsalh ds ikl
ea>uiqj vksñ,lñ,ñ jksM
5300
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ftyk% dkS'kkEch
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 212207
7- flafMdsVcSad
dkuiqj fdnobZuxj 'kk[kk
okbZ Cykd] edku uañ 1339
fdnobZ uxj
ftyk% dkuiqj
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 208011
8- flafMdsVcSad
'kkgkckn 'kk[kk
Hkwry eñuañ 90
eksgYyk pkSd
ftyk% gjnksbZ
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 241124
9- flafMdsVcSad
gSnjx<+ 'kk[kk
,lñchñvkbZñ ds ikl ¼ubZ 'kk[kk½
fivksj feBkbZ okMZ
y[kuÅ& lqYrkuiqj us'kuy gkbos
ftyk% ckjkcadh
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 227301
10- flafMdsVcSad
cyjkeiqj 'kk[kk
edku uañ 62
eksgYyk u;k cktkj
ftyk% cyjkeiqj
jkT;% mÙkj izns'k
fiu% 271201
11- flafMdsVcSad
fHkaxk 'kk[kk
Hkwry] bykgkckn cSad ds ikl
eksñ cUnjgk ydM+h eaMh
fHkaxk fljfl;k jksM
ftyk% JkoLrh
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 271831
12- flafMdsVcSad
cktiqj 'kk[kk
jkejkt jksM
dkWjiksjs'ku cSad ds lkeus
cktiqj
ftyk% m/keflaguxj
jkT;% mÙkjk[kaM
fiu% 262401
13- flafMdsVcSad
fcykliqj 'kk[kk
dkejh jksM
vkuanuxj
chñ,lñ,uñ,yñvkWfQl ds ikl
ftyk% jkeiqj
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 244921
14- flafMdsVcSad
fcykjh 'kk[kk
lgdkjh xUuk fodkl lfefr
pankSlh jksM
ftyk% eqjknkckn
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 244411
15- flafMdsVcSad
ihyhHkhr 'kk[kk
'kqDyk dkWEIysDl
xka/kh LVsfM;e jksM
ftyk% ihyhHkhr
jkT;% mÙkjizns'k
fiu% 262001
16- flafMdsVcSad
xksikyxat 'kk[kk
Bkdqj esa'ku
';ke flusek jksM
ftyk% xksikyxat
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 841428
17- flafMdsVcSad
cDlj 'kk[kk
Fkkuk jksM
lek'kks/ku x`g ds lkeus
cDlj
jkT;% fcgkj
fiu% 802101
18- flafMdsVcSad
vMkt.k lwjr 'kk[kk
'kkWi lañ 6 ls 11
v[akM vkuan dkaIysDl
9 LDok;j ds ikl
guh ikdZ] esu jksM
ftyk% lwjr
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 385009
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5301
19- flafMdsVcSad
/kkjax/kjk 'kk[kk
lañ 3] Hkwry
ifjokj ,osU;w
eerkcsu vLirky ds ikl
Dyc jksM] /kkjax/kjk
ftyk% lqjsUnzuxj
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 363310
20- flafMdsVcSad
o<+ok.k 'kk[kk
'kkWi lañ 11,oa 12] Hkwry
banzizLFk] 80 QwV jksM+
riksou caxyk ds lkeus
HkfDruxj lfdZy ds ikl
o<+ok.k] ftyk% lqjsUnzuxj
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 363030
21- flafMdsVcSad
nkgksn 'kk[kk
4207, usrkth ckt+kj ikno jksM]
egs'k nqX/kky; ds lkeus
ftyk% nkgksn
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 389151
22- flafMdsVcSad
xks/kjk 'kk[kk
lañ 1 ls 6
yksoj xzkmaM ¶yksj
t; tyjek Iykt+k
,lñVhñ cl LVSaM ds lkeus
lkbUl dkWyst ds ihNs
xks/kjk] ftyk% iapegy
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 389001
23- flafMdsVcSad
,vkj,e vgenkckn 'kk[kk
usIP;wu VkolZ
¼usg: fczt ds lkeus½
uojaxiqjk] vgenkckn
ftyk% vgenkckn
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 380009
24- flafMdsVcSad
ukuk eok jktdksV 'kk[kk
xksYMu O;w] igyk ry
vtZqu ikdZ lkslkbVh
ukuk ekok jksM] jktdksV
ftyk% jktdksV
jkT;% xqtjkr
fiu% 360005
Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad
1- Hkkjrh; y?kq m|ksx fodkl cSad] tks/kiqj 'kk[kk dk;kZy;
bZ&4] Hkwry] lqfo/kk dkWEIysDl] 'kkL=h uxj
tks/kiqj] jktLFkku&342003
2- Hkkjrh; y?kq mn~;ksx fodkl cSad] fd'kux<+ 'kk[kk dk;kZy;
izFke ry] vxzlsu Hkou ds ikl
t;iqj&vtesj ekxZ] enuxat] fd'kux<+ jktLFkku&305801
3- Hkkjrh; y?kq mn~;ksx fodkl cSad] {ks=h; 'kk[kk dk;kZy;&t;iqj
izFke ry] mejko dkWEIysDl
lalkj pUnz ekxZ] t;iqj] jktLFkku&302001
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 1999.—In pusuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Language (Use for official purpose of the
Union) Rules, 1976 (as amended 1987) the Central
Government hereby notifies following branches of Banks
under the Control of Department of Financial Services, M/
O Finance, whereof more than 80% officers/staffs have
acquired working knowledge of Hindi.
Sl. No. Name of Banks
Number of branches
1.
Punjab National Bank
33
2.
Syndicate Bank
24
3.
Sidbi
3
Total
60
[No. 11016/13/2013-Hindi]
RAJIV KUMAR, Asst. Director (O.L)
Circle Office NCR NOIDA
1.
Punjab National Bank
Village-Noor Nagar Sinhani
Gaziabad-201003
Disn No. 7562
2.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Ravali Kalan
Gaziabad-201003
Disn No. 7681
3.
Punjab National Bank
Circle Office-NCR Noida
C-13, 3rd Floor
Sector-1, Noida
Disn No. 7487
5302
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Circle Office BATHINDA
4.
Punjab National Bank
Jand Sahib Road
P.O.- Sadiq
Pin Code-151212
Sadiq
Disn No. 7526
5.
Punjab National Bank
Mehal Kalan
P.O.-Mehal Kalan Pin Code-148104
Mehal Kalan
Disn No. 7527
6.
Punjab National Bank
Sehna
P.O.-Sehna
Pin Code-148103
Sehna
Disn No. 7528
Circle Office Dharamshala
7.
Punjab National Bank
B/O Rajhoon
Sub Teh.-Dheera
Tehsil-Palampur
District Kangra
Himachal Pardesh
Pin-176065
Disn No. 7563
Circle Office Jaipur
8.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Uniara
Post: Jain Chetalaya,
Main Market
Uniara
Tehsil: Uniara
District: Tonk
Pin: 304024
(Rajasthan)
Disn No.: 7269
9.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Shahpura
Post: Shahpura
Tehsil: Shahpura
District: Jaipur
Pin: 303103
(Rajasthan)
10.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Hirnoda
Post: Near Bus Stand
Tehsil: Phulera
District: Jaipur
Pin: 303338
(Rajasthan)
Disn No.: 7345
11.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Chaksu
Post: Near Neelkanth Dhram
Kanta, Tonk Road
Tehsil: Chaksu
District: Jaipur
Pin: 303901
(Rajasthan)
Disn No. 7344
12.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-New Aatish Market
Post: A-5, Sunny Mart, New
Aatish Market, Mansarovar
Tehsil: Sanganer
District: Jaipur
Pin: 302020
(Rajasthan)
Disn No.: 7504
Circle Office Patna
13.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Rajiv Nagar
Road No.: 19
Patna:
800024
Disn No.: 7578
14.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Saguna More
Ramjaypal Road
New Bailey Road
Patna: 801503
Disn No.: 7577
Circle Office Bulandshahar
15.
Punjab National Bank
B.O- Talaspur Kalan
Talaspur Kalan Road Kwarsi
Aligarh
Bulandshahar: 202001
Disn No.: 7508
16.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.-Bhikampur
Opp. Simbhawali Sugar Mill
(Bhikampur) G.T. Road
Aligarh
Disn No.: 7507
Circle Office Muzaffarpur
17.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Sheohar
Address: Sheohar
City: Sheohar
Dist.: Sheohar
Pin-843329
Disn No.: 4993
18.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Bidupur
Address: Bidupur
City: Hajipur
Dist.: Bidupur
Aishali (Bihar)
Pin-844503
Disn No.: 6016
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5303
19.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Zila Parishad Bhawan
Address: Zila Parishad
Bhawan, Station Road,
Muzaffarpur
City: Muzaffarpur
Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Pin-842001
Disn No.: 6169
20.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Muzaffarpur, LIC Div.
Office
Address: Aghoria Bajar, Daya
Complex, Muzaffarpur
City: Muzaffarpur
Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Pin-842002
Disn No.: 6255
21.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Hajipur, Nabiyada
Address: Hajipur Nabiyada
Station Road, Muzaffarpur
City: Hajipur
Dist.: Vaishali (Bihar)
Pin-844001
Disn No.: 6256
22.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: M.P. Science College
Address: Gobershahi Chowk
City: Muzaffarpur
Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Pin-842002
Disn No.: 6306
23.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Currency Chest,
Chhapra
Address: Hathua Market,
Chhapra
City: Chhapra
Dist.: Saran (Bihar)
Pin 841301
Disn No.: 7120
24.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Currency Chest, J.L. Road
Address: Jawahar Lal Road
Muzaffarpur
City Muzaffarpur
Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Pin-842001
Disn No.: 7121
25.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Currency Chest, Siwan
Address: Babunia, Siwan
City: Siwan
Dist.: Siwan (Bihar)
Pin-841226
Disn No.: 7122
26.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Currency Chest, Motihari
Address: Main Road, Motihari
City: Motihari
Dist.: East Champaran (Bihar)
Pin-845401
Disn No.:7123
27.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Naraipur
Near Tirupati Sugar Mill,
Bagha-2
City: Bagha
Dist.: East Champaran
(Bihar)
Pin-845105
Disn No.: 7164
28.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Chakia
Address: In front of Rupmahal
Takies
PO: Chakia
City: Chakia
Dist.: East Champaran (Bihar)
Pin-845412
Disn No.: 7211
29.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Narkatiaganj
Address: In front, of Uttar
Bihar Gramin Bank, Main Road
Narkatiaganj
City: Narkatiaganj
Dist.: West Champaran
(Bihar)
Pin-845455
Disn No.:7212
30.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Sursand Asli
Address: Sursand Chowk
PO: Sursand
City: Sursand
Dist: Sitamarhi (Bihar)
Pin-843331
Disn No.: 7214
31.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Bhore
Address: In front of
Choudhary Clinic
Mirganj, Bhore
City: Bhore
Dist.: Gopalganji (Bihar)
Pin-841426
Disn No.: 7323
32.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Barbatta, Sonepur
Address: DRM Office, Baratta,
Sonepur, Bihar
City: Sonepur
5304
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Dist.: Saran (Bihar)
Pin-841101
Disn No.: 7555
33.
Punjab National Bank
B.O.: Muzaffarpur Back Office
Address: Muzaffarpur Back
Office' J.L. Road, Bihar
City: Muzaffarpur
Dist.: Muzaffarpur (Bihar)
Pin-842001
Disn No.:6873
1.
Syndicate Bank
Akbarpur Branch
House No. 213
New No. 175/4, Ward No. 3
Mohsinpur, Mansoorpur
Opp. P.W.D. Office
Akbarpur
Dist; Ambedkarnagar
State: Uttar Pradesh
Pin : 224122
2.
Syndicate Bank
Mirzapur Branch
29A&29B
Ward No. 8
Chaubey Tola
Dankinganj
Dist: Mirzapur
State: Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 231001
3.
Syndicate Bank
Rama Dental College Branch
Lakhanpur A-1/8
Dist: Kanpur
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 208024
4.
Syndicate Bank
Maharajganj Branch
Ground Floor, Plot No. 1066
Ward No. 14
Farenda Road
Dist: Maharajganj
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 273303
5.
Syndicate Bank
Hardoi Branch
Premises No. 471
Linepura
Civil Lines
Dist: Hardoi
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 241 001
6.
Syndicate Bank
Manjhanpur Branch
Aaraji No. 249
Near New Holland Tractor Agency
Manjhanpur O.S.A. Road
Dist: Kaushambi
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 212207
7.
Syndicate Bank
Kanpur Kidwaingar Branch
Y. Block H. No. 1339
Kidwainagar
Dist: Kanpur
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 208 011
8.
Syndicate Bank
Shahabad Branch
Ground Floor H. No. 90
Mohalla Chowk
Shahabad
Dist: Hardoi
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 241 124
9.
Syndicate Bank
Haidergarh Branch
Near SBI (New Branch)
Piyor Mithai Ward
Lucknow-Sultanpur
National Highway
Dist: Barabanki
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 227 301
10.
Syndicate Bank
Balrampur Branch
H. No. 62
Mohalla Naya Bazar
Dist: Balrampur
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 271 201
11.
Syndicate Bank
Bhinga Branch
Ground Floor
Near Allahabad Bank
Mohalla Bandraha Lakri Mandi
Bhinga Sirsiya Road
Dist: Shravasti
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 271 831
12.
Syndicate Bank
Bajpur Branch
Ramraj Road
Corporation Bank
Bajpur
Dist: Udhamsingh Nagar
State Uttaranchal
Pin: 262 401
13.
Syndicate Bank
Bilaspur Branch
Kamri Road
Anand Nagar
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5305
Near BSNL Office
Dist: Rampur
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 244 921
14.
Syndicate Bank
Bilari Branch
Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti
Chandausi Road
Dist: Moradabad
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 244 411
15.
Syndicate Bank
Pilibhit Branch
Shukla Complex
Gandhi Stadium Road
Dist: Pilibhit
State Uttar Pradesh
Pin: 262 001
16.
Syndicate Bank
Gopalganj Branch
Thakur Mansion
Shyam Cinema Road
Dist: Gopalganj
State: Bihar
Pin: 841 428
17.
Syndicate Bank
Buxur Branch
Thana Road
Opp. Clearing House
Buxur
State: Bihar
Pin: 802 101
18.
Syndicate Bank
Adajan Surat Branch
Shop No. 6 to 11
Akhand Anand Complex
Near 9 Square
Honey Park, Main Road
Dist: Surat
State: Gujarat
Pin: 385 009
19.
Syndicate Bank
Dhrangadhra Branch
No. 3, Ground Floor
Parivar Avenue
Near Mamathaben Hospital
Club Road, Dhrangadhra
Dist: Surendranagar
State: Gujarat
Pin: 363 310
20.
Syndicate Bank
Wadhwan Branch
Shop No. 11 & 12, Ground Floor
Indraprastha, 80Ft. Road
Opp. Tapovan Bunglows
Near Bhakthinagar Circle
Wadhwan,
Dist: Surendranagar
State: Gujarat
Pin: 363 030
21.
Syndicate Bank
Dahod Branch
4207, Netaji Bazar, Padav Road
Opp. Mahesh Dugdhalay
Dist: Dahod
State: Gujarat
Pin: 389 151
22.
Syndicate Bank
Godhra Branch
No. 1 to 6
Lower Ground Floor
Jai Jalram Plaza
Opp. S. T. Bus Stand
Behind Science College
Godhra, Dist: Panchmahal
State: Gujarat
Pin: 389 001
23.
Syndicate Bank
ARM, Ahmedabad Branch
Neptune Towers
(Opp. Nehru Bridge)
Navarangpura, Ahmedabad
Dist: Ahmedabad
State: Gujarat
Pin: 380 009
24.
Syndicate Bank
Nana Mawa Rajkot Branch
Golden View, First Floor
Arjun Park Society
Nana Mawa Road, Rajkot
Dist: Rajkot
State: Gujarat
Pin: 360 005
Small Industries Development Bank of India
1. Small Industries Development Bank of India,
Jodhpur Branch Office
E-4, Bhutal, Suvidha Complex, Shastri Nagar
Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342003
2. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Kishan
Garh Branch Office
1st Floor, Near Agrasen Bhavan
Jaipur-Ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh
Rajasthan-305801
3. Small Industries Development Bank of India, Zonal
Office-Jaipur
1st Floor, Umrao Complex
Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001
5306
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2000.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e ¼4½ ds mifofu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k
uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe
ykblsal la[;k
Lohd`r djus
ykblsal/kkjh dk
Hkkjrh; ekud dk
Hkk ek
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
lañ
lh,e@,y
dh frfFk
uke o irk
'kh"kZd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-
,y&4812867
02-07-2013
eSñ ,ou ckbOghyj ,Dlsljht
eksVjlkbZfdy pkydksa
4151
&
&
1993
izkñfyñ] IykV uañ 421]
ds fy, laj{kh gSYesV
lsDVj 8] vkb,eVh ekuslj]
ftyk xqMxkao & 122006
¼gfj;k.kk½
2-
,y&4812059
03-07-2013
eSñ Jh ';ke ,Dok feujYl
iSdstcUn is; ty
14543
&
&
2004
,&9] dkWojk b.MLVªh;y ,fj;k]
¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd
ftyk Qjhnkckn & 121001]
feujy ty ds vykok½
¼gfj;k.kk½
3-
,y&4813970
10-07-2013
eSñ Fkeks dsCl] ,pih,y&
1100 oksYV rd dh
694
&
&
1990
lSDVj 10 ds ihNs] ikoj gkml]
dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk ds fy,
fnYyh ckbZ ikl jksM] mÙke uxj]
ihohlh jksf/kr dscy
ftyk fjokM+h&123401
¼gfj;k.kk½
4-
,y&4814063
15-07-2013
eSñ ,l ,.M ih baVjizkbfll]
fueTtuh; iEilsV
8034
&
&
2002
,elh,Q 1238&1239] xyh uañ 54]
lat; dkyksuh] lsDVj 23] ftyk]
Qjhnkckn & 121005
¼gfj;k.kk½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5307
5-
,y&4814164
15-07-2013
eSñ izseth okyth ,.M lUl
Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ feJ /kkrq,a
1417
&
&
1999
¼ToSylZ½ izkñfyñ th,Q&15
vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh
xksYM lwd] CykWd lh]
'kq)rk ,oa eqgjkadu
lq'kkar yksd] Qsl & I] ftyk
xqMxkao & 122002 ¼gfj;k.kk½
6-
,y&4815166
17-07-2013
eSñ jksud b.Vjizkbfll
iwoZ<fyr daØhV ikbi
458
&
&
2003
xkao lkniqj ¼pkax½] Mkd?kj]
¼izcyu lfgr vkSj jfgr½
ikYgkokl] rglhy o ftyk
jsokM+h & 123035 ¼gfj;k.kk½
7-
,y&4818879
17-07-2013
eSñ lo.kZ buQzkVsy izkñ fyñ
vuqizLFk tqM+s gq,
7098
01
&
1988
74 ekbyLVksu] xkao ferjksy]
ikSyhbFkkbyhu fo|qrjks/kh
nSgyh eFkqjk jksM]
rki LFkk;h <ds dscy
xqykc ifCyd Ldwy ls vxyk
Hkkx&1] 1100 oksYV rd
gksM+y Vksy Iyktk ls igys]
rFkk lfgr dh dk;Zdkjh
ftyk iyoy & 121105
oksYVrk ds fy,
¼gfj;k.kk½
8-
,y&4816572
19-07-2013
eSñ lo.kZ buQzkVsy izkñ fyñ
ihohlh balqysfVM
1554
01
&
1988
74] ekbyLVksu] xkao ferjksy
¼gSoh M;wVh½ bysDVªhd
nSgyh eFkqjk jksM]
dscy 1100 oksYV rd
xqykc ifCyd Ldwy ls vxyk]
rFkk lfgr dh dk;Zdkjh
gksM+y Vksy Iyktk ls igys]
oksYVrk ds fy,
ftyk iyoy&121105
¼gfj;k.kk½
9-
,y&4814568
22-07-2013
eSñ dquky b.MLVªht]
iSdstcUn is; ty
14543
&
&
2004
gkmflax cksMZ ds fudV]
¼iSdstcUn izkd`frd
cYyHkx<+]lSDVj&2]
feujy ty ds vykok½
ftyk Qjhnkckn&121004
¼gfj;k.kk½
10
,y&4816370
30-07-2013
eSñ dkfrZd dUVsulZ izkñ fyñ
cUn fljs okys cM+s Mªe
1783
01
&
1993
vlkSnk eksM+] QuVkmu ds ikl
Hkkx&1 xzsM&, Mªe
vlkSnk] cgknqjx<+&124505
ftyk >Ttj] ¼gfj;k.kk½
[lañ lh,eMh@13% 11]
fcUnq dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5308
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2000.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards,
hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
Licences
Grant
Name & Address
Title of the Standard
IS No.
Part.
Sec.
Year
No.
No. CM/L-
Date
of the Licensee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
01.
,y&4812867
02.07.2013
M/s. Avon Biwheeler
Protective Helmets of
4151
-
-
1993
Accessories Pvt. Ltd.,
Motorcycle Riders
Plot No. 421, Sector-8,
IMT Manesar,
Distt. Gurgaon-122006,
(Haryana)
02.
L-4812059
03.07.2013
M/s. Sri Shyam Aqua,
Packaged drinking water
14543
-
-
2004
Minerals,
(Other than Natural)
A-9, Kanwara Industrial
Mineral Water)
Area,
Faridabad-121001,
(Haryana)
03.
L-4813970
10.07.2013
M/s. Thermo Cabs,
PVC Insulated Cables
694
-
-
1990
Behind HPL-Sector(10),
For Working Voltage
Power House,
Upto and Including 1100V
Delhi Bye Pass Road,
Uttam Nagar,
Distt. Rewari-123401,
(Haryana)
04.
L-4814063
15.07.2013
M/s. S & P Enterprises,
Submersible Pumpsets
8034
-
-
2002
MCF 1238-1239,
Gali No. 54, Sanjay Colony,
Sector-23,
Distt. Faridabad-121005,
(Haryana)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5309
05.
L-4814164
15.07.2013
M/s. Premji Valji & Sons
Gold & Gold Alloys,
1417
-
-
1999
(Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd.
Jewellery/Artefacts-
GF-15, Gold Souk,
Fineness and Marking
Block-C, Sushant Lok,
Phase-I,
Distt. Gurgaon-122002,
(Haryana)
06.
L-4815166
17.07.2013
M/s. Ronak Enterprises
Precast Concrete Pipes
458
-
-
2003
Village Sad5309pur (Chang),
(With and Without
P.O. Palhawas,
Reinforcement)
Tehsil & Distt. Rewari- 123035
(Haryana)
07.
L-4818879
17.07.2013
M/s. Swarn Infratel Pvt. Ltd.,
Crosslinked Polyethylene
7098
01
-
1988
74 Milestone, Village Mitrol,
Insulated Thermoplastic
Delhi Mathura Road,
Sheathed Cables Part-1
Next to Gulab Public School,
for working voltage upto
Before Hodal Toll Plaza,
and including 1100 V
Distt. Palwal-121105,
(Haryana)
08.
L-4816572
19.07.2013
M/s. Svarn Infratel Pvt. Ltd.,
PVC insulated (Heavey
1554
01
-
1988
74 Milestone, Village Mitrol,
Duty) electric cables, Pt. 1
Delhi Mathura Road,
for working voltage upto
Next to Gulab Public School,
and including 1100 V
Before Hodal Toll Plaza,
Distt. Palwal-121105,
(Haryana)
09.
L-4814568
22.07.2013
M/s. Kunal Industries,
Packaged drinking water
15543
-
-
2004
Near Housing Board,
(Other than Natural
Ballabgarh, Sector-2,
Mineral Water)
Distt. Faridabad-121004,
(Haryana)
10.
L-4816370
30.07.2013
M/s. Kartik Containers
Drums, large, fixed ends
1783
01
-
1993
Pvt. Ltd.,
Part-1:Grade A Drums
Asauda More, Near Funtown,
Asauda, Bahadurgarh-124505
Distt. Jhajjar,
(Haryana)
[No. CMD/13:11]
BINDU KUMAR, Section Officer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5310
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2001.—vfèlwpuk Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~ }kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%—
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k]o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn
dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 16097%2013 futksok.kd
vxLr 2013
,d ckj mi;ksx LdYi ou
foaxnkj lb buQowtu lV
bl ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ fnYyh]
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa vgenkckn] caxyw:] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ ,e ,p Mh@th&3-5]
,lñ fd'kksj dqekj] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,e ,p Mh½
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2001.—In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particluars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been issued.
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
No. & Year of the
No. and year of Indian Standards, if any,
Date established
Indian Standards
superseded by the new Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16097:2013: Sterline single use
August 2013
scalpvein (Winged Needle) infusion
set
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MHD/G-3.5]
S. KISHORE KUMAR, Scientist 'F' & Head (MHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2002.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~
}kjk vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5311
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa]
;fn dksbZ gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 4484%2013 iksrfuekZ.k&fo|qr osfYMM
&
vxLr 2013
LVM dM+h okyh ,adj tathjsa rFkk la;ksth lkadysa
vkSj fijfd;ka&fof'kf"V ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½
2
vkbZ ,l 16045%2013 dkWij ,ykW; LØw&leqnzh
&
vxLr 2013
iz;ksx gsrq Mkmu LVkWi okYo ,oa LVkWi ,oa pSd
okYo & fof'kf"V
3
vkbZ ,l 16057% 2013 ,y ih th pkfyr
&
vxLr 2013
vkarfjd ngu baftu & lqj{kk ,oa dk;Zdkfjrk
vis{kk,a & fof'kf"V
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa] vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ Vh bZ Mh@th&16]
ihñ lhñ tks'kh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼Vh bZ Mh½
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2002.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No., Year & title of the
No. & year of Indian
Date
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
4484:2013 Shipbuilding - Electrically
-
August 2013
welded stud link anchor chains and
connecting shackles and swivels -
Specification (Third Revision)
2
16045:2013 Copper alloy screw - Down
-
August 2013
stop valves and stop and check valves for
marine application - Specification
3
16057:2013 LPG operated internal
-
August 2013
combustion engines - Safety and
performance requirements - Specification
Copy of these Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
5312
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. TED/G-16]
P.C. JOSHI, Scientist 'F' & Head (Transport Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2003.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s g®%
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1
vkbZ ,l 6003%2010 iwoZ izfryafcr daØhV esa iz;qDr
vkbZ ,l 6003%1983
20 flrEcj 2013
nkWrsnkj rkj & fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa] ubZ fnYyh]
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa] vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 2003.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No., & Year of the
No. & year of Indian
Date of
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 6003:2010 Indented wire for
--
20 September 2013
prestressed concrete - Specification
(Second revision)
Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5313
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2004.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;k gS %
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1½
vkbZ ,l 4326 % 2013 Hkouksa dh
vkbZ ,l 4326 % 1993
31 vxLr 2013
HkwdEi izfrjksèh fMtkbu vkSj lajpuk&
jhfr lafgrk ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa] ubZ fnYyh]
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa] vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 2004.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated it :
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. & Year of the
No. & year of Indian
Date
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1
IS 4326 : 2013 Earthquake
IS 4326: 1993
31 August 2013
Resistant Design and
Construction of Buildings - Code
of Practice (Third Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore-Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
5314
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2005.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;k g®%
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼1½
vkbZ ,l 1200 ¼Hkkx 5½% 2013 Hkou
vkbZ ,l 1200
31 tqykbZ]
fuekZ.k vkSj flfoy bathfu;fjax dk;ks± dh
¼Hkkx 5½% 1982
2013
ekiu i)fr;ka% Hkkx 5 QkWeZodZ ¼pkSFkk iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 2005.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule
below has been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of Indian
Date when
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
and title
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
IS 1200 (Part 5):2013 Method
IS 1200 (Part 5): 1982
31 July, 2013
of measurement of building
and civil engineering works
Part 5 Formwork (Fourth Revision)
Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune and Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5315
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2006.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os LFkkfir gks x;s g®%
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼1½
vkbZ ,l 16074%2013 bLikr ds
&
31 vxLr 2013
likV njokts ds 'kVlZ & fof'kf"V
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 2006.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule below
has been established on the date indicated against each:
Sl.No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of Indian
Date when
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
and title
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
IS 16074:2013 Steel flush
-
31 August, 2013
door shutters - Specification
Copy of the Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,
Pune and Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2007.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;s g®%
5316
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 16123 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2013@
&
31 vxLr] 2013
vkbZ,lvks 13053&1%2011
izfØ;k lqèkj esa ek=kRed i)fr;ka&
flDl flXek
Hkkx 1 Mh,e,vkbZlh i)fr
2-
vkbZ,l 16123 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2013@
&
31 vxLr] 2013
vkbZ,lvks 13053&2%2011
izfØ;k lqèkj esa ek=kRed i)fr;ka &
flDl flXek
Hkkx 2 vkStkj ,oa rduhdsa
bl ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQ+j ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
ubZ fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ ,e ,l Mh@th&8 vf/klwpuk]
dsñ ,uñ jko] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izcaè ,oa ra= foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013
S.O. 2007.—In pursuance of clause (b) of the sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987,
the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which is given in the schedule hereto
annexed has been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of Indian
Date of
Indian Standards Established
Standard, if any,
Established
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16123 (Part 1):2013/
-
31 August, 2013
ISO 13053-1:2011
Quantitative methods in process
improvement - Six sigma-
Part 1 The DMAIC
Methodology
2.
IS 16123 (Part 2):2013/
-
31 August, 2013
ISO 13053-2:2011
Quantitative methods in process
improvement - Six sigma-
Part 2 Tools and Techniques
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5317
Copy of above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices: at Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
at Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune
and Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MSD/G-8 Notification]
K. N. RAO, Scientist 'F' & Head (MSD)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2008.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~}kjk
vfèlwfpr djrk gS fd ftl ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%
vuqlwph
Øe la[;k
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k] o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vfrØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
¼1½
vkbZ ,l 1126 % 2013 izkd`frd
vkbZ ,l 1126 % 1974
31 vxLr] 2013
fuekZ.k iRFkjksa dk fVdkmiu Kkr
djuk & ijh{k.k i)fr ¼nwljk
iqujh{k.k½
bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9 cgknqj 'kkg tQj ekxZ ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa %
dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;kas % vgenkckn] caxykSj] HkksIkky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyCè gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tñ jkW; pkSèjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2013
S.O. 2008.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the
Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of Indian
Date of
Indian Standards Established
Standards, if any,
Established
Superseded by the New
Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(1)
IS 1126 : 2013 Determination of
IS 1126 : 1974
31 August, 2013
Durability of Natural Building
Stones - Method of Test (Second
Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar
March, New Dehi-110 002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad,
Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneswar, Coimbator, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
5318
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;
¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 22 ekpZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2009.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls
ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa
fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gS uker% %—
^^xq# xksfcan flag banzizLFk fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh** ds lkeus
^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼2½ ds :i esa
lanfHkZr] ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k ds fy, laizs{k.k* [blds vkxs
dkWye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls
lacafèr izfof"V ds ckn fuEufyf[kr dks vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk]
vFkkZr~%µ
2
3
^^cSpyj vkWQ esMhflu vkSj
,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
cSpyj vkWQ ltZjh**
¼;g izfr o"kZ 100 ,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
Nk=ksa ds okf"kZd izos'k lfgr fnlacj]
2012 vFkok mlds ckn vkehZ
vk;qfoZKku dkWyst] ubZ fnYyh esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
lacaè esa xq# xksfoan flag bUnzizLFk
fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk ,d
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
[lañ ;wñ 12012@61@2004&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE
(Department of Health and Family Welfare)
New Delhi, the 22nd March, 2013
S.O. 2009.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after
consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments in the First Schedule to the
said Act.
In the said First Schedule after "Guru Gobind Singh
Indraprastha University, New Delhi" and under the heading
'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to
as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto
under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration'
[hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall
be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
"Bachelor of Medicine and
MBBS
Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Guru Gobind
Singh
Indraprastha
University, New Delhi in
respect of students being
trained at Army College of
Medical Sciences, New
Delhi with annual intake of
100 MBBS students on or
after December, 2012.)
[No. U. 12012/61/2004-ME(P-II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 7 ebZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2010.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls
ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa
fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gS uker% %—
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk** 'kh"kZd
ds rgr ¼dkWye 2 esa½ vkSj iathdj.k ds fy, laizs"k.k :i ds varxZr
¼dkWye 3 esa½ ^^jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj**
fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %—
2
3
^^cSpyj vkWQ esMhflu vkSj
,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
cSpyj vkWQ ltZjh**
¼;g izfr o"kZ 150 ,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
Nk=ksa ds okf"kZd izos'k lfgr Qjojh]
2013 vFkok mlds ckn xhrkatfy
esfMdy dkWyst ,oa vLirky]
mn;iqj] jktLFkku esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa jktLFkku
LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj
}kjk ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk
gksxhA½
[lañ ;wñ 12012@496@2007&,ebZ ¼ih&II]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 7th May, 2013
S.O. 2010.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after
consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments in the First Schedule to the
said Act, namely:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5319
In the said First Schedule against "Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences, Jaipur" under the heading
'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2)] and under
the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration" [in column (3)],
the following shall be inserted, namely :—
(2)
(3)
"Bachelor of Medicine and
MBBS
Bachelor of Surgery"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Rajasthan
University of Helath
Sciences, Jaipur in respect
of students being trained at
Geetanjali Medical College
& Hospital, Udaipur,
Rajasthan on or after
February, 2013 with annual
intake of 150 students per
year.)
[No. U. 12012/496/2007-ME (P-II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 30 tqykbZ] 2013
dkñvkñ 2011.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dh 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls
ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa
fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gS uker% :—
mDr izFke vuqlwph esa ^^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk** 'kh"kZd
ds rgr ¼dkWye 2 esa½ vkSj iathdj.k ds fy, laizs"k.k :i ds varxZr
¼dkWye 3 esa½ ^^MkWñ Hkhejko vacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk ¼mÙkj
izns'k½** fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% :—
2
3
^^cSpyj vkWQ esMhflu vkSj
,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
cSpyj vkWQ ltZjh**
¼;g izfr o"kZ 100 ,eñ chñ chñ ,lñ
Nk=ksa ds okf"kZd izos'k lfgr vizSy]
2013 vFkok mlds ckn jkek esfMdy
dkWyst vLirky ,oa vuqlaèku dsUnz]
dkuiqj] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd,
tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lacaè esa MkWñ
Hkhejko vacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;]
vkxjk ¼mÙkj izns'k½ }kjk ,d
ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxhA½
[lañ ;wñ 12012@336@2006&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 30th July, 2013
S.O. 2011—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council
Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after
consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the
following further amendments in the First Schedule to the
said Act, namely:—
In the said First Schedule against "Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedker University, Agra (Uttar Pradesh)" under the
heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification' [in column (2)]
and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration" [in
column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—
(2)
(3)
"Bachelor of Medicine and
MBBS
Bachelor of Surgery"
[This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted by Dr. Bhim Rao
Ambedker University, Agra
(Uttar Pradesh) in respect of
students being trained at
Rama Medical College
Hospital & Research Centre,
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh on or
after April, 2013 with annual
intake of 100 students per
year on or after April, 2012].
[No. U. 12012/336/2006-ME (P-II)]
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2012.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~
vfèfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh èkjk 11 dh mi&èkjk ¼2½
}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls
ijke'kZ djus ds ckn ,rn~}kjk mDr vfèfu;e dh igyh vuqlwph esa
fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kksèu djrh gS uker% :—
mDr vuqlwph esaµ
¼d½ ^^ef.kiky mPp f'k{kk vdkneh ¼ekfur fo'ofo|ky;½]
dukZVd** ds lkeus ^ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk* [blds vkxs
dkWye ¼2½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr] ds varxZr 'kh"kZd ^iathdj.k
ds fy, laizs"k.k* [blds vkxs dkWye ¼3½ ds :i esa lanfHkZr]
ds vUrxZr vafre izfof"V vkSj mlls lacafèr izfof"V ds ckn
fuEufyf[kr vUr%LFkkfir fd;k tk,xk] vFkkZr~%µ
5320
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2
3
^^MkWDVj vkWQ esMhflu
Mhñ,eñ ¼rkaf=dk foKku½
¼rkaf=dk foKku½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rkizkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk
gksxh tc ;g dLrwjck esfMdy
dkWyst] ef.kiky] dukZVd esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds
lacaè esa] ef.kiky mPp f'k{kk
vdkneh ¼ekfur fo'ofo|ky;½]
dukZVd }kjk o"kZ 1995 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½
^^ekLVj vkWQ fp#jxbZ
,eñ lh ,pñ ¼U;wjks ltZjh½
¼U;wjks ltZjh½**
¼;g ,d ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk
vgZrk gksxh tc ;g dLrwjck esfMdy
dkWyst] ef.kiky] dukZVd esa
izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|k£Fk;ksa ds
lacaè esa] ef.kiky mPp f'k{kk
vdkneh ¼ekfur fo'ofo|ky;½]
dukZVd }kjk o"kZ 1995 esa vFkok
mlds i'pkr~ iznku dh xbZ gksA½
lHkh ds fy, fVIi.kh%
1- LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, Lohd`fr 5 o"kZ dh vfèdre
vofè ds fy, gksxh] ftlds ckn bldh iqujh{kk dh tk,xhA
2- mi&èkjk 4 esa visf{kr vuqlkj ekU;rk dks le; ij
uohdj.k ugha djkus ds QyLo:i lacafèr LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øeksa esa
fujiokn :i ls nkf[kyk cUn gks tk,xkA
[lañ ;wñ 12012@21@2013&,ebZ ¼ih&II½]
vuhrk f=ikBh] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th August, 2013
S.O. 2012.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (2) of the section 11 of the Indian Medical
Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government,
after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes
the following further amendments in the First Schedule to
the said Act, namely:—
In the said Schedule—
(a)
against "Manipur Academy of Higher Education
(Deemed University), Karnataka" under the heading
'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter
referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and
entry relating thereto under the heading
'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred
to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted,
namely:—
(2)
(3)
"Doctor of Medicine
D.M. (Neurology)
(Neurology)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Manipal
Academy
of
Higher
Education
(Deemed
University), Karnataka in
respect of students being
trained at Kasturba Medical
College, Manipal, Karnataka
on or after 1995.)
"Master of Chirurgiae
M.Ch. (Neuro Surgery)
(Neuro Surgery)"
(This shall be a recognised
medical qualification when
granted
by
Manipal
Academy
of
Higher
Education
(Deemed
University), Karnataka in
respect of students being
trained at Kasturba Medical
College, Manipal Karnataka
on or after 1995.)
Note to all:
1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate
Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon
which it shall have to be renewed.
2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as
required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage
of admission to the concerned Postgraduate Course.
[No. U.12012/21/2013-ME (P-II)
ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.
oL= ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2013.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa
ds fy, jktHkk"kk fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e 4 ds vuqlj.k
esa oL= ea=ky; ds varxZr vkus okys fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks ftlesa
80% ls vfèd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlkèd Kku izkIr dj
fy;k gS] vfèlwfpr djrh gS%—
1- vuqlaèku izlkj dsUnz o lewg fodkl dsUnz] dsjsvoizla] dsUnzh;
js'ke cksMZ] okMZ uañ 6] edku ua] 252] ukS'ksjk&185151]
ftyk&jktkSjh ¼t- o d-½A
2- vuqlaèku izlkj dsUnz] dsjsvoizla] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ]
?kqekjoha&174021] fgekpy izns'kA
3- vuqlaèku izlkj dsUnz] dsjsvoizla] dsUnz js'ke cksMZ]
uknkSu&177033] fgekpy izns'kA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5321
4- lewg fodkl dsUnz] dsjsvoizla] dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ]
dkylh&fodkl uxj] vEckMh js'ke QkeZ] nsgjknwu
¼mÙkjk[k.M½A
[lañ bZ&11016@1@2011&fganh]
lqu;uk rksej] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF TEXTILES
New Delhi, the13th September, 2013
S.O. 2013.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10
of the Official Languages (use for the official purpose of
the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, hereby
notifies the following offices of the Ministry of Textiles,
more than 80% staff whereof have acquired working
knowledge of Hindi:
1. Research Extension Centre-cum-Cluster Development
Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk Board, Ward No. 6,
House No. 252, Nowshera-185151 Dist. Rajouri (J&K).
2. Research Extension Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk
Board, Ghumarwin-174021, Himachal Pradesh.
3. Research Extension Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk
Board, Nadoun-177033, Himachal Pradesh.
4. Cluster Development Centre, CSR&TI, Central Silk
Board, Kalasi, Vikas Nagar, Ambari Resham Farm,
Dehradun (Uttarakhand).
[No. E-11016/1/2011-Hindi]
SUNAINA TOMAR, Jt. Secy.
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYYkh] 20 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2014.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd]
blls mikc) vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus
dh laHkkouk gS(
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks= ds C;kSjs
js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e¼ih,yth½@
Hkwfe@13@441] rkjh[k 10 vizSy] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dyDVj] mefj;k
¼e/; izns'k½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkÅl
LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l
fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006
¼NÙkhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gSA
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj
fodkl½ vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
mDr vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 4 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ls dks;ys
dk iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS(
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr] bl
vfèlwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vofè
ds Hkhrj Hkkjlkèd vfèdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½] lkÅFk bZLVuZ
dksyQhyMl fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½
lsµ
(i)
mDr vfèlwpuk dh èkjk 4 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ ds vèhu dh
xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k laHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds
fy, vfèfu;e dh èkjk 6 ds vèhu izfrdj dk nkok dj
ldsxk( ;k
(ii)
mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 13 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu
iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds lacaè esa ;k mDr
vfèfu;e dh èkjk 13 dh mi&èkjk ¼4½ ds vèhu [kuu
iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj
mls mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 13 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (i)
ls (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks minf'kZr
djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacafèr lHkh ekufp=ksa] pkVks±
vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnÙk dj ldsxkA
vuqlwph
ekykpqvk Cykd] lksgkxiqj {ks=]
ftyk&'kgMksy] e/; izns'k
[js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e ¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@13@441] rkjh[k 10 vizSy] 2013]
¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe%
Øñ xzke dk uke
tujy
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks=
{ks=
fVIi.kh
lañ
la[;k
gYdk
gsDVj
,dM+
uEcj
esa
esa
1- vkS<sjk
39
40
ikyh
mefj;k
305-262
754-30
Hkkx
2- ekykpqvk
852
41
ikyh
mefj;k
467-980
1156-38
Hkkx
3- Cykd iMjh
752
42
ikyh
mefj;k
106-690
263-63
Hkkx
dqy% 879-932 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 2174-31 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
5322
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼[k½ ou Hkwfe%
Øe dEikVZesaV
jsUt
laHkkx
ou dk
Cykd
{ks=
{ks=
fVIi.kh
lañ
la[;k
izdkj
gsDVj esa
,dM+ esa
1- 223] 225]
?kqu?kqVh
mefj;k
vkjf{kr
lksgkxiqj
186-070
459-78
Hkkx
229] 230]
ou
232
dqy% 186-070 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 459-78 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
dqy ;ksx ¼d+[k½% 879.932+186-070 = 1066-002 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k
2174-31+459.78 = 2634-09 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
lhek o.kZu%
d&[k
js[kk xzke vkS<sjk ds if'peh lhek esa fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke vkS<sjk vkSj ekykpqvk ds mÙkjh Hkkx] vkjf{kr ou
dEikVZesaV la[;k 223 rFkk xzke Cykd iMjh ds if'peh Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 223] 225] xzke Cykd iMjh ds if'peh Hkkx] vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 229 ds iwohZ
Hkkx ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcanq ^x* ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 229 ds nf{k.kh Hkkx] vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 230 ds e/; Hkkx ls xqtjrh gS vkSj
fcanq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k&d
js[kk vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 230] xzke vkS<sjk ds if'peh Hkkx vkSj vkjf{kr ou dEikVZesaV la[;k 232 ds nf{k.kh Hkkx
ls xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcanq ^d* ij feyrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@05@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2013
S.O. 2014.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the
locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas, the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM (PLG)/Land/13/441, dated the 10th April, 2013 containing
details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District-Umaria
(Madhya Pradesh) or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001 or at the office of the
South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government
hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in land described in the aforesaid Schedule.
Any person interested in the land described in the above mentioned Schedule may—
(i)
claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by any action taken
under sub-section (3) of section 4 of the said Act; or
(ii)
claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting licence ceasing to
have effect or under sub-section (4) of section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to have effect and deliver
all maps, charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid land to show the expenditure incurred in respect of
items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act,
to the Officer-In-Charge or Head of the Department (Revenue), South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur-
495006 (Chhattisgarh) within a period of ninety days from the date of publication of this notification.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5323
SCHEDULE
Malachua Block, Johilla Area,
District-Umaria, Madhya Pradesh
[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/Land/13/441, dated the 10th April, 2013]
(A) Revenue land:
Sl. Name of
General
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area in
Area
Remark
No.village
number
halka number
hectares
in acres
1.
Awdhera
39
40
Pali
Umaria
305.262
754.30
Part
2.
Malachua
852
41
Pali
Umaria
467.980
1156.38
Part
3.
Block
752
42
Pali
Umaria
106.690
263.63
Part
Padari
Total: 879.932 hectares (approximately) or 2174.31 acres (approximately)
(B) Forest land:
Sl.
Compart-
Range
Division
Type of
Block
Area in
Area in
Remark
No. ment
Forest
hectares
acres
number
1.
223,
Ghunghuti
Umaria
Reserve
Sohag-
186.070
459.78
Part
225,229,
Forest
pur
230, 232
Total: 186.070 hectares (approximately) or 459.78 acres (approximately)
Grand Total (A+B): 879.932+186.070=1066.002 hectares (approximately) or 2174.31+459.78=2634.09 acres
(approximately)
Boundary Description:
A-B
Line starts from point 'A' on the western boundary of villages Awdhera and passes through northern part
of village Awdhera, Malachua, western part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 223, village Block Padari
and meets at point 'B'.
B-C
Line passes through western part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 223, 225, village Block Padari,
eastern part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 229 and meets at point 'C'.
C-D
Line passes through southern part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 229, middle part of Reserve Forest
Compartment no. 230 and meets at point 'D'.
D-A
Line passes through Reserve Forest Compartment no. 230, western part of village Awdhera, southern
part of Reserve Forest Compartment no. 232 and meets at starting point 'A'.
[F.No. 43015/05/2013-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2015.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh
vfèlwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 2063 rkjh[k 19@06@2002 esa tks Hkkjr ds
jkti= ds Hkkx II, [k.M 3] mi&[k.M ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa
fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%µ
mDr vfèlwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy Hkhueky**
¼d½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^Hkhueky**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^5307**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^0&0783** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^'kwU;** j[kk
tk;sxkA
(ii)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^5308**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^0&3111** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^'kwU;** j[kk
tk;sxkA
[Qkñ lañ vkj&31015@39@2001&vksvkj&II]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
5324
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2015.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962
(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendments in the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas, S.O. 2063, dated 19/6/2002 published in Part II,
Section 3, Sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India, namely:—
In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Bhinmal:—
(A) against village "Bhinmal" in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "5307", in column 2, for the areas
"0-0783", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be
substituted.
(ii)
In survey No. "5308", in column 2, for the areas
"0-3111" in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be
substituted.
[F. No. R-31015/39/2001-OR-II]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2016.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbiykbu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 6 dh mi&èkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh
vfèlwpuk la[;k dkñvkñ 2695 rkjh[k 21@08@2002 esa tks Hkkjr ds
jkti= ds Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa
fuEufyf[kr la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%µ
mDr vfèlwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy [khaolj**
¼d½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^dkafV;ka**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1113**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^2&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^0&12** j[kk
tk;sxkA
¼[k½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^nqtklj**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^978**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^2&02** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^1&02** j[kk
tk;sxkA
¼x½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^pkof.M;k**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^278**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^0&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^'kwU;** j[kk
tk;sxkA
(ii)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^279**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^0&03** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^'kwU;** j[kk
tk;sxkA
¼?k½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^f'koiqjk**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1052**] ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^1&11** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^0&16** ,oa LrEHk
2 esa losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1052@1612**] LrEHk 4 esa {ks=Qy
^^0&15** j[kk tk;sxkA
(ii)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1060** ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa
{ks=Qy ^^3&01** ds LFkku ij {ks=Qy ^^1&11** ,oa LrEHk
2 esa losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1060@1613**] LrEHk 4 esa {ks=Qy
^^1&10** j[kk tk;sxkA
¼³½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^ekMiqjk**
(i)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1140**] ds LFkku ij
^^1140@1508** j[kk tk;sxkA
(ii)
LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^1331**] ds LFkku ij
^^1331@1090** j[kk tk;sxkA
[Qkñ lañ vkj&31015@46@2002&vksvkj&II]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2016.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962
(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendments in the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O. 2695, dated 21/08/2002 published in
Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India,
namely:—
In Schedule to the said notification of "Tehsil
Khinwsar":—
(A) against village "Kantiya", in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "1113", in column 2 for the areas
"2-11", in column 4 the area "0-12" shall be
substituted.
(B) against village "Dujasar", in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "978", in column 2, for the areas
"2-02", in column 4, the area "1-02" shall be
substituted.
(C) against village "Chanwandiya", in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "278", in column 2, for the areas
"0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be
substituted.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5325
(ii)
In survey No. "279", in column 2, for the areas
"0-03", in column 4, the area "NIL" shall be
substited.
(D) against village "Shivpura", in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "1052" , in column 2 for the areas
"1-11", in column 4, the area "0-16" and in
column 2, survey No. "1052/1612", in column 4,
the area "0-15" shall be substituted.
(ii)
In survey No. "1060" , in column 2 for the areas
"3-01", in column 4, the area "1-11" and in
column 2, survey No. "1060/1613", in column 4,
the area "1-10" shall be substituted.
(E) Against village "Madpura", in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "1140" , in column 2, survey
No. "1140/1508" shall be substituted.
(ii)
In survey No. "1331" , in column 2, survey
No. "1331/1090" shall be substituted.
[F. No. R-31015/46/2002-OR-II]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2017.—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut
ikbZiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vfèdkj dk vtZu½ vfèfu;e]
1962 ¼1962 dk 50½ dh èkjk 6 dh mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,s] isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk
la[;k dkñvkñ 477 rkjh[k 07@02@2003 esa tks Hkkjr ds jkti= ds
Hkkx 2 [k.M 3 mi[k.M ¼ii½ esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh] esa fuEufyf[kr
la'kksèu djrh gS] vFkkZr~%—
mDr vfèlwpuk dh vuqlwph dh ^^rglhy ywuh**
¼d½ LrEHk 1 esa xkao ^^fluyh**
(i) LrEHk 2 ds losZ{k.k la[;k ^^203**] ^^203@1**] 203@3**]
ds lkeus LrEHk 4 esa dqy {ks=Qy ^^6&02**] ds LFkku ij LrEHk 2 o
LrEHk 4 esa losZ{k.k la[;k ^^203** {ks=Qy ^^0&15**] losZ{k.k la[;k
^^203@2** {ks=Qy ^^1&10**] losZ{k.k la[;k ^^203@1**] {ks=Qy
^^1&07**] losZ{k.k la[;k ^^203@3** {ks=Qy ^^2&10** j[kk tk;sxkA
[Qkñ lañ vkj&31015@33@2001&vksvkj&II]
iou dqekj] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2017.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub section (1) of section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals
Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962
(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby makes the
following amendments in the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas S.O. 477, dated 07.02.2003 published in Part II,
Section 3, sub-section (ii), of the Gazatte of India, namely:—
In Schedule to the said notification of Tehsil Luni:—
(A) against village "Sinli" in column 1,
(i)
In survey No. "203", "203/1", "203/3", in
column 2, for the total areas "6-02", in column 2
and 4, survey No. "203" area "0-15", survey No.
"203/2" area "1-10", survey No. "203/1" area
"1-07", survey No. "203/3", area "2-10" shall
be substituted.
[F. No. R-31015/33/2001-OR-II]
PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2018.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ
egkjk"Vª ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@08@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@67@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2018.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/02/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management Bank of Maharashtra and their workman,
which was received by the Central Government on
05.08.2013.
[No. L-12012/67/2007-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/02/2008
Date 25.07.2013
Party No. 1
The Chief Manager,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Regional Office,
Mahabank Building,
Dr. Munje Marg,
5326
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sitabuldi, Nagpur-440012.
Party No. 2
The General Secretary,
Union of the Manarashtra Bank
Employees, 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar,
Nagpur-440012
AWARD
(Dated: 25th July, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workman,
Shri V.P. Dhanodkar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
12012/67/2007-IR(B-II) dated 18.01.2008, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
Maharashtra, Nagpur in imposing the punishment
of "Censure" and to make good the amount of loss
of Rs. 33,000/- to the Bank immediately vide Appellate
Authority Order Ref. AX7/NR/PERS/VPD/Appeal/
2006 dated 16/11/2006 on Shri V.P. Dhanodkar is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Union of the
Maharashtra Bank Employees", ("the Union" in short), filed
the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri V.P.
Dhanodkar, ("The workman" in short) and the management
of Bank of Maharashtra, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented by the union
in the statement of claim is that the Party No. 1 is a
Nationalised Bank and is an industry within the meaning
as provided under the Act and the service conditions of
the Bank Employees including the Party No. 1 are governed
by the provision of the Sastry award, Desai Award and
different settlements signed between the union and the
management, which are called as "Bipartite settlements"
and the workman was working at Nandanwan Branch and
was assigned the post of special assistant on temporary
basis, in absence of the permanent special assistant and
while working at Nandanwan Branch, the charge sheet
dated 12.01.2005 came to be issued against the workman
containing two charges, both independently covered under
clause 19.5(j) of the Bipartite settlement and a regular
departmental enquiry was ordered and one
Shri A.D.Lapalikar was appointed as the enquiry officer to
enquire into the charges and the enquiry officer after
conducting the departmental enquiry submitted his report
dated 25.10.2005, holding the charges to have been proved
against the workman and such declaration was without
application of judicious mind and on the basis of the
findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority
vide order dated 23.02.2006 awarded punishment of bringing
down the pay scale of the workman by one state for charge
No. 1 and punishment of warning for charge No. 2 and
under the grab of administrative order dated 25.02.2006,
Shri Burange, who was offciating as the Chief Manager
directed the recovery of Rs. 33,500/- from the salary of the
workman with immediate effect and as a consequence of the
aforesaid orders, an amount of Rs. 2000/- per month came to
be deducted from the salary payabale to the workman and
before passing of the order dated 25.02.2006, no opportunity
of hearing was granted to the workman in total denial of
the principles of natural justice and the action of recovery
was resisted by the workman vide his representation dated
06.03.2006 and the workman filed an appeal dated 10.04.2006,
before the appellate authority and the appellate authority
after hearing the workman modified the order dated
23.02.2006 vide his order dated 16.11.2006 and confirmed
the punishment of censure for charge No. 1 and so also for
charge No. 2 and the appellate authority also upheld the
order of the disciplinary authority in directing the workman
to make good the loss of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- and the
said order is unjustified and illegal. The further case of the
workman is that the charges framed in the charge-sheet
were basically wrong and recklessly framed and there was
no evidence on record to prove and substantiate the charges
and the findings of the enquiry officer were totally perverse
and not based on any logical reasoning and the
departmental enquiry was unfair and not proper and the
action of recovery of an amount of Rs.33,500/- was also
illegal and improper and the reasoning given were cryptic
in nature and the report of the enquiry officer was casual
and mechanical and the reasons assigned by the enquiry
officer were not based on the evidence on record and
documents which were specifically demanded were not
supplied during the course of the enquiry and as the
charges were not proved, the action taken by the first party
is not justified and the person, who awarded the punishment
was having no authority to pass the punishment. The union
has prayed to answer the reference in their favour and to
set aside the order dated 16.11.2006 and for a direction to
Party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.33,500/- recovered
from the salary of the workman.
3. The Party No.1 in its written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that a charge sheet dated 12.01.2005
was issued against the workman for the acts of misconduct
committed by him, while he was officiating as a special
assistant in Nandanwan Branch and on 27.04.2004 the
workman received an application for issuance of a cheque
book in the savings bank account No. 25414 of Shri S.M.
Deshbratar and on the same day, he issued a cheque book
bearing cheques from 857951 to 857960 in the savings bank
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5327
account No.25414, without verifying the signature of the
applicant and tallying the same with the specimen signature
available with the bank and photographs from the specimen
signature book and thereby, he committed an act prejudicial
to the interest of the bank and a gross misconduct under
clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement and on 28.04.2004, the
workman verified the signature on cheque No. 857951 in
the above stated account, before the same was sent for
passing for payment and subsequently, it was transpired
that the signature verified by the workman did not tally
with the specimen signature available in the branch records
and photographs from the specimen signature book and
due to the latches of the workman, an amount of Rs. 67,000/
- was fraudulently withdrawn from the savings bank account
No. 25414 of Shri S.M. Deshbratar on 28.04.2004, through
self cheque bearingNo. 857951 and the act of negligence
committed by the workman amounted to gross misconduct
under clause 19.5(j) of Bipartite settlement, 1966 and as
such, the departmental enquiry was conducted against the
workman and the enquiry was commenced on 02.02.2005
and concluded on 17.08.2005 and taking into consideration
the evidence on record, the enquiry officer submitted his
report on 25.10.2005, holding the charges levelled against
the workman to have been proved and thereafter, a second
show cause notice was issued to the workman vide letter
dated 17.01.2006, informing him about the proposed
punishment and he was accorded personal hearing on
24.01.2006 to submit his say on the proposed punishment
and the workman appeared before the disciplinary authority
and made his submissions and considering the materials
on record of the departmental enquiry and the gravity of
the misconduct, the disciplinary authority passed the order
dated 23.02.2006, imposing the punishment of bringing down
the scale of pay by one stage without cumulative effect for
charge No.1 and punishment of censure for charge No.2
and the appeal preferred by the workman was duly
considered by the appellate authority and the appellate
authority modified the punishment imposed in respect of
charge No.1 and imposed the punishment of censure for
charge No 1 and confirmed the punishment of censure for
charge No.2 and the appellate authority upheld the order
of recovery of Rs.33,500/- from the workman and the
charges were framed correctly against the workman and
there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the charge
and the enquiry was fair and proper and the findings of the
enquiry officer are not perverse and the order for recovery
of Rs.33,500/- was also legal and proper and the workman
is not entitled for any relief.
4. The workman filed the documents of the
departmental enquiry including the findings given by the
enquiry officer, final order of punishment, order of the
appellate authority and day to day proceedings of the
departmental enquiry and all the documents were admitted
in to evidence on behalf of the workman on admission by
the Party No. l.
5. As this is a case of imposition of the punishment
against the workman after holding of a departmental enquiry
against him, the legality of the departmental enquiry was
taken up for consideration as a preliminary issue and by
order dated 11.07.2012, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry officer
without application of judicious mind and without any
evidence declared both the charges as mentioned in the
charge-sheet as proved and on the basis of such findings,
the officiating Chief Manager purported himself to be the
Disciplinary Authority awarded the punishment of bringing
down pay of scale by one stage for charge No.1 and warning
for charge No. 2 against the workman, by order dated
23.02.2006 and under the grab of administrative order dated
25.02.2006, directed recovery of Rs. 33,500/- from the salary
payable to the workman with immediate effect, as a
consequent of the aforesaid order, an amount of Rs. 2008/
- per month came to be deducted from the salary payable to
the workman and before passing of the order dated
25.02.2006, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the
workman in total denial of principles of natural justice and
on appeal by the workman against the punishments, the
Appellate Authority by order dated 16.11.2006, modified
the punishment of bringing down pay of scale by one stage
for charge No.1 to one of censure, but confirmed the order
of recovery of Rs. 33,500/- and the punishment is not
just, fair and legal and the person, who awarded the
punishment was having no authority to pass the final
order of punishment and the order of recovery of the
amount of Rs. 33,500/- was without any show cause notice
or personal hearing of the workman and as such, the same
is against the principles of natural justice and as such,
the said order is liable to be set aside and the party No.1
be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 33,500/- to the
workman.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that by order dated 11.07.2012, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has
been held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the findings of the enquiry
officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry
and not on any extraneous materials and due to the failure
on the part of the workman, an amount of Rs. 67,000/- was
withdrawn fraudulently from the Saving Bank account of
one Shri S.M. Deshbratar on 28.04.2004 and commission of
gross misconduct has been proved against the workman
in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and therefore,
there is no scope to interfere with the punishment and the
order for recovery of the amount of Rs. 33,500/- was effected
correctly from him and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
5328
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. On perusal of the materials on record including
the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, it is found that the
findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials
available on record. The enquiry officer has reached the
findings after assessing the evidence on record of the
enquiry in a rational manner. The findings of the enquiry
officer are not based on any extraneous materials. It is also
found that this is not a case of no evidence. So, the findings
of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse. The
workman has been found guilty of the charges levelled
against him in a properly conducted departmental enquiry.
The punishment of censure imposed against the workman
also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges
proved against him. Hence, there is no question of
interfering with the punishment of censure imposed against
the workman for both the charges proved against him.
9. Now, the only question remains for consideration
is in regard to the order passed by the Chief Manager
(officiating) on 25.02.2006 directing recovery of
Rs. 33,500/- from the salary of the workman with immediate
effect.
On perusal of the document, Ext. W-IV, the order
passed by the Chief Manager (O), Nagpur region, Nagpur
on 25.02.2006, it is found that the same is an administrative
order to make good of 50% of the loss of Rs. 67,000/- i.e.
Rs. 33,500/- caused to the Bank. The said order was passed
after the workman was found guilty of the charges levelled
against him under clause 19.5 (J) of Bipartite Settlement,
1966 in the departmental enquiry. The above said order is
an administrative order passed by the Chief Manager (O)
and not as the Disciplinary Authority and the same is not
an order of punishment in the departmental enquiry. Hence,
there is no scope to interfere with the said order. Hence, it
is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of
Maharashtra, Nagpur in imposing the punishment of
"Censure" and to make good the amount of loss of
Rs. 33,000/- to the Bank immediately on Shri V.P. Dhanodkar
is legal & justified. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2019.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj vkbZñMhñchñvkbZñ
ds izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@2010&11½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@09@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2019.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. CGIT/
NGP/07/2010-11 of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure,
in the Indistrial dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of IDBI BANK and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 01/08/2013.
[No. L-12011/09/2009-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/07/2010-11
Date: 30.04.2013.
Party No.1
The Dy. General Manager,
Industrial Development Bank of India
At. WTC Complex, Cuffe Parade,
Mumbai-400005.
Versus
Party No.2
The General Secretary,
The I.D.B.I. Karmachari Sangh,
143/146, Bhavani Peth,
Satara- 415002.
AWARD
(Dated: 30th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of IDBI Bank and their workman, Shri S.G.
Bobde, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12011/09/2009-
IR (B-II) dated 01.09.2010, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of IDBI Bank
Ltd., Mumbai in issuing office order no. 1779 dated
07.02.2008 transferring the services of
Shri S.G. Bobde, workmen from Nagpur Branch to
Raipur Branch in Chhattisgarh is legal and justified?
What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, The I.D.B.I.
Karmachari Sangh, ("the union" in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the workman,
Shri S.G.Bobde, ("the workman" in short) and the
management of I.D.B.I. Bank, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed
their written statement.
The case of the workman as projected by the union
in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5329
trade union and Party No.1 is a public sector bank and is an
"Industry" within the meaning of section 2 (j) of the Act
and as per notification dated 10th September, 2006 of the
Government of India, the United Western Bank Ltd, ("the
UWBL" in short) was amalgamated with the Industrial
Development Bank of India Ltd. ("the I.D.B.I." in short)
with entire business, properties, assets and liabilities and
according to clause 8 of the above mentioned notification,
all the employees of the UWBL were deemed to have been
appointed in the transferee bank at the same remuneration
and on the same terms and conditions of service as were
applicable to such employees immediately before the close
of business on 02.09.2006. It is further pleaded by the union
that it was previously operating as a registered trade union
in the name and style of "United Western Bank Karmachari
Sangh" and was the majority union of the employees of
erstwhile UWBL and after the amalgamation, it was
necessary to change the name and as such, it got its name
changed as "IDBI Karmachari Sangh", ("the union" in
short), with due approval of the authorities under the Trade
union Act and the Party No.1 was requested to give it the
status of recognized majority union and furnished the list
of its office bearers vide communication dated 25.11.2006
and the list of the protected workmen to be declared as
protected workmen under Rule 61 of the Industrial Disputes
(Central) Rules, 1957 ("the Rules" in short) was forwarded
to the Party No.1 every year and as Party No.1 did not
make any correspondence with it, the grievance was raised
before the competent authority under the Act and the said
authority directed the Party No.1 to declare the protected
workmen vide order dated 09.02.2010.
The further case of the union is that the genesis of
the present dispute was order No. 1779 dated 07.02.2008,
by which, the workman, who was its prime office bearer
was transferred from Laxminagar branch, Nagpur to Raipur
Branch, in the state of Chhattisgarh and the workman was
working in the clerical grade in the erstwhile UWBL since
03.10.1977 and there was posts of special assistant having
special allowance in the UWBL and the modalities and
formalities for selection and filling up the posts of special
assistant were settled by way of Settlement dated
26.07.1997 between the management of the UWBL and the
then Western Bank Karmachari Sangh and in pursuance to
the said settlement, the workman was selected and offered
the post of Special Assistant and was posted to Laxminagar,
Nagpur branch and he was working at the said branch as a
Special Assistant with higher allowance and on 07.02.2008,
the day on which, the workman was transferred by Party
No.1 to Raipur Branch, there was no existing post of Special
Assistant in Raipur branch and as such, the order No. 1779
dated 07.02.2008 was arbitrary and illegal and posts of
special assistant are different posts than a clerical post
and it was well decided in the settlement dated 26.07.1997
as to how, when and where the existing special assistants
can be transferred by the bank and clauses 12 of the said
settlement deals with the shifting of the post of special
assistant, when the same is found not useful or becomes
redundant at a particular branch to other branch/office in
the same city where the services of a special assistant can
be utilized, whereas, clause 15 deals with administrative
transfers and according to clause 15 of the said settlement,
"without prejudice to the provisions, in respect of the
transfers of award staff, as provided in Bipartite settlement
dated 19.10.1966 as amended up-to-date, a special Assistant
can be transferred within city, on administrative grounds,
after a period of three years from the date the duties of
special assistant are assigned to him and the transfer within
Municipal/Corporation/Agglomeration area will be treated
as a transfer within city having the same CCA/HRA." and
applying the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that Party No.1
committed breach of the settlement and willfully violated
the same, by transferring the workman out of the state of
Maharashtra i.e. Chhattisgarh State and the order is
therefore, illegal and arbitrary.
The further plea of the union is that the provisions
of Sastry award were applicable to the employees of
erstwhile UWBL, by virtue of the settlement signed by the
parties and clause 535 of Sastry Award provides the issue
of transfer of award staff employees and the approach of
the management towards transfers of office bearers of the
Trade unions and the workman was holding the post of
Deputy General Secretary of the union and he was prime
and main office bearer of the union, which fact was very
well within the knowledge of the Party No.1 and the workman
was representing the union before the various conciliation
officers and was acting as defence representative in the
matter of disciplinary actions initiated by Party No .1 in
respect of few employees and it is not unlikely that it is for
the said reasons only, the Party No. 1 decided to shift him
to faraway place to curb the trade union activities and
before issuing the order impugned, no notice was given to
the workman, as required under the provision of para 535
of Sastry award and the order was issued with ulterior
motive and in a most calculated and disgraceful manner by
Party No.1 and suddenly on 04.02.2008, the workman was
relieved from Laxminagar branch for Bhandara branch and
when the workman was on leave for organization purposes,
he was relieved from Laxminagar branch on 21.02.2008,
actually without serving the order of transfer from Nagpur
to Raipur on him and the workman protested against such
transfer by his representation dated 22.02.2008 and by his
notice dated 23.02.2008, but Party No.1 did not cancel the
transfer, so the present industrial dispute was raised and
the order of transfer of the workman was not an
administrative order issued in public interest and there was
neither a post of special assistant nor there was any need
of a special assistant at Raipur and the transfer was not
effected in normal circumstances and the same is illegal
and arbitrary and unfair labour practice as provided in item
7 of the Vth Schedule to the Act and the transfer of the
5330
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was made in colourable exercise of powers by the
party No.1 and therefore, the said order is liable to be set
aside.
The union has prayed to declare that the party No.1
has indulged in unfair labour practices, to declare the order
of transfer of the workman dated 07.02.2008 as illegal and
unjustified and to set aside the same and to repatriate the
services of the workman to his original branch i.e.
Laxminagar branch.
3. The party No.1 in the written statement have
admitted the amalgamation of UWBL with IDBI as per
notification dated 30.09.2006 and that according to
provisions of chapter V of the Scheme of amalgamation,
"all the employees on the transferor bank shall continue in
service and be deemed to have been appointed in the
transferee bank at the same remuneration and on the same
terms and conditions of service, as were applicable to such
employees immediately before the close of business on
02.09.2006.
It is further pleaded by party No.1 that after the
amalgamation, it became necessary to streamline their
business strategy and fully integrate the different segments
to active synergy and operating efficiency and for that
transfer of various employees including the workman was
done purely as an administrative decision and due to office
exigencies and the transfer of the workman was in full
conformity with the applicable settlement governing the
terms and conditions of services of the employees of
erstwhile UWBL and was not violative of any applicable
laws or the terms of settlement governing the workman
and the reference is not maintainable on the ground of
absence of cause of action. It is further pleaded by party
No.1 that in terms of clause 11 of the scheme of
amalgamation, they closed/relocated/shifted 48 branches
and five zonal offices of UWBL as well as the co-operative
office, necessitating the redeployment of the employees to
their new locations and the transfer of the workman was
done in the routine way in normal course as was done in
case of other employees and the service conditions of the
workman were governed by the settlement dated July 11,
2005 and there were express provisions for transfer of award
staff in the said settlement and the workman was deployed
from Nagpur branch to Raipur branch, which was within
the permitted distance of 300 Kms and hence, the statement
of claim needs to be rejected in limine.
The party No.1 have pleaded further that the
directions of the Assistant Labour Commissioner to declare
the office bearers of the union as protected workmen was
vide the proceedings dated 26th November, 2008, based
on initial letter dated 11th February, 2008, whereas, the
posting order of the workman was issued on 7th February,
2008, i.e. before the union had raised the demand for
according protected workmen status for its office bearers
and the workman was not a protected workman till the
proceedings were recorded by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner and the settlement dated 26th November,
1997 was in force for a period of three years, from the date
of its inception and as such, the said settlement was not
applicable with regards to the posts of special assistant
due to efflux of time and at the time of transfer of the
workman, the settlement dated 11th July, 2005 was in force
and in the said settlement, there are express provisions for
transfer of award staff and the discretion lies with the bank
to identify the number of the employees to be redeployed
from each centre/branch/office to meet its requirements
and the workman was not transferred out of Nagpur since
1985 i.e. for more than 22 years and his transfer to Raipur
branch was well within the permissible distance from his
earlier place of posting i.e. Laxminagar branch in Nagpur
and due to non continuance of the settlement of 1997, all
the special assistants, who were employed by UWBL lost
the protections available to them under the settlement of
1997, even though they continued to draw the salary of
special assistants and this was further fortified from the
fact that the settlement of 2005, which was entered into by
the employees of UWBL and UWBL did not recognize the
protections to any class of workers, on the contrary, a
detailed policy of deployment of staff encompassing all
was formulated and the same was accepted by the union in
toto and therefore, there is no merit in the submission that
the workman should have been transferred to a branch at
least where a post of special assistant was in existence or
the transfer should have been made in Municipal Limit
only and the transfer order in perfectly legal and just and
proper and the workman was paid the allowance of special
assistant and categorized as special assistant, even after
his transfer to Raipur and as the workman was neither the
president nor the vice president or the secretary of the
union and was the Deputy General Secretary of the union,
he was not entitled for protection as provided in Sastry
Award and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of their respective stands, both the
parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman has been examined as a witness by the
union, whereas, one Shri Harshad Anil Kelkar has been
examined as a witness by party No. 1.
The workman in his examination-in-chief, which is
on affidavit has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the workman
has admitted that there was a settlement between the union
and the management of UWBL on 11.07.2005 and as per
schedule V of the said agreement, there was understanding
for deployment of staff of the bank and as per Ext. W-III,
the order of the ALC Mumbai dated 09.02.2010, the office
bearers of the union were declared as protected workmen.
5. The evidence of the witness examined on behalf of
party No.1 is also the reiteration of the facts mentioned in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5331
the written statement filed by Party No. 1. In his cross-
examination, the witness for Party No.1 has admitted that
the workman was an office bearer of his union and he was
working as a special assistant in UWBL and there was no
post of special assistant at Raipur branch, but the workman
was paid allowance of special assistant, while working at
civil lines branch, Raipur.
6. Before delving into the merit of the matter, it is to
be mentioned here that there is no dispute between the
parties that as per the notification dated 30.09.2006, issued
by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, the UWBL
was amalgamated with IDBI and all the employees of UWBL
became the employees of IDBI w.e.f. 02.09.2006 and that
the workman was working as a special assistant in UWBL,
before such amalgamation and that while he was working
as such in Laxminagar branch, he was transferred to Raipur
branch of IDBI on 07.02.2008.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the union that according to clauses
12 and 15 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997, the transfer of
a special assistant can only be made within city i.e. within
the Municipal Corporation area, on administrative grounds,
after a period of three years from the date of assignment of
the duties of special assistant to him and the Party No.1
committed branch of the provisions of the said settlement
and willfully violated the provisions by transferring the
workman out of the state of Maharashtra. It was further
argued by the learned advocate for the union that clause
535 of Sastry Award provides the procedure of transfer of
award staff employees and that of the office bearers of
Trade Unions and the workman was the Deputy General
Secretary of the union and he was involved in various
Trade Union activities and only to harass, victimize and
discourage the workman from Trade Union activities, he
was transferred to Raipur, in violation of clause 535 of
Sastry Award and even though, the workman was a
protected workman, he was transferred with ulterior motive
and even though, there was no post of special assistant of
Raiput branch, the workman was transferred to the said
branch and the action of the Party No.1 is illegal and unfair
labour practice and as such, the order of transfer is liable to
be set aside and the workman is to be reposted to
Laxminagar branch.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocate
for the union placed reliance on the decision reported in
1995 I LW-678 (A.P. John Vs. Karnataka State Transport
Corporation).
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the transfer of the workman was in
full conformity with the applicable settlement governing
the terms and conditions of services of the workman and
there was no necessity of serving of any notice to the
workman as per clause 535 of Sastry Award before his
transfer and the UWBL entered into an agreement with
their employees' union on 11.07.2005 and the same was
applicable to the workman at the time of his transfer and in
the said settlement thère were express provisions for
transfer of award staff and the discretion of transfer lies
with Party No.1 to meet its requirements and in accordance
with Schedule V of the said settlement, the workman was
transferred to Raipur branch on 07.02.2008 from Laxminagar
branch, which is situated within the permitted distance of
300 kilometers, on account of exigencies of business of
Party No.1 and there was no violation of any provision and
since, the subject matter was/is subjudiced, and there was
no specific request from the workman, he was not
redeployed, after lapse of one year, as during the pendency
of the dispute, the service condition is required to be
unchanged and the conditions given in the amalgamation
notification ended on 02.10.2009 and the terms and
conditions of service prevailing in the Party No.1 have
become applicable to the employees of UWBL including
the workman, as per the internal circular dated 01.10.2009.
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for the
Party No.1 that the workman was transferred on 07.02.2008
and the union vide its letter dated 11.02.2008 furnished the
list of the office bearers demanding to declare them as
protected workman under the provision of the Act and the
workman was not the President, Vice President or Secretary
of the union at the time of his transfer, so he cannot be said
to be a protected workman and the protection given in
Sastry Award for transfer of office bearers is not applicable
to him and the settlement dated 26.07.1997 expired after the
expiry of three years, as per clause 19 of the said settlement
and as such, the said settlement is not applicable to the
workman due to efflux of time and the transfer of the
workman is just and proper and in accordance with the
provisions of the settlement applicable to the parties and it
was never malafide or ill intent and there was no unfair
labour practice or victimization and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
the Party No.1 that transfer of an employee is not only an
incident inherent in the terms of employment but also implicit
as an essential condition of service in the absence of any
specific indication to the contra, in the law governing or
conditions of service and a challenge to an order of transfer
should normally be eschewed and should not be
countenanced by the courts or tribunals as though they
are appellate authorities over such orders, which could
assess the niceties of the administrative needs and
requirement of the situation concerned. In support of such
contentions, the learned advocate for the Party No.1 placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 2004 III CLR-78 (State
of UP Vs. Goverdhan Lal) and 2008 III CLR-136 (Airport
Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey).
Now, keeping in view the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Courts in the decisions cited by the
learned advocates for the parties, the case in hand is to be
considered.
5332
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. The first contention raised by the learned advocate
for the union is that there was violation of clause 15 of the
settlement dated 26.07.1997 (Exbit-W IV) as the transfer of
the workman was not made with the city as provided in the
said clause. There is no doubt clause 15 of the aforesaid
settlement provided that, "without prejudice to the
provisions, in respect of the transfers of award staff, as
provided in bipartite settlement dated 19th October, 1966
as amended up to-date, a special assistant can be transferred
within city on administrative grounds, after a period of
three years from the date the duties of the special assistant
are assigned to him.
The transfer within Municipal/Corporation/
agglomeration area shall be treated as transfer within city
having the same CCA/HRA."
However, clause 19 of the settlement dated 26.07.1997
clearly provides that the said settlement was in force for a
period of three years from the date of this settlement so the
aforesaid settlement automatically became in operative, due
to efflux of three years time from the date of signing of the
settlement. Admittedly, the transfer of the workman was
made on 07.02.2008. So the conditions of transfer as
mentioned in the settlement dated 26.07.1997 were not
applicable to the workman. The workman is not entitled to
claim privilege from the said settlement.
10. The next contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union is that the workman was a protected
workman and as such, he should not have been transferred
to Raipur and on that ground also, the transfer of the
workman is illegal. However, from the own document filed
by the union, Ext. W-III, it is found that the union made an
application dated 07.07.2009 under sub-Rule 4 of Rule 61 of
the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 ("the Rules"
in short) to the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Bombay-III
for a direction to the Party No.1 to declare the members of
the union as protected workmen and the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central)-III, Mumbai on 9.02.2010 passed
orders directing Party No.1 to declare the 16 office bearers
of the union including the workman as protected workman.
Admittedly, the workman had not been declared as a
protected workman on the date of his transfer and there
was no violation of any provision by the Party No.1 by
transferring the workman to Raipur branch.
11. The third contention raised by the learned
advocate for the union is that there was violation of the
provision of 535 of the Sastry Award by Party No. 1 . Clause
535 of Sastry Award provides that,
1.
"Every registered bank employees' union, from
time to time, shall furnish the bank with the names
of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries
of the union.
2.
Except in very special cases, whenever the
transfer of any of the above mentioned officers is
contemplated, at least five clear working days
notice should be put up on the notice boards of
the bank of such contemplated action.
3.
Any representations, written or oral, made by the
union shall be considered by the bank.
4.
If any order of transfer is ultimately made, a record
shall be made by the bank of such representations
and the banks reasons for regarding them as
inadequate, and
5.
The decision shall be communicated to the union
as well as to the employee concern."
It is clear from the above provisions that the
directions given in clause 535 are in regard to the transfer
of the President, Vice-President and the Secretaries of the
union. Admittedly, the workman was not the President,
Vice- President or the Secretary of the union on the date of
his transfer. He was the Dy. General Secretary. So the
workman is not entitled to get the benefits of clause 535 of
Sastry Award.
12. Schedule "V" of the memorandum of settlement
dated 11th July, 2005, Exhibit-M-II, which was in operation
on the date of transfer of the workman provides the
deployment of staff of Party No.1. Clause-II of the said
schedule provides that in cases necessitating deployment
outside the district, the workman concerned may be
deployed to any branch/office of the Bank situated outside
the district up to a distance not exceeding 300 kilometers
from his present place of posting and the tenure of such
transfer should be three years, two years and one year, in
case of transfer up to a distance of 100 Kms, 200 Kms and
300 Kms respectively. According to the Party No.1, the
distance between Laxminagar branch and Raipur branch is
280 Kms and the transfer of the workman was well within
the distance of 300 Kms. Though the workman has claimed
that the distance between Laxminagar branch and Raipur
branch is more than 300 Kms, there is no legal evidence on
record in support of such claim. Hence, it cannot be said
that the transfer of the workman was made beyond 300 kms
and therefore is illegal.
13. Though the workman has claimed that his transfer
was made to victimize him and to discourage him to take
part in union activities and unfair labour practice was
adopted by Party No.1, there is no legal evidence on record
in support of such claims. From the materials on record, it
cannot be held that there was any victimization or adoption
of unfair labour practice by Party No. 1. Hence, the transfer
of the workman cannot be declared as illegal.
14. Admittedly, the workman has already worked for
more than five years at Raipur branch and that his transfer
had been made to a place more than 200 Kms away, but less
than 300 Kms. So the workman is entitled to be brought
back to his previous place of posting or if the same is not
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5333
possible due to administrative ground, then to any of the
three centers of the choice of the workman. According to
the Party No.1, as the dispute raised by the union was
subjudiced and there was no request by the workman, the
workman could not be brought back to the original centre.
Hence, it is necessary for the Party No.1 to bring back the
workman to the original centre, from where he was
transferred or if the same is not possible due to
administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers
opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to get
compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the provision
of clause IX of Schedule "V" of Ext. M-II. Hence, it is
ordered.
ORDER
The action of the management of IDBI Bank Ltd.,
Mumbai in issuing office order No. 1779 dated 07.02.2008
transferring the services of Shri S.G. Bobde, workman from
Nagpur Branch to Raipur Branch in Chattisgarh is legal
and justified. However, the Party No.1 is directed to bring
back the workman to the original centre from where he was
transferred or if the same is not possible due to
administrative ground, then to any one of the three centers
opted by the workman. The workman is also entitled to get
compensation of Rs. 1000/- per month as per the provision
of clause IX of Schedule "V" of Ext. M-II, from the date of
his joining at Raipur Branch till the date of his transfer from
the said branch.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr 2013
dkñvkñ 2020.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@187@90&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2020.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
NGP/22/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court Nagpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of Bank of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 01.08.2013
[No. L-12012/187/90-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/22/1999
Date: 22.07.2013.
Party No. 1
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,
P.B. No. 4, Nagpur-440001.
Party No. 2
The Zonal Secretary,
Bank of India Workers' Organization,
House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd July, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Bala
Shesrao Barade to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-12012/187/90 IR (B-II) dated 25.09.1990,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank
of India, Nagpur by terminating the services of
Shri Bala Shesrao Barade is justified? If not to what
relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"
Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this
Tribunal by the Central Government for disposal according
to Law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India
Workers' Organization ("the union" in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Bala
Shesrao Barade, ("the workman" in short), and the
management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed
their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim by the union is that the workman came
to be appointed in Newegaon Khairi Branch of Party No. 1
on 18.04.1983 and although no formal appointment order
was issued to the workman, he was appointed on existing
full time permanent vacancy and with the express consent
of the Zonal Manager and though the engagement of the
workman was to perform duties of full time permanent peon/
sepoy, he was paid meager daily wages and the appointment
and service conditions forced upon the workman were in
violation
of
the
provisions
of
various
bi-partite settlements and awards, which govern the service
5334
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conditions of the employees of Party No. 1 and the workman
was employed till 25.02.1985 and his services were
terminated w.e.f. 25.02.1985 for reasons best known to Party
No. 1 and the workman was not appointed thereafter,
although vacancy continued and fresh hands such as,
Shri Ramesh Tukaram Darwai, Shri Prabhakar Ramaji
Dhurve, Shri Naresh Padmakar Raut, Shri Vasanta
Ramchandra Darwai, Shri Moreshwar Vithoba Mandhenar
and Shri Ashok Damodar Gajbhiye were appointed by Party
No. 1 from time to time at Nawegaon Khairi Branch, in
violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act and
out of them, Shri Ramesh Darwai is in employment of Party
No. 1 even today as a peon-cum-seoy at Nawegaon Khairi
Branch and one Shri Rajan Ghate, who was junior to the
workman and who was working with the workman at
Nawegaon Khairi Branch as a peon-cum-sepoy on daily
wages was appointed as a permanent peon-cum-sepoy at
the said branch and after the termination of the services of
the workman, one Shri Vittal Shende was appointed as
permanent sepoy-cum-peon at Kalmeswar Branch of Party
No. 1 and the superior claim of the workman was ignored
and thus, Party No. 1 violated the provisions of Section 25-
H of the Act.
The further case as presented by the union is that
Party No. 1 has been since last many years indulging in
grave unfair labour practice of appointing persons from
time to time on daily wages, under the guise of badlee
employment and the practice of terminating such persons
and to appoint fresh hands is rampant with the sole object
to sabotage the claim of permanency and several disputes
arising out of the aforesaid malpractice are pending before
the Industrial Tribunals for adjudication and as the non-
engagement of the workman and engagement of fresh
hands is an unfair labour practice, the workman is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and all
consequential benefits including wages and seniority.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was not appointed on
18.04.1983 on any existing full time vacancy with express
consent of the Zonal Manager, but he was engaged on
purely casual basis for the first time on 18.04.1983 and as
and when the workman reported and as and when there
was work on leave vacancy and/or there was temporary
increase of work, he was engaged purely on casual basis
temporarily and the workman put in 317 days of work till
25.02.1985. It is also pleaded by Party No. 1 that specially
in rural branches and one-man branches, against leave
vacancy and /or when there is temporary increase of work,
local hands are engaged in the sub-staff category on purely
casual basis and they have no legal right or any cause to
raise any dispute under the Act and Shri D.B. Bajan Ghate
was engaged for the first time on casual basis on 31.03.1983,
whereas, the workman was engaged for the first time on
casual basis on 18.04.1983 and practically, in all branches
of the Bank, casual sepoys/badlee sepoys were engaged
directly by the Managers and they were not sponsored by
the Employment Exchange, so it was decided to hold a
simple written test on National Level, in order to empanel
such workmen as badlee sepoy and /or to absorb them
against available vacancies of sub-staff and accordingly,
examination was held on 26.02.1984, where in the workman
and Shri Bajan Ghate appeared and results of the said
examination was declared on 09.02.1985, where in, both
Shri Bajan Ghate and the workman were declared
unsuccessful and in view of the same, both of them were
discontinued in February, 1985 and thereafter, to maintain
the continuous flow of work at the branch, indents were
placed with the Employment Exchange on 12.02.1985,
27.02.1985, 26.03.1985 and 08.04.1985 for sponsoring the
name of candidates, who could be empanelled as badlee
sepoy and/ or who could be absorbed in available vacancies
in the branch, as the case may be and in the last notice to
the Employment Exchange, it was specifically stated that if
the name of the candidates would not be received within
15 days, it would be presumed by the Bank that no
candidates are available and in that event, they would
empanel local persons in the panel of badlee sepoy and as
the Employment Exchange did not respond to the said
ultimate notice, the branch was constrained to empanel/
absorb local persons and as Shri D.B. Bajan Ghate and the
workman had earlier been engaged as casual sepoys, it
was decided to give them chance first and Shri Bajan Ghate
was absorbed against the vacancy of permanent sepoy,
since he was senior to the workman and in view of the
aforesaid facts, provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G are
not applicable to the case of the workman.
The Party No. 1 has also pleaded that the workman
worked for 128 days, 160 days and 29 days in 1983, 1984
and 1985 respectively and he had not worked for 240 days
in a block of 12 months and in the preceding 12 months, he
had put in only 160 days of work and they did not indulge
in unfair labour practice and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
4. Besides placing reliance on documentary
evidence, the union has examined six witnesses, namely,
Shri B.S. Burade (the workman), Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri
Shirish A. Damle, Shri Arvind Madhukar Tamhaney, Shri
Suresh N. Panwilkar and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar in
support of its claim.
One Shri Rajkumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined
as the only witness by the Party No. 1.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative that the workman was engaged as a
peon on 18.04.1983 at Nawegaon Khairi Branch of Party
No. 1, against the existing full time permanent vacancy and
the appointment was made by the Branch Manager with
the consent and approval of the Zonal Manager of the
Bank, Nagpur and the workman was enrolled in the
Employment Exchange and sent by the Employment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5335
Exchange as per bank's demand and though the workman
was paid on daily wages basis, he was required to perform
the duties of a full time peon and he worked continuously
from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break
and inspite of having permanent vacancy, the workman
was not regularized by the Party No. 1 and juniors to the
workman were retained and regularized by the Bank and
the pleadings made in the statement of claim have not been
specifically denied and dealt with in the written statement
and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of
the union has not been seriously challenged in the cross-
examination and the witness examined by the Party No. 1
has admitted the case of the workman and that he was
engaged at the branch as per the direction of the Zonal
Manager and it is clear from the evidence including the
admission of the witness for party no.1 that the workman
was terminated illegally and the Party No. 1 did not produce
the documents, even though the documents were
demanded by the union and the workman is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity seniority, full back
wages and all consequential benefits.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the management
representative that the workman was engaged on purely
casual basis for the first time on 18.04.1983 on temporary
basis on leave vacancy and or whenever there was increase
of work on temporary basis and the workman did not
complete 240 days of service in the preceding 12 calendar
months and the workman in his evidence has admitted that
he has no evidence of working continuously in the branch
and he worked for 317 days in two years and had received
the wages for the same and except the oral evidence, no
document has been filed by the workman to demonstrate
that he worked for 240 days continuously and the workman
has failed to discharge the burden of proving of his working
for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of his
termination and the evidence on affidavit of the other
witnesses examined by the union is general in nature and
no reliance can be placed on the same in absence of any
documentary evidence to support the same and the
provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-H do not apply to the
case of the workman and his termination is perfectly legal
and justified.
In support of the submissions, reliance was placed
by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC-
4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC-106
(R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-
697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Raffi), (2006)
9 SCC-132 (Surendra Nagar District Paanchayat Vs
Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court, Nagpur Bench and (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Reserve
Bank of India Vs Gopinath Sharma).
7. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that
it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is
limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication
and to matters incidental thereto.
8. It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a number of decisions including the decisions
reported in (2006) 1 SCC-106 (Supra), (2006) 9 SCC-697
(Supra) and (2006) 9 SCC -132 (Supra) to avail the benefits
of Section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the workman
to proof that in fact he had worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination and
the burden of proof of such facts lies on the workman.
9. First of all, I will take of the submission made by
the union representative regarding non production of
documents by the Party No. 1. The term of reference in this
case is regarding the legality or otherwise of the termination
of the workman from services. On perusal of the materials
on record including the pleadings of the parties, the claim
of the workman about his engagement on 18.04.1983 and
his termination from services on 25.02.1985 has been
admitted by the Party No. 1 in their written statement.
Accordingly to the union and the workman, the workman
worked continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without
any break, whereas according to Party No. 1, the
engagement of the workman was on casual basis as and
when required and the same was not continuous from
18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985. The workman in his cross-
examination has admitted that he was engaged as a casual
employee and he does not have any evidence of his working
continuously in the Bank and he worked for 316 days in
the Bank and he had appeared in the test dated 26.02.1984
and he cannot say if he had passed the test or not and
wages for 316 days were paid to him. In view of such
admission by the workman, it is clear that he was not
appointed against any permanent post and his engagement
was on casual basis intermittently and he did not work
continuously from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without any
break. In view of the admission of the Party No. 1 about the
engagement of the workman on 18.04.1983 on casual basis
and working of the workman till 25.02.1985 intermittently
and in view of the pleadings of the parties and the
admission of the workman in his cross-examination as
mentioned above and applying the principles enunciated
in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC-4791 (Supra) and
(2006) 1 SCC 156 (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding as to when adverse inference is to be drawn for
non production of documents by a Party to the case in
hand, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse
inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of
documents.
10. Though the reference has been made by the
central Government for adjudication of the legality or
otherwise of the termination of the workman, the union, in
5336
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workman has
tried to challenge the policy adopted by the Party No.1 of
engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having
number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at
different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled
principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms
of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the
fact that such specific terms of reference has not been
made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.
Moreover, from the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of
the workman in this case as Budlee sepoy was not against
any permanent vacancy in the branch, but his engagement
was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as and when
required basis against leave vacancy of the permanent sub-
staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the branch.
At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that:—
"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-
Validity-Workman not appointed to any regular post
but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to
day basis, held had no right to post."
11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to
mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision
reported in AIR 2006 SC- 1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak
Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional Bench).
It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that :—
"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the
court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of
temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/
operated corporations-Appointment—Modes of
appointment · Held regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment- Public Sector- Appointment- Mode
of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment- Labour Law- Appointment- Mode
of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment- Regularization- Held, not a
permissible mode of appointment."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The term 'temporary employee' is a general
category which has under it several sub categories
e.g. casual employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc
employee, etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only
a temporary employee, and it is well settled that a
temporary employee has no right to the post, or to
be continued in service, to get absorption, far less of
being regularized and getting regular pay. No doubt,
there can be occasions when the state or its
instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or
daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands
without following the required procedure, but this
does not confer any right on such persons to continue
in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments
are made by following the rules, such appointees do
not have any right to claim permanent absorption in
the establishment. The Court cannot direct
continuation in service of a non-regular appointee.
Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made in
some contingency the same should not be continued
for long, as was done in the present case. A casual or
temporary employment is not an appointment to a
post in the real sense of the term. The argument that
since one has been working for some time in the
post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even
though he was aware of the nature of the employment
when he first took it up, is one that would enable the
jettisoning of the procedure establish by law for
public employment."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"Employment on daily wage · Confers no right of
permanent employment- Daily wager appointed on
less than minimum wages—Not forced labour—
Continued on post for long period—Daily wagers
from a class by themselves. They cannot claim parity
vis-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis of
relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in
employment.
Employees were engaged on daily wages in the
concerned department on a wage that was made
known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed
upon was not being paid. Those who were working
on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they
cannot claim that they are discriminated as against
those who have been regularly recruited on the basis
of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an
employment on daily wages to claim that such
employee should be treated on a par with a regularly
recruited candidate and made permanent in
employment even assuming that the principle could
be invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal
work. There is no fundamental right in those who
have been employed in daily wages or temporally or
on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right
to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be
holders of a post, since, a regular appointment to be
made only by making appointments consistent with
the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the
other employees employed on daily wages, cannot
be extended to a claim for equally treatment with
those who were regularly employed. That would be
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5337
treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied
on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even
though they have never been selected in terms of
relevant recruitment rules."
12. Perused the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties. Taking into consideration the
materials on records and the submissions made during the
course of argument by both the parties, it is found that the
workman was engaged by Party No. 1 on 18.04.1983 on
casual basis on daily wages and he worked intermittently
as and when required basis till 25.02.1985. It is also found
that the engagement of the workman was not according to
the Rules of Recruitment of sub-staff of Party No. 1 against
any permanent post. According to the own pleadings of
the union and so also the evidence of the workman that the
engagement of the workman was done by the Manager of
the branch with the consent and approval of the Zonal
Manager. Even if, the said claim is held to be true, still then,
it cannot be said that the engagement of the workman is
according to the Rules of Recruitment of Party No. 1, as it
is neither pleaded nor proved that the workman was
appointed by following a due process of selection as
envisaged by the relevant Rules of Recruitment of Party
No. 1 or that the name of the workman was called for
alongwith others from the Employment Exchange and that
after facing the interview the workman was selected for
appointment. The workman or the union has not filed a
single document regarding the appointment of the workman
against a permanent post and his working continuously
from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985.
So far the oral evidence adduced by the union in
regard to the appointment and working days of the
workman is concerned, it is found that workman himself
has admitted that he worked for 316 days in total at
Nawegaon Khairi Branch and wages for 316 days were
paid to him and he has no document to show that he worked
continuously with the Bank.
So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Josh, Shri Shirish
Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and
Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is very
general in nature and most part of their evidence is regarding
the availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff Cadre in
different branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and in respect
of the policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding engagement
of badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the posts by
making regular recruitment, which is not the subject matter
of adjudication in this reference, as already mentioned
above.
Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without
mentioning the name of the workman has generally
mentioned that every workman covered by the reference
has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period.
Shri Joshi has not stated that the workman in fact had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date
of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by
Shri Joshi about the period during which every workman
involved in the reference completed 240 days in a
consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination,
Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of
sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment
Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates
for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employees
and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary
arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager
with consultation with administrative office, which the said
sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document,
Ext. W-10, Bank is allowing to appoint sub-staff/sepoy on
casual basis in small branches.
Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that
the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual
employees.
The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in the
examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken
by the union and the workman in the statement of claim.
According to the union the workman worked continuously
from 18.041983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break,
where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney
has mentioned that," In the instant case, the concerned
employee was given illegal break in service by management
on many occasion without any reason and with malafide
intention."
Moreover, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney
has admitted that his affidavit is a general affidavit and the
same does not have any specific reference to the concerned
workman and the workman was working with the Bank
intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned
as to the period of engagement of the workman or the
number of days he worked for the Bank.
Shri Suresh N. Panwilkar has been examined to show
that the workman worked continuously at Nawegaon
Branch from the date of the opening of the Branch. On
perusal of the evidence of Shri Panwilkar, it is found that
his evidence in the examination-in-chief itself is not
consistent with the stands taken by the union in the
reference. According to the case of the union and workman,
the workman was appointed on 18.04.1983 and
Shri Bajanghate was junior to him and Shri Bajanghate was
retained and regularized by the Bank, where as the evidence
of Shri Panwilkar is that the Branch of Nawegaon Khairi
was opened on 31.03.1983 and the workman and Shri
Bajanghate were appointed from the beginning of the Bank
and the workman was discontinued after two years and
Shri Bajanghate was removed earlier to the workman.
In view of the own admission of the workman as
already mentioned above and the evidence on record, it is
clear that the workman worked intermittently as a casual
daily wager as and required and as he did not pass the
5338
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
interviews held for permanent absorption, he was terminated
from service on 25.02.1985 and as the workman has filed to
plead and prove that he had in fact worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of the dated of his termination,
i.e. 25.02.1985, he is not entitled to the benefits of Section
25-F of the Act and there was no need for Party No. 1 to
comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
13. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about
the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR
2006 SC-839 (Supra).
In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :
"Labour law Daily wager—Disengagement of—
Validity—Workman not appointed to any regular post but
engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day basis,
held, had no right to the post—Hence, his disengagement on
acquiring a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed,
held, could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful
dismissal within the meaning of item 3 of schedule II to
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947— High Court erred in holding
otherwise—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item
3—Wrongful dismissal—What is not—Post—Right to—
Daily wager, held, devoid of such a right.
Labour law—Industrial Disputes Act, 1947—Ss. 256
and 25F- Applicability of Section 25G—Where High Court
had not found the workman to have been retrenched within
the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holdings. 25G to be
applicable.
In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC—839 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
"Retrenchment—Respondent employed as
messenger on daily wage basis by bank—No appointment
letter issued to him—Termination of his service—Reference
was not made regarding validity of retrenchment under S.
25G—But for not considering respondent for reemployment
under S. 25H—Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G
but only to S. 25H—Thus finding by Tribunal that order
terminating services of respondent was in violation of S.
25G—Illegal—Further respondent in his application under
S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that his services were illegally
terminated—In circumstances High Court's view that
termination of services of respondent was invalid under S.
25H—Not sustainable as S. 25H proceedes on assumption
that retrenchment has been validly made.
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item 1—
Shastry award, para 497—Benefit under—Respondent
employed by bank on ad hoc basis—no appointment order
was issued—Dispensation of his services—Not in
violation of para 497.
Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has
no application to temporary employees like the respondent.
Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award
by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing
appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list,
service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this
would not mean that therefore the respondents had been
properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated.
Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award
or settlement was followed either of the respondents in
both appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to
and no letter of appointment was given. The nature of the
respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had
been appointed without considering any rule. It would be
ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of
the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when
their services are dispensed with."
Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the
case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India in
terminating the services of Shri Bala Shesrao Barade is
justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2021.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izcaèra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 01@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@188@90&vkbZvkj ¼ch& II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2021.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/20/1999
of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management Bank
of India and their workman, and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 01/08/2013.
[No. L-12012/188/90-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5339
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER,CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/20/1999
Date: 25.06.2013
Party No. 1 :
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,
P.B. No. 4, Nagpur-440001.
Party No. 2 :
The Zonal Secretary,
Bank of India Workers' Organization,
House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 25th June, 2013)
In exercise of the powrs conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short) the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workman,
Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/188/90-IR(B-II) dated
12.10.1990, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Nagpur in terminating the services of Shri Ashok
Bapurao Nanwatkar is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?"
Subsequently, the reference was transferred to this
Tribunal by the Central Government for disposal according
to Law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India
Workers' Organisation", ("the union" in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Ashok
Bapurao Nanwatkar, ("the workman" in short) and the
management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed
their written statement.
The Case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim by the Union is that the workman entered
in the service of Party No. 1 on 10.12.1985 as a Badlee
Sepoy on daily wages in Saoner Main Branch and he was
required to work at Saoner, Kelward, Nandgomukh and
Telmampetee branches, whenever the regular sepoy was
remaining absent and his appointment was through the
Employment Exchange and with the consent of Zonal
Manager and the General Manager of the Bank and he
continued to work as such till 19.01.1988, on which date,
his services were terminated abruptly by the Manager of
Saoner Branch, without assigning any reason and without
serving any termination notice or order him, as required by
Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlements and therefore, the
termination of his services was highhanded and totally
illegal and the workman had worked for more than
240 days in the preceding one year of his termination and
in view of completion of one year of continuous service,
he ought to have been continued in service and by
terminating his services, Party No. 1 violated the provisions
of the Act.
The further case of the workman as presented by the
union is that at no point of time, the Party No. 1 gave him
any appointment order and such act of Party No. 1 was
also in violation of the provisions of Sastry Award and
various Bipartite Settlements and Party No. 1 used to give
illegal break during the long span of service of the workman
and lastly to get rid of him and with malafide intension, the
Party No. 1 terminated his services, without giving him any
termination notice or compensation and thus violated the
provisions of the Act. It is also pleaded by the union that
instead of appointing the workman in a permanent post of
sepoy, Party No. 1 appointed one Jayant Sure directly,
superseding him and there by deprived him from his
legitimate claim of permanent service in the Bank and after
his termination, number of persons were engaged by
Party No. 1 for different span of time and the entire records,
which can prove his case are in possession of the
Party No. 1 and as such, it is necessary to direct the
Party No. 1 to produce those relevant documents.
The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the
workman in service on a permanent post of sepoy with
continuity in service, full back wages and all consequential
benefits.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged as Badlee
Sepoy on daily wages, at their Saoner Branch w.e.f.
10.12.1985, but such engagement was not with the consent
of their General Manager and the workman was not
disengaged/discontinued by them, but the workman
himself abruptly stopped coming to the branch, for the
reason best known to him and on several occasions, the
workman was contracted by the Manager, Saoner Branch
and was advised by him to come to work as Badlee Sepoy,
whenever such vacancy arose due to taking of leave by
the regular Sub-Staff and/or whenever there was temporary
increase of work, but the workman flatly refused to work as
Badlee Sepoy and asked for his absorption as a permanent
Sub-Staff in the Bank's service. Party No. 1 has also pleaded
that during the course of conciliation before the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, it was emphasized
by them that they would have no objection, if the workman
would work as Badlee Sepoy against leave vacancy of
regular Sub-Staff and/or temporary increased of work, as
and when would arise and the workman was advised to
report at the branch immediately for his such engagement
5340
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and accordingly though the workman started reporting for
duties as Badlee Sepoy, the same was very infrequent and
before the ALC, it was submitted by them that the
candidature of the workman would be considered for
absorption as permanent Sub-Staff against furture vacancy
as and when the same would arise, and the workman though
became very irregular, he used to send letters by post
alleging that though he was reporting for duty, he was not
being engaged and sending such letters by the workman
was an attempt to create alibi that he was not being engaged
as Badlee Sepoy at the branch.
Party No. 1 has admitted that the workman had put in
more than 240 days of service with them in the preceding
12 months, but it has been pleaded that only because of
the same, the workman is not entitled for absorption as
permanent Sub-Staff and as the workman himself had
stopped reporting for work, they cannot be held responsible
for the same and there was no violation of the provisions
of the Act by them and the demand for production of the
ducuments has no relevance and the workman be directed
to report at Saoner Branch to work as Badlee Sepoy as and
when required.
4. Besides placing reliance on the documents, both
the parties have led oral evidence in support of their
respective claims. The union has examined six witnesses
including the workman in support of case. The witnesses
examined on behalf of the workman are (1) Shri Ashok
Nanwatkar (the workman), (2) Shri Vinayak Joshi, (3) Shri
Shirish Damle, (4) Shri Arvind Tamhaney, (5) Shri Rajendra
Dahikar and (6) Shri Tilak Virji Maishere.
Only one witness, namely, Shri Chandrakanta
Purusottam Ghaskadvi has been examined on behalf of the
Party No. 1.
5. Before delving in to the merit of the matter, I think
it necessary to mention here that it is well settled by the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number
of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside the
reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial
dispute is limited to the points specifically referred for its
adjudication and matters incidental then to.
In this case, the reference has been made by the
Central Government for adjudication as to whether the
termination of the services of the workman by Party No. 1
is justified or not and if the same is not justified, then to
what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. In view of
such scheduled of reference, the only point for
consideration is the legality or otherwise of the termination
of the workman from services by the Party No. 1.
I think it necessary to mention here that in the
schedule of reference the date on which, the services of
the workman were terminated has not been mentioned. Of
course, the union in the statement of claim has mentioned
that the workman was terminated from services w.e.f.
19.02.1988.
6. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is
found that the Party No. 1 has admitted the claim of the
workman that he was engaged as Badlee sepoy on daily
wages at Saoner Branch w.e.f. 10.12.1985 and he had put in
more than 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months
of the alleged date of termination. However, the Party No. 1
has pleaded that they did not terminate the workman from
services, but the workman himself did not report for work
and refused to work on termporary basis.
In view of the admission of Party No. 1 that the
workman was engaged on 10.12.1985 and he had worked
for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of his
alleged termination, there is no need to analyze the evidence
adduce by the parties in the respect. In view of the facts
mentioned above, with respect, I am of the view that the
decisions reported in 2006(1)SCC-106 (R.M. Yellati Vs Asstt.
Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal
Nigam Ltd. Vs Mohd. Rafi), (2006) 9 SCC-132 (Surendra
Nagar Dist. Panchyat Vs Ganghben) and Writ Petition No.
1072/2002 (Hon'ble Bombay High court, Nagpur Bench)
and
which
have
been
cited
by
the
Party No. 1 on the point of burden of prove of working of
240 days preceding the date of termination by the workman,
have no clear application.
7. At the time of argument, much emphasis was given
by the union representative to draw adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non production of documents,
inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal. However,
I find no ground to draw adverse inference against the
Party No. 1 for non production of documents, in view of
the admissions as mentioned above and the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding drawing
of adverse inference for non production of ducuments in
the decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC-106(Supra) and AIR
2004 SC-479 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram).
8. Now, the question for consideration is as to
whether, the workman did not report for work and he refused
to work on temporary basis and there was no termination
by the Party No. 1. On perusal of the materials on record, it
is found that Party No. 1 has failed to prove such claim by
adducing cogent evidence in that regard. It is clear from
the evidence on record that though the workman had
worked for more than 240 days prior to 19.01.1988, Party
No. 1 terminated his services without service of one months'
notice or payment of one months' wages in lieu of notice
and retrenchment compensation, which are mandatory as
per the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Hence, the
termination of the services of the workman is illegal.
9. Now, the question remains for consideration is as
to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. It is the
admitted case of the workman and so also the case of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5341
Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged as a Badlee
Sepoy on daily wages basis and he was engaged in four
different branches of the Bank, whenever, the regular sepoy
remained absent. The engagement of the workman was not
against any regular post, but his engagement was on the
basis of need of work on daily wages. The workman was
engaged as daily wager by Party No. 1 in the year 1985 i.e.
10.12.1985 and his engagement continued intermittently
up to 19.01.1988.
Taking into consideration the facts mentioned above,
I think it proper to mention about the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2010 (8) SCALE-583
(Incharge Officer & another Vs Shankar Shetty) in this
regard. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act 1947/Section 25F/Daily
wager/Termination of service in violation of section 25(F)/
Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement/
Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by
appellants in 1978/His engagement continued for about
7 years intermittently up to 06.09.85/Respondent raised
industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging
violation of procedure prescribed in sec. 25(F) of the Act/
Labour Court rejected respondents claim: holding that
section 25(F) of the Act was not attracted since the workman
failed to prove that he had worked continuously for
240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination
06.09.85. On appeal, High Court directed reinstatement of
Respondent into service holding that termination of
respondent was illegal-Whether an order of reinstatement
will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a
daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of
section 25(F) of the Act—Allowing the appeal-held:
The High Court erred in granting relief of
reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was
engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement
continued for about 7 year intermittently up to September 6,
1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the present
one it appears to us that relief of reinstatment cannot be
justified and instead monetary compensation would meet
the ends of justice. In our considered opinion the
compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) in lieu of
reinstatment shall be appropriate, just and equitable".
The principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the above decision are quite applicable to this case. So,
applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the present case, it is found that the relief of the
reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary
compensation would meet the ends of justice and in my
considered opinion, monetary compensation of Rs. 25,000
(Rupees twenty-five thousand) in lieu of reinstatement shall
be appropriate, just and equitable, Hence, it is ordere:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India in
terminating the services of Shri Ashok Bapurao Nanwatkar
is not justified. The workman is entitled for monetary
compensation of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees twenty five thousand
only) in lieu of reinstatement. The Party No. 1 is directed to
carry out the award within one month from the date of
publication of the award in the official gazette.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2022.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiwj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 01@8@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@60@92&vkbZvkj¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2022.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
NGP/31/1999) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management Bank of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 01.08.2013.
[No. L-12011/60/92-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/1999
Date: 22.07.2013.
Party No. 1
The Regional Manager,
Bank of India, 13-Mul Road,
Chanrapur-442401.
Party No. 2
Shri S.R. Tripurwar, Regional Secretary,
Bank of India Workers' Organisation,
Shri Ram Ward, Ram Mandir,
Chandrapur-442401.
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd July, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
5342
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of and their workmen, Shri V.V. Siddam,
Shri A.G. Chahande, Shri B.J. Datarkar, Shri P.D. Madheswar
and Shri G.M. Mendulkar to the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for
adjudication, as per letter No. L.-12011/60/92-IR (B-II) dated
12.03.1993, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India, Chandrapur in terminating the services of
Shri V.V. Siddam from 13.06.91, Shri A.G. Chahande
from 30.12.90, Shri B.J. Datarkar from 23.05.89,
Shri P.D. Madheshwar from 19.04.91 and Shri G.M.
Mendulkar from 19.04.91 respectively is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled
to?"
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India
Workers' Organisation" ('the union" in short), filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the five workmen, ("the
workmen" in short) and the management of Bank of India,
("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the five workmen as projected by the
union in the statement of claim is that it (union) is duly
registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926 and
the workmen involved in the dispute are its members and
party no.1 is a Nationalised Bank and the service conditions
of the employees of the Bank are inter-alia governed by
the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and Bipartite
Settlements and this is a common reference for the action
impugned for termination of the five workmen by party
no.1 and brief facts in respect of each employee are
mentioned separately for clarity and convenience and such
facts are:—
Case of Shri N.V. Siddam
The workman, Shri N.V. Siddam was appointed at
Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur w.e.f.
07.06.1990 and his services came to be terminated w.e.f.
13.06.1991 and he worked for more than 240 days, preceding
the date of termination and payment was made to him on
vouchers purported to have been shown as reimbursement
to the Branch Manager, to avoid obligation of law and the
vacancy was filled in subsequent to the termination of Shri
Siddam, by one Shri Dewanand Madhav Uike and no
retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman
before his termination and therefore, the termination is illegal
and unjustified.
Case of Shri A.G. Chahande
The workman was employed as a sub-staff at Vilam
Branch w.e.f. 15.03.1990 in a clear vacancy and the salary
paid to him was illegally shown as reimbursement to Branch
Manager through office voucher to avoid obligation of
law and the services of the workman were utilized for the
whole day for doing sub-staff work and the vacancy was a
clear vacancy and his services were termination on
30.12.1990 and the workman had put in one year of
continuous service as contemplated by section 25-B of the
Act and before such termination, no retrenchment
compensation as required under the law was paid and as
such, his termination is illegal.
Case of Shri B.J. Datarkar
The workman was appointed as a sub-staff at Chikli
branch right from the date of inception of the branch in a
clear vacancy, but his services were illegally terminated
w.e.f. 23.05.1989 i.e. after putting in more than 240 days of
work preceding the date of termination and duties of sub-
staff were extracted from him without making payment in
accordance with the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement
and after the termination of the workman, one Shri Bathkal,
who was junior to the workman was appointed in his place
and no retrenchment compensation as contemplated under
the law was paid to him and therefore, provisions of
sections 25-B, 25-F and 25-H are attracted and the
termination of the workman is illegal.
Case of Shri P.D. Madheshwar
The workman came to be appointed as a sub-staff on
03.10.1988 at Gunjewahi branch, right from the date of
opening of the said branch and he put in continuous service
of more than two years and finally his services were
terminated w.e.f. 19.04.1991 and after his termination, a junior
person was appointed in his place and the workman by
virtue of having put in more than 240 days of service in a
clear vacancy, he had acquired the status of a confirmed
employee and no retrenchment compensation was paid to
him prior to termination and the termination of the workman
attracts sections 25-F and 25-H of the Act and the
termination is bad in law.
Case of Shri G.M. Mendulkar
The workman came to be appointed in the
subordinate cadre at Neri Branch w.e.f. 01.01.1985 in a clear
vacancy and he had put in more than 240 days of work
preceding 12 months of the date of termination i.e.
19.04.1991 and after his termination, one Shri Vijay Borsare
was appointed, who was junior to the workman in service
and therefore, the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-H are
applicable and no retrenchment compensation was paid to
the workman and therefore, the termination of the workman
is illegal.
It is further pleaded by the union that all the five
workmen were appointed against clear vacancy and each
of them had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding
12 calendar months of the date of their respective
termination and none of them was terminated as a
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5343
consequence of any departmental enquiry and junior
employees were given preference in the vacancy created
due to termination of the services of the workmen and as
there was violation of the provisions of sections 25-F and
25-H of the Act by the party no.1, the termination of all the
five workmen is therefore, ab-initio bad in law and party
no.1 played mischief in making payment of salary to the
workmen through vouchers purported to have been
reimbursement to the Branch Manager and such action of
party no.1 amounts to unfair labour practice.
The union has prayed to declare the action of the
party no. 1 in terminating the services of the workmen as
illegal and to reinstate the five workmen in service with all
consequential benefits.
3. The party no. 1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the services of Shri Siddam were utilized
purely on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement pending
appointment to the vacancy of sub-staff by usual procedure
and he did not complete 240 days of service preceding his
discontinuance/non-employment and pending the regular
selection of sub-staff, it was necessary to give minimum
expected services to the customers and as such, the services
of Shri Siddam were utilized by the Branch Manager as
stop gap arrangement only and Shri Devandra Madhav
Uikey was selected as a regular sub-staff after following
the procedure and the same was not in the vacancy of
Shri Siddam, as the employment of Shri Siddam was being
casual in nature and as he did not put in 240 days of
continuous services, he was not entitled to any
retrenchment compensation and there was also no question
of giving any charge sheet, since there was no charge
against him and the further non-employment of Shri Siddam
was due to the regular appointment of the Sub-staff in the
Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur.
It is also pleaded by the party no.1 that after opening
of Vilam branch, pending regular appointment of sub-staff,
the services of Shri Chahande were utilized on casual basis
as a stop gap arrangement by the branch manager to provide
minimum expected customer services and under the own
authority of the branch manager, payment was made to
Shri Chahande, which was reimbursed to the branch
manager and such procedure was followed for the reasons
as mentioned above and not to avoid any obligation of law
and there was no illegality in the said procedure and
Shri Chahande did not complete one year of continuous
service as contemplated by section 25-B of the Act and
there was no question of departmental enquiry, since there
was no dismissal/termination as alleged and further non-
employment of the workmen was due to appointment of a
regular sub-staff in the said branch.
The further case of party no. 1 is that the services of
Shri Datarkar were utilized purely on casual basis as a stop
gap arrangement pending appointment to the vacancy of
sub-staff by usual procedure and he did not complete 240
days of service preceding his discontinuance/non-
employment and pending the regular selection of sub-staff,
it was necessary to give minimum expected services to the
customers and as such, the services of Shri Datarkar were
utilized by the Branch Manager as stop gap arrangement
only and Shri Devandra Madhav Uikey was selected as a
regular sub-staff after following the procedure and the same
was not in the vacancy of Shri Datarkar, as the employment
of Shri Datarkar was being casual in nature and as he did
not put in 240 days of continuous services, he was not
entitled to any retrenchment compensation and there was
also no question of giving any charge sheet, since there
was no charge against him and the further non-employment
of Shri Datarkar was due to the regular appointment of the
Sub-staff in the Engineering college extension counter,
Chandrapur.
It is also pleaded by the party no. 1 that after opening
of Ganjewahi branch, the services of Shri P.D. Madheshwar
were utilized on casual basis as a stop gap arrangement by
the branch manager to provide minimum expected customer
services and under the own authority of the branch
manager, payment was made to Shri P.D. Madheshwar,
which was reimbursed to the branch manager and such
procedure was followed for the reasons as mentioned above
and not to avoid any obligation of law and there was no
illegality in the said procedure and Shri P.D. Madheshwar
did not complete one year of continuous service as
contemplated by section 25-B of the Act and there was no
question of departmental enquiry, since there was no
dismissal/ termination as alleged and further non-
employment of the workmen was due to appointment of a
regular sub-staff in the said branch.
The further case of party no. 1 is that the services of
Shri Medulkar were utilized purely on casual basis as a
stop gap arrange pending appointment to the vacancy of
sub-staff by usual procedure and he did not complete 240
days of service preceding his discontinuance/non-
employment and pending the regular selection of sub-staff,
it was necessary to give minimum expected services to the
customers and as such, the services of Shri Mendulkar
were utilized by the Branch Manager as stop gap
arrangement only and Shri Devandra Madhav Uikey was
selected as a regular sub-staff after following the procedure
and the same was not in the vacancy to Shri Mendulkar
and as the employment of Shri Mendulkar was being casual
in nature and as he did not put in 240 days of continuous
services, he was not entitled to any retrenchment
compensation and there was also no question of giving
any charge sheet, since there was no charge against him
and the further non- employment of Shri Mendulkar was
due to the regular appointment of the sub-staff in the
Engineering college extension counter, Chandrapur.
Party no. 1 has further pleaded that the employment
of the workmen was purely of casual nature and as a stop
5344
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gap arrangement pending selection of the regular staff by
normal procedure and their appointment was made by the
respective branch managers, who have no authority to
appoint any person, but who were authorized to make stop
gap arrangement to provide minimum expected services to
the customers, in the absence of a regularly appointed
employee and no junior employee had been given
precedence as alleged and the services of the workmen
came to an end automatically with the appointment of the
regular employee and their cases were not cases of
termination from service, but the same were cases of non-
employment and the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-H
of the Act had no application to their cases and the workmen
are not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of the claim, the union has examined six
witnesses including two workmen, besides placing reliance
on the documentary evidence. The witnesses examined by
the union are (1) Shri Vilas Siddam (workman), (2) Shri Arun
D. Mahadeshwar (workman), (3) Shri Vinayak Joshi, (4)
Shri Shirish A. Damle, (5) Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and (6)
Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar.
Party No. 1 has not adduced any oral evidence.
5. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that
it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is
limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication
and to matters incidental thereto.
6. During the course of argument, it was submitted
by the union representative that the workmen were
appointed by the respective Branch Managers with the
consent and approval of the Zonal Manager and they were
sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they
performed the duties of full time peons, although they were
paid on daily wage basis and they worked continuously
between 1984 to 1989 and despite the existence of
permanent vacancies, Party No. 1 did not regularize the
workmen and there was violation of the mandatory
provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and
the Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice. It was further
submitted by the union representative that Party No. 1 has
virtually admitted the allegations made in the statement of
claim, in the written statement and the oral evidence
adduced by the workmen, which has not been challenged
seriously in the cross-examination, the documentary
evidence produced by the workmen and absence of any
rebuttal evidence from the side of Party No. 1 have fully
proved the claim of the workmen and as such, the workmen
are entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity, full
back wages and all consequential benefits. It was also
submitted by the union representative that during the
conciliation proceedings before the ALC, Chandrapur,
Minutes of understanding were signed by the union and
party no. 1 and party no. 1 assured to absorb the workmen,
Shri Qureshi and Shri Bamburde and also gave assurance
for absorption of the three other workmen, but party no. 1
did not implement the said settlement, which is quite illegal
and the workmen are entitled for their absorption against
permanent vacancies.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that though the Tribunal passed orders directing the Party
No. 1 to produce the relevant documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against Party No. 1 and the
reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative
for the Party No. 1 that the workmen were engaged on
purely casual basis temporally for different spells, in the
respective branches and their engagement was as and when
required basis, due to taking of leave by the permanent
Sub-staff or temporary increase of work load in the branch
and none of the workmen completed 240 days of work in
the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of
termination and the workmen have admitted such facts
and the evidence on affidavits of the witnesses examined
by the workmen are general affidavits and no reliance can
be placed on the same, as no document has been produced
by the workmen to demonstrate that they had worked for
240 days in the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of
termination and the workmen have failed to discharge the
burden of proving that in fact they had worked for 240
days in the preceding 12 months of the date of termination,
so the provisions of the Act are not applicable and adverse
inference is not to be drawn for non production of the
documents and Party No. 1 did not adopt any unfair labour
practice and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
In support of the submissions, reliance was placed
by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC-
4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1 SCC-106
(R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-
697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Raffi), (2006)
9 SCC-132 (Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs
Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 of Hon'ble Bombay
High Court, Nagpur Bench, (2006) 6 SCC-221 (Reserve Bank
of India Vs. Gopinath Sharma) and AIR 2006 S.C.-839
(Regional Manager, SBI Vs Rakesh Kumar).
8. First of all, I will take of the submission made by
the union representative regarding drawing of adverse
inference against the party no. 1, for non production of the
documents. Admittedly, order was passed by the Tribunal
directing the party no. 1 to produce documents as
demanded by the union. However, the party no. 1 failed to
produce the documents. The terms of reference in this case
is as to whether the five workmen are entitled to get the
employment. On perusal of the materials on record
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5345
including the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the
claim of the workmen about their engagement on different
branches on casual basis on daily wages has been admitted
by the party no. 1 in the written statement. Moreover, the
union during the course of hearing of the case has produced
almost all the documents, which it had demanded for
production by party no. 1. In view of such admitted facts
and applying the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 S.C-4791 (supra)
and (2006) 1 SCC-106 (supra) in regard to drawing of adverse
inference for non production of documents by a party, to
the case in hand, it is found that there is no need to draw
adverse inference against the party no. 1 for the non
production of the documents.
9. Though the reference has been made by the Central
Government for adjudication of the dispute as to whether
the workmen are entitled to get employment, the union, in
the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workmen has
tried to challenge the policy adopted by the party no. 1 of
engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having
number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at
different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled
principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms
of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the
fact that such specific terms of reference has not been
made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.
Moreover, from the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of
the workmen in this case by party no.1 was not against any
permanent vacancy in the respective branches, but their
engagement was on temporary basis as daily wages, as
and when required basis, against leave vacancy of the
permanent sub-staff or due to temporary increase of
workload in the branch.
10. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention
the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that:—
"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity-
Workman not appointed to any regular post but
engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day
basis, held had no right to post."
11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to
mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision
reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak
Vs. Umadevi & others) (Constitutional Bench).
It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that:—
"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the
court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of
temporary appointees de hors of rules-State owned/
operated corporations-Appointment-Modes of
appointment-Held regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment-Public Sector- Appointment-Mode
of appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment- Labour Law-Appointment-Mode of
appointment-Held, regularization cannot be a mode
of appointment-Regularization-Held, not a
permissible mode of appointment."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The term 'temporary employee' is a general category
which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual
employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee,
etc. A daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary
employee, and it is well settled that a temporary
employee has no right to the post, or to be continued
in service, to get absorption, far less of being
regularized and getting regular pay. No doubt, there
can be occasions when the state or its
instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or
daily wage basis in a contingency as additional hands
without following the required procedure, but this
does not confer any right on such persons to continue
in service or get regular pay. Unless the appointments
are made by following the rules, such appointees do
not have any right to claim permanent absorption in
the establishment. The Court cannot direct
continuation in service of a non-regular appointee.
Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made in
some contingency the same should not be continued
for long, as was done in the present case. A casual or
temporary employment is not an appointment to a
post in the real sense of the term. The argument that
since one has been working for some time in the
post, it will not be just to discontinue him, even
though he was aware of the nature of the employment
when he first took it up, is one that would enable the
jettisoning of the procedure establish by law for
public employment."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"Employment on daily wage-Confers no right of
permanent employment-Daily wager appointed on
less than minimum wages-Not forced labour-
Continued on post for long period-Daily wagers from
a class by themselves-They cannot claim parity
vis-a-vis those regularly recruited on basis of
relevant rules and cannot be made permanent in
employment.
Employees were engaged on daily wages in the
concerned department on a wage that was made
known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed
upon was not being paid. Those who were working
on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they
cannot claim that they are discriminated as against
5346
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
those who have been regularly recruited on the basis
of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an
employment on daily wages to claim that such
employee should be treated on a par with a regularly
recruited candidate and made permanent in
employment even assuming that the principle could
be invoked for claiming the equal wages for equal
work. There is no fundamental right in those who
have been employed in daily wages or temporally or
on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right
to be absorbed in service. They cannot be said to be
holders of a post, since, a regular appointment to be
made only by making appointments consistent with
the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the
other employees employed on daily wages, cannot
be extended to a claim for equally treatment with
those who were regularly employed. That would be
treating unequal as equals. It cannot also be relied
on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even
though they have never been selected in terms of
relevant recruitment rules."
12. It is also well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
a catena of decisions including the decisions reported in
(2006) 1 SCC-106 (Supra), and (206) 9 SCC-697 (Supra) that
the onus to prove the 240 days' of continuous service lies
on the workman and it is for workman to adduce cogent
evidence, both oral and documentary and mere affidavits
and self serving statements made by the workman will not
suffice.
So, keeping in view the settled principles as
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court mentioned above,
now, the case in hand is to be considered.
13. The two workmen, namely, Shri Vilas B. Siddam
and Shri Arun D. Madheswar in their examination-in-chief
have reiterated the stands taken by the union in the
statement of claim. They have further stated in their
examination-in-chief that their appointment was made by
the party no.1 after due selection in the interview and their
names were sponsored by the employment exchange.
However, such statements cannot be taken into
consideration in absence of such pleadings in the statement
of claim. Nothing has been mentioned in the statement of
claim as to how the workmen came to be appointed in the
respective branches of the Bank and as to who appointed
them. Moreover, during the course of argument, it was
submitted by the union representative that the workmen
were appointed by the respective branch managers with
the approval of the Zonal Manager and the names of the
workmen were sponsored by the employment exchange,
which is quite contradictory to the evidence of the workmen.
In absence of such pleadings and any documentary
evidence on record in that regard, such statements cannot
be relied upon.
In his cross-examination, workman, Shri Siddam has
stated that he received the interview call from the
employment exchange, but he has not filed the copy of the
interview letter and he was not issued with any
appointment order and he has not submitted any evidence
to show that he worked in the said bank.
Workman, Shri Madheswar in his cross-examination
has stated that he has not filed any document to show that
his name was sponsored by employment exchange and
that he was called for the interview by the Bank. He has
admitted that he was engaged by the Bank on daily wages
and he has not filed any document in support of his claim
that he worked for 635 days and he had completed more
than 240 days of work from 1988 to August 1989 and from
September, 1989 to June, 1990. He has also admitted that he
was engaged by the branch manager as and when required.
14. So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Joshi,
Shri Shirish Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney
and Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is
very general in nature and most part of their evidence is
regarding the availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff
Cadre in different branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and
in respect of the policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding
engagement of badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the
posts by making regular recruitment, which is not the
subject matter of adjudication in this reference, as already
mentioned above.
Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without
mentioning the name of any of the workmen has generally
mentioned that every workman covered by the reference
has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period.
Shri Joshi has not stated that the workmen in fact had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date
of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by Shri
Joshi about the period during which every workman
involved in the reference completed 240 days in a
consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination,
Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of
sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment
Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates
for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employment
and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary
arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager
with consultation with administrative office, when the said
sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document,
Ext. W-10, Bank has permitted to appoint sub-staff/sepoy
on casual basis in small branches.
Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that
the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual
employees.
The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in the
examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken
by the union and the workman in the statement of claim.
According to the union the workman worked continuously
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5347
from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break,
where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney
has mentioned that, "In the instant case, the concerned
employee was given illegal break in service by management
on many occasion without any reason and with malafide
intention."
Moreover, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney
has admitted that his affidavit is a general affidavit and the
same does not have any specific reference to the concerned
workman and the workman was working with the Bank
intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned
as to the period of engagement of the workman or the
number of days he worked for the Bank.
14. It is necessary to mention here that except
Shri Siddam and Shri Madheshwar, the other three workmen
did not enter into the witness box.
15. On perusal of the record, it is found that neither
the union nor the workmen have filed a single document
regarding the appointment of the five workmen after their
due selection as per Rules of recruitment and that they
were appointed against any permanent post.
Taking into consideration the materials on record
including the pleadings of the parties and the submissions
made by the parties, it is found that the workmen were
engaged in the respective branches of the party no. 1 by
the respective branch managers on casual basis on daily
wages as and when required and they worked intermittently
and their engagement was not against any permanent post
and their appointment was not in accordance with the Rules
of recruitment of party no. 1 of regular sub-staff. It is also
found from the materials on record that neither the union
nor any of the five workmen has been able to prove that
the workmen in fact had worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 calendar months of their respective date of
termination, which is necessary to avail the benefits of
section 25-F of the Act. As the workmen failed to discharge
the burden which was upon them to prove, they are not
entitled to the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act.
16. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about
the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR
2006 SC · 839 (Supra).
In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that :
"Labour law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity-
Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged
on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held, had
no right to the post-Hence, his disengagement on acquiring
a qualification exceeding the maximum prescribed, held,
could not be treated as arbitrary or amounting to wrongful
dismissal within the meaning of item 3 of schedule II to
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-High Court erred in holding
otherwise-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item
3-Wrongful dismissal-What is not-Post-Right to-Daily
wager, held, devoid of such a right.
Labour law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss. 25G and
25F-Applicability of Section 25G-Where High Court had
not found the workman to have been retrenched within the
meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holding S. 25G to be
applicable.
In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-839 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
"Retrenchment-Respondent employed as messenger
on daily wage basis by bank-No appointment letter issued
to him-Termination of his service-Reference was not made
regarding validity of retrenchment under S. 25G-But for
not considering respondent for reemployment under S. 25
H-Order of reference did not refer to S. 25G but only to S.
25H-Thus finding by Tribunal that order terminating
services of respondent was in violation of S. 25G-Illegal-
Further respondent in his application under S. 33-C(2) never
raised plea that his services were illegally terminated-In
circumstances High Court's view that termination of
services of respondent was invalid under S. 25H-Not
sustainable as S. 25H proceeds on assumption that
retrenchment has been validly made.
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item
1-Shastry award, para 497-Benefit under-Respondent
employed by bank on ad hoc basis-no appointment order
was issued-Dispensation of his services-Not in violation
of para 497.
Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has
no application to temporary employees like the respondent.
Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award
by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing
appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list,
service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this
would not mean that therefore the respondents had been
properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated.
Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award
or settlement was followed either of the respondents in
both appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to
and no letter of appointment was given. The nature of the
respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had
been appointed without considering any rule. It would be
ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of
the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when
their services are dispensed with."
Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the
case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against
the union and the workmen. The workmen are not entitled
to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
5348
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 29 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2023.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
ds izca/kra= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5@8@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@442@89&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 29th August, 2013
S.O. 2023.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/21/1999)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management Bank of India and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 5.8.2013.
[No. L-12012/442/89-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/21/1999
Date: 22.07.2013.
Party No.1
The Zonal Manager,
Bank of India, S.V. Patel Road,
P.B. No. 4, Nagpur — 440001.
Party No.2
The Joint Secretary,
Bank of India Workers' Organization,
House No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg,
Congress Nagar, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd July, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Bank of India and their workman,
Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao Tandulkar, to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-12012/442/89-
D-II (A) dated 19.03.1990, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of
India in terminating the services of Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao
Tandulkar is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled?"
Subsequently the reference was transferred to this
Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law, by the Central
Government.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India
Workers' Organization", (‘‘the union’’ in short) filed the
statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Namdeo
Chirkutrao Tendulkar , ('the workman' in short), and the
management of Bank of India, ("Party No. 1" in short)
filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim by the union is that the workman was
appointed in Kalmeswar Branch of the Bank on 08.06.1983
as a Badlee Sepoy in the Sub-staff Cadre and contrary to
the various provisions of the bi-partite settlements and
awards, governing the service conditions of the employees
of Party No. 1, no appointment order was issued to him
and from the date of his appointment till his discontinuance,
the workman had put in more than 400 days of Badlee
employment and he had put in 229 days of employment in
a block period of 12 consecutive months and taking into
consideration the Sundays and holidays, he had put in 240
days of employment in the preceding 12 calendar months,
amounting to one year of continuous service within the
meaning of Section 25-B of the Act and although the
workman had completed 240 days of employment in 12
calendar months, his claim for permanent employment
came to be illegally ignored by Party No. 1 and Party No.
1 on 12.10.1985, directly appointed one Shri Shende as a
Sub-staff at Kalmeswar Branch, who had admittedly not
worked as a Badlee Sepoy prior to his appointment and
even after the appointment of Shri Shende, Party No. 1
continued to engage the workman as a Badlee Sepoy till
December 1986, on which date, he was informed that his
services have been terminated and that he would not be
continued in future and the services of the workman were
discontinue, only to deprive permanent status to him and
the consequent service benefits and on 10.03.1987, a
telegram from the Zonal Office was received in Kalmeswar
Branch in which, direction was given to discontinue his
services with immediate effect and a bare perusal of the
said communication would reveal that the workman was
engaged to perform duties of permanent nature and a
permanent vacancy did exist at Kalmeswar Branch and the
workman could have been absorbed in the said post and
the Branch Manager of Kalmeswar Branch terminated the
services of the workman without any written order and the
sequence of events narrated above would reveal that Party
No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice. The further case of
the union is that after the discontinuance of the workman
from service, the Party No. 1 engaged Shri Bhakte,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5349
Shri Ganarkar, Shri Tapase and Shri Durge from time to time
in his place and as the workman had done more than 400
days of work, he had a prior claim to further appointment,
which was illegally ignored by Party No.1 and Party No. 1
violated the provision of Section 25-H of the Act. The union
has prayed for his reinstatement of the workman in service
with continuity, full back wages and consequential benefits.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged as Badlee
Sepoy in the leave vacancy at Kalmeswar branch from time
to time and the same was done according to the work
available in the said branch, on account of either leave
vacancy or temporary increase in the work and the workman
put in 86 days, 121 days, and 158 days of work in 1983, 1984
and 1985 respectively and he had not put in 240 days of
work within a block period of 12 months and even according
to the workman, the maximum number of days worked by
him in a block period of 12 consecutive months was 229
days and from about 30th December, 1985, the workman for
reason best known to him, stopped reporting and coming
to the branch to ask about the availability of work and it
had neither terminated the services of the workman nor
stopped to offer work to him as and when the same was
available, due to taking of leave by the permanent sub-
staff or due to temporary increase in work and before the
conciliation officer, a clear offer was made by it to the
workman to report at Kalmeswar branch for badlee work
and that he would be provided work against leave vacancy
of permanent sepoy and he would be considered for
permanent absorption against permanent vacancy, as and
when such vacancy would arise in future, as per his turn
and his seniority and eligibility as per Rules and inspite of
giving of such offer in writing on 18.08.1989, before the
conciliation officer, the workman did not turn up to work as
badlee sepoy and it was not obligatory on its part at any
point of time to specifically call the workman for work and
as the workman had not put in 240 days of work including
paid holydays (intervening holidays) within 12 calendar
months, he is not entitled to claim the benefits of the
provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. It is further pleaded
by Party No.1 that the recruitment of Shri Shende, the sub-
staff was done after following proper procedure and the
communication dated 10.03.1987, if any, is wholly irrevalent
as the workman had no connection with the Bank since
December, 1985 and there was no unfair labour practice
and the engagement of other badlee Sepoy was due to
failure of the workman to report for doing the work and the
same did not affect his alleged right, as seniority of badlee
employees for permanent absorption is counted on the
basis of the total days of employment put in by the badlee
sepoy, in case of his continuance for duty and there was
no violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the Act
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In support of the claim, the union has examined
seven witnesses including the workman, besides placing
reliance on the documentary evidence. The witnesses
examined by the union are (1) Shri Chandrasekhar
Gathibande (the workman himself), (2) Shri Vinayak Joshi,
(3) Shri Shirish A. Damle, (4) Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney,
(5) Shri Balaji H. Bokde, (6) Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar and
(7) Shri Suresh Wirukar.
One Shri Raj Kumar Tulsiram Naik has been examined
as the only witness on behalf of the Party No. 1.
5. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that
it is settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the
Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is
limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication
and to matters incidental there to.
6. During the course of argument, it was submitted
by the union representative that the workman was appointed
by the Branch Manager with the consent and approval of
the Zonal Manager and he was sponsored by the
Employment Exchange and he performed the duties of a
full time peon, although he was paid on daily wage basis
and he worked continuously from 08.06.1983 to December
1986 and despite the existence of a permanent vacancy,
Party No. 1 did not regularize the workman and there was
violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F,
25-G and 25-H of the Act and the Party No. 1 adopted
unfair labour practice. It was further submitted by the union
representative that Party No. 1 has virtually admitted the
allegations made in the statement of claim, in the written
statement and from the oral evidence adduced by the union,
which has not been challenged seriously in the cross-
examination, the documentary evidence produced by the
union and the admission of the witnesses examined by the
Party No. 1,it can be held that the claim of the workman
has been fully proved and as such, the workman is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages
and all consequential benefits.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that though the Tribunal passed orders directing the Party
No. 1 to produce the relevant documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against Party No. 1 and the
reference is to be answered in favour of the workman.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the representative
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged on purely
casual basis temporally on 08.06.1983 and his engagement
was as and when required basis, due to taking of leave by
the permanent Sub-staff or temporary increase of work load
in the branch and the workman did not complete 240 days
of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged
date of termination and the union has admitted such facts
and the evidence on affidavits of the witnesses examined
by the union general affidavits and no reliance can be placed
5350
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on the same, as no document has been produced by the
union or the workman to demonstrate that the workman
had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the
alleged date of termination and the workman has failed to
discharge the burden of proving that in fact he had worked
for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of
termination, so the provisions of the Act are not applicable
and adverse inference is not to be drawn for non production
of the documents and Party No. 1 did not adopt any unfair
labour practice and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of the submissions, reliance was placed
by Party No. 1 on the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC
— 4791 (M.P. Electricity Board Vs Hariram), (2006) 1
SCC — 106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs Asstt. Executive Engineer),
(2006) 9 SCC — 697 (Krishna Bhagya Jal Nigam Ltd. Vs
Mohd. Raffi), (2006) 9 SCC — 132 (Surendra Nagar
District Paanchayat Vs Gangaben), Writ Petition No. 1072/
2002 of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench,
(2006) 6 SCC — 221 (Reserve Bank of India Vs Gopinath
Sharma) and AIR 2006 S.C. — 839 (Regional Manager,
SBI Vs Rakesh Kumar).
8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the union representative regarding drawing of adverse
inference against the Party No. 1 to produce documents as
demanded by the union. Party No. 1 could not able to file
the documents. The terms of reference in this case is
regarding the legality or otherwise of the termination of
the workman from services. On perusal of the materials on
record, it is found that Party No. 1 has admitted the
engagement of the workman as a badlee sepoy on
08.06.1983 and that he worked on daily wages basis till
December, 1985, in the written statement. It is to be
mentioned here that in the schedule of reference, the alleged
date of termination of the workman from services has not
been mentioned. According to the union and the workman,
the workman was terminated from service in December,
1986. The date of termination has not been mentioned in
the statement of claim. Moreover most of the documents
demanded by the union were produced by it during the
course of adducing evidence. Neither the union in the
statement of claim nor the workman in his evidence on
affidavit has pleaded that the workman had in fact put in
240 days of work in the preceding 12 months of the alleged
date of termination. In view of the facts mentioned above
and the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the decisions reported in AIR 2004 SC — 4791 (Supra)
and (2006) 1 SCC — 106 (Supra) in regard to drawing of
adverse inference for non production of documents by a
party, it is found that there is no need to draw adverse
inference against the Party No. 1 for non production of
documents.
9. it is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in a number of decisions including the decisions
reported in (2006) 1 SCC — 106 (Supra), (2006) 9 SCC —
697 (Supra) and (2006) 9 SCC -132 (Supra) that to avail the
benefits of Section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary for the
workman to proof that in fact he had worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination
and the burden of proof of such facts lies on the workman.
10. Though the reference has been made by the
central Government for adjudication of the legality or
otherwise of the termination of the workman, the union, in
the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the workman has
tried to challenge the policy adopted by the Party No.1 of
engaging persons on temporary basis, inspite of having
number of permanent vacancies in the cadre of sub-staff at
different branches of the Bank. In view of the settled
principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms
of reference as already mentioned above and in view of the
fact that such specific terms of reference has not been
made by the Government, such claim cannot be adjudicated.
Moreover, from the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties, it is found that the engagement of
the workman in this case as Badlee sepoy was not against
any permanent vacancy in the branch, but his engagement
was on temporary basis as a daily wager, as and when
required basis against leave vacancy of the permanent sub-
staff or due to temporary increase of workload in the branch.
At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention the
principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
decision reported in (2006) 6 SCC-221 (supra). The Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that:—
"Labour Law-Daily wager-Disengagement of-Validity-
Workman not appointed to any regular post but engaged
on the basis of need of work on day to day basis, held had
no right to post."
11. At this juncture, I also think it necessary to
mention about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a catena of decisions including the decision
reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806 (Secretary, State of Karnatak
Vs. Umadevi & others)(Constitutional Bench).
It is settled beyond doubt by the Hon'ble Apex Court
that:—
"Rules of recruitment cannot be relaxed and the
court/Tribunal cannot direct regularisation of temporary
appointees de hors of rules-State owned/operated
corporations-Appointment Modes of appointment — Held
regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Public
Sector- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held,
regularization cannot be a mode of appointment- Labour
Law- Appointment- Mode of appointment-Held,
regularization cannot be a mode of appointment-
Regularization- Held, not a permissible mode of
appointment."
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5351
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"The term 'temporary employee' is a general category
which has under it several sub-categories e.g. casual
employee, daily-rated employee, ad hoc employee, etc. A
daily-rated or casual worker is only a temporary employee,
and it is well settled that a temporary employee has no
right to the post, or to be continued in service, to get
absorption, far less of being regularized and getting regular
pay. No doubt, there can be occasions when the state or its
instrumentalities employee persons on temporary or daily
wage basis in a contingency as additional hands without
following the required procedure, but this does not confer
any right on such persons to continue in service or get
regular pay. Unless the appointments are made by following
the rules, such appointees do not have any right to claim
permanent absorption in the establishment. The Court
cannot direct continuation in service of a non-regular
appointee. Even if an ad hoc or casual appointment is made
in some contingency the same should not be continued for
long, as was done in the present case. A casual or temporary
employment is not an appointment to a post in the real
sense of the term. The argument that since one has been
working for some time in the post, it will not be just to
discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature
of the employment when he first took it up, is one that
would enable the jettisoning of the procedure establish by
law for public employment."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"Employment on daily wage — Confers no right of
permanent employment-- Daily wager appointed on less
than minimum wages — Not forced labour — Continued
on post for long period — Daily wagers from a class by
themselves — They cannot claim parity vis-a-vis those
regularly recruited on basis of relevant rules and cannot be
made permanent in employment.
Employees were engaged on daily wages in the
concerned department on a wage that was made known to
them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not
being paid. Those who were working on daily wages formed
a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are
discriminated as against those who have been regularly
recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be
founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that
such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly
recruited candidate and made permanent in employment
even assuming that the principle could be invoked for
claiming the equal wages for equal work. There is no
fundamental right in those who have been employed in daily
wages or temporally or on contractual basis, to claim that
they have a right to be absorbed in service. They cannot be
said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment
to be made only by making appointments consistent with
the requirements of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The right to be treated equal with the other employees
employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim
for equally treatment with those who were regularly
employed. That would be treating unequal as equals. It
cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in
service even though they have never been selected in terms
of relevant recruitment rules."
Keeping in view the settled principles as mentioned
above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
12. On perusal of the materials on record including
the pleading of the parties and taking into consideration
the submissions made during the course of argument by
both the parties, it is found that the workman was engaged
by Party No. 1 on 08.06.1983 on casual basis on daily
wages as a badlee sepoy and he worked intermittently as
and when required basis in four different branches of Party
No. 1 including Kalmeswar Branch. It is also found that
the engagement of the workman was not according to the
Rules of Recruitment of Sub-Staff of Party No. 1 against
any permanent post. Though the workman and two other
witnesses, namely, Balaji H. Bokade and Suresh Wirurkar
have stated that the workman faced the interview and was
selected for appointment, no reliance can be placed on their
evidence, in absence of any such pleadings in the statement
of claim. The discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses
as to the person, who had taken the interview of the
workman, make their evidence more unreliable. According
to Shri Suresh Wirurkar, the workman was interviewed by
Shri Chandrakant Joshi, the Asstt. Manager of Kalmeswar
Branch, whereas, according to the workman, one Shri
Dharvekar took his interview. It is to be mentioned here
that the workman has admitted in his cross-examination
that the Bank did not issue any call letter for the interview
and order of appointment was not given to him and he was
working on daily wages basis in different branches of the
Bank, where ever works were available. Likewise, witness,
Shri Suresh Wirurkar in his cross-examination, has stated
that the workman was engaged on daily wages and he was
being sent to different branches, where works were
available and the appointment of Shri V.S. Shende was done
in accordance with the Rules of Recruitment of Sub-Staff
in the Bank.
The workman has not filed a single document
regarding his appointment against any permanent post.
So far the evidence of Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri Shirish
Anandrao Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and Shri
Rajendra M. Dahikar is concerned, the same is very general
in nature and most part of their evidence is regarding the
availability of vacancies in the Sub-Staff Cadre in different
branches of the Bank of Party No. 1 and in respect of the
policy adopted by Party No. 1 regarding engagement of
badlee sepoy/peon instead of filling up the posts by making
regular recruitment, which is not the subject matter of
adjudication in this reference, as already mentioned above.
5352
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Joshi in his examination-in-chief without
mentioning the name of the workman has generally
mentioned that every workman covered by the reference
has completed 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period.
Shri Joshi has not stated that the workman in fact had
worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date
of termination. Nothing has also been mentioned by Shri
Joshi about the period during which every workman
involved in the reference completed 240 days in a
consecutive 12 months period. In his cross-examination,
Shri Joshi has stated that the method of recruitment of
sub-staff is to call for the names from the Employment
Exchange and after interview, to select suitable candidates
for permanent, temporary, full time and part time employees
and in small branches having only one sub-staff, temporary
arrangements have to be made by the Branch Manager
with consultation with administrative office, which the said
sub-staff proceeds on leave or sick and as per the document,
Ext. W-10, Bank is allowing to appoint sub-staff/sepoy on
casual basis in small branches.
Shri Damle, in his cross-examination has stated that
the Bank has authorized the manager to engage casual
employees.
The evidence of Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney in his
examination-in-chief itself is contradictory to the stand taken
by the union and the workman in the statement of claim.
According to the union the workman worked continuously
from 18.04.1983 to 25.02.1985 without a single day break,
where is in paragraph 24 of his affidavit, Shri Tamhaney
has mentioned that," In the instant case, the concerned
employee was given illegal break in service by management
on many occasion without any reason and with malafide
intention."
More over, in his cross-examination, Shri Tamhaney
has admitted his affidavit is a general affidavit and the
same does not have any specific reference to the concerned
workman and the workman was working with the Bank
intermittently for several years and he has not mentioned
as to the period of engagement of the workman or the
number of days he worked for the Bank.
Shri Suresh N. Panwilkar has been examined to show
that the workman worked continuously at Nawegaon
Branch from the date of the opening of the Branch. On
perusal of the evidence of Shri Panwilkar, it is found that
his evidence in the examination-in-chief itself is not
consistent with the stands taken by the union in the
reference. According to the case of the union and workman,
the workman was appointed on 18.04.1983 and Shri
Bajanghate was junior to him and Shri Bajanghate was
retained and regularized by the Bank, where as the evidence
of Shri Panwilkar is that the Branch of Nawegaon Khairi
was opened on 31.03.1983 and the workman and Shri
Bajanghate were appointed from the beginning of the Bank
and the workman was discontinued after two years and
Shri Bajanghate was removed earlier to the workman.
In view of the own admission of the workman as
already mentioned above and the evidence on record, it is
clear that the workman worked intermittently as a casual
daily wager in different branches as and when required.
The workman has failed to plead and prove that he had in
fact worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of
the alleged date of his termination, so, he is not entitled to
the benefits of Section 25-F of the Act and there was no
need for the Party No. 1 to comply with the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Act.
13. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about
the principles envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 (Supra) and AIR
2006 SC — 839 (Supra).
In the decisions reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221
(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
"Labour law — Daily wager — Disengagement of
— Validity — Workman not appointed to any regular post
but engaged on the basis of need of work on day to day
basis, held, had no right to the post — Hence, his
disengagement on acquiring a qualification exceeding the
maximum prescribed, held, could not be treated as arbitrary
or amounting to wrongful dismissal within the meaning of
item 3 of schedule II to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 —
High Court erred in holding otherwise — Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, schedule II item 3 — Wrongful
dismissal — What is not — Post — Right to — Daily
wager, held, devoid of such a right.
Labour law — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Ss.
25G and 25F- Applicability of Section 25G — Where High
Court had not found the workman to have been retrenched
within the meaning of S. 25F, held, it erred in holding
S. 25G to be applicable.
In the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC — 839 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:
"Retrenchment — Respondent employed as
messenger on daily wage basis by bank — No appointment
letter issued to him — Termination of his service —
Reference was not made regarding validity of retrenchment
under S. 25G — But for not considering respondent for
reemployment under S. 25H — Order of reference did not
refer to S. 25G but only to S. 25H — Thus finding by Tribunal
that order terminating services of respondent was in
violation of S. 25G — Illegal — Further respondent in his
application under S. 33-C(2) never raised plea that his
services were illegally terminated — In circumstances High
Court's view that termination of services of respondent
was invalid under S. 25H — Not sustainable as S. 25H
proceedes on assumption that retrenchment has been
validly made.
Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), schedule 3 item
1 — Shastry award, para 497 — Benefit under —
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5353
Respondent employed by bank on ad hoc basis — no
appointment order was issued — Dispensation of his
services — Not in violation of para 497.
Para 497 deals with the right of apprentices and has
no application to temporary employees like the respondent.
Assuming that there was a violation of the Shastry award
by the appellant bank in both cases either in not issuing
appointment letters or not maintaining a seniority list,
service book in respect of temporary employees etc., this
would not mean that therefore the respondents had been
properly appointed and their services wrongly terminated.
Admittedly no procedure whether in law or under any award
or settlement was followed either of the respondents in both
appeals. No conditions of services were agreed to and no
letter of appointment was given. The nature of the
respondents' employment was entirely ad hoc. They had
been appointed without considering any rule. It would be
ironical if the person who have benefited by the flouting of
the rules of appointment can rely upon those rules when
their services are dispensed with."
Judging the case in hand with the touch stone of the
principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court as
mentioned above, it is found that there is no merit in the
case of the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Bank of India in
terminating the services of Shri Namdeo Chirkutrao
Tandulkar is justified. The workman is not entitled to any
relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2024.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 272@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&22012@192@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2024.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 272/
2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/192/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/272/2003
Date: 24.07.2013.
Party No.1(a)
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015.
Party No.1(b)
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai - 400020.
Versus
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar, Post:
Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
Dated: 24th July, 2013
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Prabhakar Shankar Nikore, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/192/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the
services of Shri Prabhakar Shankar Nikore, Security Guard
w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Prabhakar
Shankar Nikore, (‘‘the workman’’ in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 23.12.1993 and he was initially engaged
5354
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period for two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary Party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
23.12.1993 to14.03. 1999 , without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief
from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No.1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P.
No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said
WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5355
the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata
and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder
was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in
every two years was not on papers only and they had no
say in the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No.1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990
put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted
from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and
the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and
therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was
terminated and hence, the services of the workman were
terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay
the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who
was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor
failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount
as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time
and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill
and they only used to check the attendance of the security
guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made
arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as
per their requirement and they did not have the power to
terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and
they did not provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle
and uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim.
In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that FCI had not issued advertisement and the contractor
informed them about the vacancy in FCI and the contractor
took them to FCI and the management of FCI did not issue
any order to them and he does not know if he was appointed
by Singh Security Services and they have not filed any
document showing payment by FCI and he has no
document to show that he was terminated by FCI and it is
correctly mentioned in his statement of claim that he was
appointed through contractor.
5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade, the witness examined on
behalf of the Party No.1 has also reiterated the facts
mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-in-
chief, which is on affidavit. The evidence of the witness for
the management has remained unchallenged, as none
appeared from the side of the workman to cross-examine
him.
6. It is necessary to mention here that as none
appeared on behalf of the workman to make argument on
20.06.2013, the date on which the reference was fixed for
argument, order was passed to proceed with the case ex-
parte against the workman.
7. At the time argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was
never appointed by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No.1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No.1 and the
workman and the Party No.1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No.1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
5356
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other facts
which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX
XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case,
the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redress of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress.
Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
9. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman
that he was directly appointed or engaged by the Party No.1
as a security guard. In the very beginning of the statement
of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman that he
was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India Depot,
Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor. In
paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has
mentioned that, "In the year 1993, the workman was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for the period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No.1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a Security Guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
10. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India),
2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.
and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and
others) and 1994 II CLR 402 (R.K. Panda Others Vs. Steel
Authority of India and Others).
In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do....... "
'The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the context
would indicate that it is used in the sense of a
relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5357
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the Definition of the term as contained in the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
stands, the workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third person.
Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor
were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the ground
of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance of various beneficial legislations so as
to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If
the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so called contract labour will have
to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of
the contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall
give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/
-9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -
17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -
2-8-2000 (Born) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -
23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
in connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between
the person employed in any industry and the owner
of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as
to who has brought about such relationship. The word
"Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic
term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
any establishment would have direct relationship with
the principal employer as a servant of master. But
what is true of a workman could not be correct of
contract labour. When the provisions of the Act
neither contemplate creation of direct relationship
of master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship be
implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A
fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
5358
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402 (Supra),
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
With the industrial growth, the relation between the
employer and the employees also has taken a new
turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein were the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State Governments
started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment
of contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a contractor,
with or without the knowledge of the principal
employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to
mean a person who undertakes to produce a given
result for the establishment, other than a mere supply
of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who
supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i)
in relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory,
the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of
section 10, of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in
the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour
"in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification, in
relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions of
work and benefits provided for the contract labour
in that establishment and other relevant factors. One
of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12
enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section
17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed
by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed and
all expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
of the authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if
the contractor fails to make payment of wages within
the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contact labour employed by the contractor and
recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5359
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the central government or the
state government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
Limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it
was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished
the contract labour as such but has provided for its
abolition by the Central Government in appropriate
cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the
court to enquire into the question and to decide
whether the employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this
court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have
not been found to have direct connection with the
refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of
employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers
concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers
Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the
aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate
the conditions of service of the worker employed by
the contractor who is engaged by a principal
employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of
contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate government, under
section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
government or by any appropriate government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
It is true that with passage of time and purely with a
view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and
the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
13. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
5360
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was
lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of
contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be
illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that
the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for
supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was
not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The
workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing
cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labor
contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or
camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial
legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits
there under. The workman has not been able to produce
any document to show that at any point of time, Party
No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from
the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three
months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same.
As it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or
compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of
the Act.
14. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour
of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to, any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2025.—vkS?kksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS?kksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS?kksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[ lañ ,y&22012@92@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2025.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour-
cum- Court, NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the management of WCL and
their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/92/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/38/2008
Date: 29.07.2013.
Party No.1
The Chief General Manager,
Chandrapur Area of WCL,
Post & Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharashtra.
Party No.2
: Shri Shriram M. Niranjane
Through President, Lal Zanda
Coal Mines Mazdoor Union
(CITU), Qr. No. M-305, Shakti
Nagar Colony, Po. Durgapur,
Distt. Chandrapur. (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 29th July, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Maroti
Niranjane, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/92/
2008-IR (C-II) dated 10.11.2008, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of
Chandrapur Area of M/s. WCL in dismissing Shri
Sriram Maroti Niranjane, Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 21.05.2007 is
legal and justified? To what relief is the workman
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman Shri Shriram Niranjane,
("the workman" in short) through his union, "Lal Zanda
Coal Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU)" ("the union" in short)
filed the statement of claim and the management of WCL,
("party no.1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that the Party No.1 is a public sector
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5361
undertaking and he was a permanent employee of party
No.1 and he was appointed as a Badli Loader on 10.04.1982
and in 1984, he was promoted as a General Mazdoor
category I and in 1987, he was promoted as a senior clerk
and continued in the said post and his service record was
clean and unblemished and in his entire service career, no
charge sheet or show cause notice was ever served on him
and he had all along been helping his colleagues in need,
in his humble way, although he himself was not financially
very well of and in the month of April, 2004, One Ramesh
Nanaji Belekar, who was working as a Haulage Khalasi
and was known to him for the last eight years approached
him (workman) to lend him Rs. 5000/- to meet his urgent
needs with the promise to return the same within a short
period and he gave a loan of Rs. 5000/- to meet his urgent
needs and promised to return the same within a short period
and he gave a loan of Rs. 5000/- to shri Belekar with the
condition that the said amount should be refunded within a
specified time and immediately thereafter, Shri Belekar
applied for voluntary retirement from service, which came
to be effected from July, 2004 and shri Belekar received
most of his legal dues from the management during the
months of September and October 2004 and in the
meantime, shri Belekar paid a sum of Rs. 1500/- to him,
but he was reluctant to return the rest amount of Rs. 3500/
- and therefore, he contacted shri Belekar and asked him
to pay back the said amount and shri Belekar initially
dodged him, whenever he tried to meet shri Belekar, but
finally, shri Belekar intimated him to come to his house
(Shri Belekar's house) at about 9.30 AM on 03.11.2004 to
receive the money and accordingly, he went to the house
of shri Belekar at about 9.30 AM on 03.11.2004 to receive
the money and as soon as he received the money from shri
Belekar, CBI pounced on him and arrested him on the
charge of taking bribe from shri Belekar and he was
produced before the designated court on 03.11.2004 itself
and was released on bail on the same day and on
24.12.2004, charge sheet was filed against him by the CBI
before the court of Special Judge, Chandrapur in Regular
case No. 20/2004 and the matter is subjudiced before the
Designated court.
The further case of the workman is that the
Party No.1 also issued a charge sheet-cum suspension order
against him on 26.12.2004, relating to the same charges as
mentioned in the charge sheet filed by the C.B.I. before
the special judge, Chandrapur and he submitted his reply
to the said charge sheet and thereafter, a departmental
enquiry was started and a mere perusal of the proceedings
of the enquiry would show that the departmental
proceedings and the criminal case are based on the same
set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is
common and he was constrained to participate in the
enquiry at the cost of causing prejudice to his case pending
before the designated court and the findings of the enquiry
officer are based on extraneous consideration and not based
on facts and it was clearly demonstrated by him and his
defence representative from the evidence adduced in the
enquiry that the money received by him from shri Belekar
was not a bribe, but the refund of the money taken by shri
Belekar from him as a loan and the alleged offence of taking
bribe by him was not at all proved in the enquiry and the
enquiry officer totally failed to apply his judicious mind
and mechanically drew the conclusion that he (workman)
was guilty of accepting bribe and on the basis of the enquiry
report, the disciplinary authority issued the impugned order
of dismissal in a huff w.e.f. 21.05.2007 against him and the
order of dismissal is wholly illegal, unfair and arbitrary
and due to such illegal dismissal, he has come to the street
and he is without any job and he is passing his days with
utmost poverty and desperation.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in
service with continuity, full back wages and all
consequential benefits.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded that the order dated 10.12.2008 of the Central
Government reveals that the present industrial dispute is
between the Party No.1 and the union, but the statement of
claim has been filed by the workman instead of the union
and as such, the statement of claim is not valid and the
reference is not maintainable for want of necessary party
i.e. the union.
The further case of Party No.1 is that the punishment
of dismissal dated 21.05.2007 was imposed against the
workman in accordance with the service conditions
prescribed in certified standing orders and prior to inflicting
the punishment of dismissal, regular departmental enquiry
was conducted on the charges levelled against him and a
trap of CBI was materialized against the workman and he
was caught red handed while accepting the bribe and a
regular criminal case was initiated against him in the court
of Special Judge, Chandrapur and in view of the same,
they decided to suspend the workman pending investigation
and served a charge sheet against him and the workman
replied to the charge sheet denying the charges and
therefore, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted
against him and the workman attended the enquiry with
his co-worker, Shri Baig and their witnesses were examined
in presence of the workman and full opportunity was given
to the workman to cross-examine the witnesses and
opportunity was also given to the workman to adduce
evidence in his defence and the workman examined four
witnesses besides himself and the defence witnesses were
cross- examined by the management representative and the
enquiry officer submitted his report declaring the charges
to have been proved against the workman and a second
show cause notice alongwith the copy of the report of the
enquiry officer was served on the workman and the
workman submitted his written say to the same and after
completing the exercise as required under the law and
5362
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
procedure of departmental enquiry and taking the approval
of the competent authority, the punishment was imposed
against the workman and no appeal was preferred by the
workman against the punishment, even though there is
provision for the same in the certified standing orders and
every opportunity was offered to the workman to defend
himself in the departmental enquiry and the principles of
natural justice were followed without any breach and the
enquiry is fair and valid and the conclusions drawn by the
enquiry officer are based on the evidence recorded during
the course of the enquiry and the findings of the enquiry
officer are not based on any extraneous consideration and
the findings have been derived with due reasoning and the
charges levelled against the workman were very serious in
nature and in view of the gravity of the misconduct, the
punishment of dismissal from service was imposed and
the punishment was squarely commensurate with the gravity
of the misconduct and the same was legal and justified and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, after conducting of a departmental enquiry, the
validity or otherwise of the departmental enquiry has been
taken for consideration as a preliminary issue and by order
dated 10.04.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the enquiry
conducted against the workman is totally vitiated in law,
because the enquiry against the workman was conducted
by the Personal Manager, who had initiated the
departmental enquiry against the workman and the enquiry
officer did not permit a family member of the workman,
who was the sole eye witness in the matter to give evidence
as a defence witness and there was denial of reasonable
opportunity to the workman in breach of principles of
natural justice. It was further contended by the learned
advocate for the workman that the findings of the enquiry
officer are based on extraneous consideration and not based
on facts and the enquiry officer totally failed to apply his
judicious mind and mechanically drawn his conclusion
holding the workman guilty of accepting bribe and the
punishment of dismissal is grossly disproportionate to the
quantum of offence, considering the fact that the service
record of the workman was absolutely unblemished and as
such, the order of dismissal is wholly illegal, unfair and
arbitrary and the reference is to be answered in favour of
the workman.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that by order dated 10.04.2013, the
preliminary issue regarding the validity of the departmental
enquiry has already been declared as valid and legal and
nothing has been demonstrated in this case as to how the
findings of the enquiry officer can be termed as perverse
and the enquiry officer has given his findings only on the
basis of the evidence recorded during the course of the
departmental enquiry and there is no perversity in the
findings recorded by the enquiry officer and the charges
proved against the workman are serious in nature and the
punishment awarded is also as per the standing order and
no sympathy can be shown much less demanded in this
case and the punishment of dismissal from services imposed
against the workman is justified and legal and the workman
is not entitled to any relief.
7. The first contention raised by the learned advocate
for the workman is that the enquiry conducted against the
workman is totally vitiated as the enquiry was conducted
by the Personal Manager, who himself initiated the
departmental enquiry against the workman. However, after
going through the documents of the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman, I find no force in the same,
as because the charge sheet was submitted against the
workman by the Suptd./Manager of the mines, Durgapur
Rayatwari Colliery, whereas Shri P.D. Kawle, the then
Personal Manager (Per.), Chandrapur was appointed as the
enquiry officer at first and on his transfer, Shri D. Ramdeva
Rao, Personal Manager (IR), Chandrapur was appointed
as the enquiry officer and Shri D. Ramdeva Rao completed
the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report to the Suptd.
of Mines/Manager, Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery. So, the
submission made by the learned advocate for the workman
in this respect fails.
8. So far the contention raised by the learned advocate
for the workman regarding the enquiry officer not allowing
the workman to examine his family member as a defence
witness is concerned, it is to be mentioned that the said
contention was raised and decided at the time of deciding
the issue of the validity of the departmental enquiry. So,
there is no scope to consider the said submission again.
9. Before delving in to the merit of the matters, it is
to be mentioned here that it is well settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in a series of decisions that the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal to interfere with the disciplinary matters for
punishment cannot be equated with an appellate jurisdiction
and the Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of the
enquiry officer or the competent authority where they are
not arbitrary or utterly perverse and if there has been an
enquiry consistent with the rules and in accordance with
the principles of natural justice, what punishment would
meet the ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority and if the penalty
can be lawfully imposed and is imposed on the proved
misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority.
Keeping in view the above settled principles, now,
the case in hand is to be considered.
After perusing the material on record including the
papers of the departmental enquiry and taking into
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5363
consideration the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the parties, it is found that the enquiry officer
has arrived at the conclusions by analyzing the evidence
adduced in the departmental proceeding systematically and
so also in a rational manner. The findings of the enquiry
officer are based on the materials on record of the enquiry
proceedings and not on any extraneous consideration. It
is also found that this is not a case of no evidence or that
the findings of the enquiry officer are based on no evidence.
The findings of the enquiry officer are not as such, which
could not have been reached by a prudent man on the
materials available on record. Hence, the findings of the
enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
10. So, for the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that serious and grave misconduct
of taking bribe has been proved against the workman in a
properly conducted departmental enquiry and therefore
there is no question of consideration of the past record of
the workman. The punishment of dismissal from services
imposed against the workman cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate to the serious misconduct
proved against the workman. Hence, there is no scope to
interfere with the punishment imposed against the
workman. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Chandrapur Area
of M/s. WCL in dismissing Shri Sriram Maroti Niranjane,
Sr. Clerk w.e.f. 21.05.2007 is legal and justified. The workman
is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2026.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 33@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@167@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,eµII½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2026.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area)
of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/167/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/33/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a)
:
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer
Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b)
:
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt.
Nagpur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Mohan S/o Sh. Tukaram
Deshmukh
R/o. Minzhari,
Post: Khadsanghi,
Teh.-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Mohan
Tukaram Deshmukh, for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-22012/167/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Mohan S/o Tukaram
Deshmukh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mohan
Tukaram Deshmukh, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL
("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
5364
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a)
i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1(b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No.1(b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 28.12.1992 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by
Party No.1(b) w.e.f. 01.05.1997 continuously till
28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a), sent him for vocational
training from time to time and he had undergone the said
training successfully and as such, he is a workman/
employee of Party No.1(a) and Party No.1(a) is the
principal employer and his appointment by both the
contractors was oral and the Party No.1(b) terminated his
services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than
700 workers were working with Parties No 1(a) and (b),
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no
compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination
of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time
of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now
also, plenty of work is available with Party No.1(a), and
1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section
25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that
he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the Party No.1(a), and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No.1 was the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was
the contractor of Party No.1(a), for each and every act of
the Party No.1(b), the Party No.1(a), is responsible for his
illegal termination. The workman has prayed for his
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No.1(b), neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No.1(a) has
pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction
of a pair of in a clines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal
mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract,
the open excavation work was to be completed within
period of 3 1/2months and the incline shaft drivage within
eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party
No.1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No.1(b) for construction
of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project and the dates
of commencement and completion of the said contract were
29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and it
[Party No.1(a)] was related to Party No.1(b), only as per the
terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for
providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty
of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their
need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 (a) that as per
the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show that
he was appinted by it and the contractor had appointed the
workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti
[2006(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is
not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has
been entering into various contracts with various persons
and each and every contract is an independent contract,
which cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no
nexus between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the
contract given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having
different legal entities and if they had engaged the same
workman for doing separate works, the workman did not
become permanent or entitle for regularization and there
was never any relationship of employer and employee
between it and the workman and he was never in its
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5365
employment and as such, there was no question of
compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of
the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the
workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013
and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was
closed for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and
BGML engaged him from 28.12.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party
No.1 (b), another contractor from 01.05.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1 (a). The only
claim of the workman is that Party No. 1 (a) had sent him
for vocational training and he had undergone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But
that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he
was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise
such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law
and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed
to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it
cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the
principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs.
Their workmen) have held that:-
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25 B and the unamended C1. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
5366
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to
show that he has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under that employer, who has
retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the
dictionary clause for the expression "continuous".
Both in principle and are precedent it must be held
that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where
a workman to not in employment for a period of 12
calendar months, but has rendered for a period of
240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the
relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for
a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B
and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services
without payment of—Dispute referred to Tribunal-
Case of workman/workman that he had worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim
denied by management—Onus lies upon workman
to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a
year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman
is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2027.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 34@2006½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@168@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2027.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 34/2006 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/168/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/34/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a)
:
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer
Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b)
:M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt.
Nagpur (MS)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5367
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Sh.
Pandurang
Nannaware, R/o, Minzhari,
Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Dnyaneshwar
Pandurang Nannaware, for adjudication, as per letter No.
L-22012/168/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the
following Schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL and
M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating
the services of Shri Dnyaneshwar S/o Pandurang
Nannaware is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Dnyaneshwar
Pandurang Nannaware, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL
("Party No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1
(a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.
1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L.". in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No. 1 (b) is working with Party No. 1 (a) for the
purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning
of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a
General Mazdoor on 17.07.1993 and he continued to work
till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized
by Party No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 01.07.1997 continuously till
28.12.2001 and Party No. 1 (a) sent him for vocational
training from time to time and he had under gone the said
training successfully and as such, he is a workman/
employee of Party No. 1 (a) and Party No. 1 (a) is the
principal employer and his appointment by both the
contractors was oral and the Party No. 1 (b) terminated his
services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more
than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than
700 workers were working with Party No. 1 (a) and (b)
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no
compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination
of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time
of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now
also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1 (a) and
1 (b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section
25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that
he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the Parties No. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1 (b) was
the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of
the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and
as such, the Party No. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing
its written statement. It is necessary to mention here that
inspite of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the
case nor contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has
pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction
of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal
mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract,
the open excavation work was to be completed within a
period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within
eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party
No.1 (b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline
shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam
VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the said
contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and
it (Party No.1(a)) was related to Party No.1(b) only as per
the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for
providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty
of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their
5368
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
need. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 (a) that as per
the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show that
he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006
(2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of sections 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013
and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was
closed for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1 (a) and
BGML engaged him from 17.07.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party
No.1 (b), another contractor from 01.07.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No.1 (a). The only claim
of the workman is that Party No.1 (a) had sent him for
vocational training and he had under gone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But
that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he
was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise
such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law
and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed
to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it
cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the
principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No.1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5369
The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to
show that he has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under that employer, who has
retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the
dictionary clause for the expression "continuous".
Both in principle and are precedent it must be held
that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where
a workman to not in employment for a period of 12
calendar months, but has rendered for a period of
240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the
relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for
a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B
and chapter V-A".
The Honble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has
held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation—Termination of
services without payment of -Dispute referred to
Tribunal-Case of workman/workman that he had
worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination- Claim denied by management—Onus
lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked
for 240 days in a year-In absence of proof of receipt
of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable
to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2028.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2009½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@41@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
5370
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2028.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 39/2009) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Wani Area of WCL, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/41/2009-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/39/2009
Date 31.05.2013.
Party No. 1
:
The Chief General Manager,
Wani Area of WCL, AT & PO:
Urjanagar,
Chandrapur (MS).
Party No. 2
:
The Secretary,
Sanyukt Koyla Mazdoor
Sangh
(AITUC),
At: Sanyal Bhawan, Gandhi
Nagar,
PO : Ghugus, Chandrapur
(MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 31st May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Surendra
Kalwal, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/41/2009-
IR (CM-II) dated 11.11.2009, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the demand of Sanyukt Koyala Mazdoor
Sangh, (SKMS) for regularization of Shri Surendra
Kalwal in the post of Clerk is legal and justified? To
what relief is the claimant entitled for?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Sanyukt Koyala
Madzoor Sangh", ("the union" in short) filed the statement
of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Surendra Kalwal,
("the workman" in short) and the management of WCL,
("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as pleaded by the union in
the statement of claim is that it is a registered union under
the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and is affiliated to AITUC and
Party No. 1 is a Government Coal Company, owned and
controlled by the Central Government and is a state within
the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India and
the workman passes SSC examination in 1982 and he was
appointed as General Mazdoor (daily rated) grade-I and
he was given service linked upgradation twice as per the
provisions of National Coal Wage Agreements ("the NCWA"
in Short) to daily rated category-II and category-III and being
transferred from Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery of
Chandrapur, he joined Mungoli open caste project in
January, 1998 and the Party No. 1 posted him against the
permanent vacancy of the post of "Tripman", a clerical
grade-III post on from 09.01.1988 and since then, he is
continuing in the same post, but he is being paid the wages
of daily wages category-III, instead of clerical grade-III
and during the meeting held with the representatives of the
union, R.K.K.M.S. (INTUC) on 03.03.2000 and
06.03.2000 at Director (Personnel) level and on 07.03.2000
at CMD level, Party No. 1 had agreed to regularize all the
eligible daily rated employees, who were engaged in
clerical job, prior to 25.08.1998 as clerk grade III and the
minutes of the said meeting was circulated vide circular
no. 17/1037 dated 17.04.2000 and the minutes of the meeting
was quite contrary to the provision of clauses 3.5. and 3.6
of the Certified Standing Order, Mines Act and Rules made
thereunder, the Act and Rules made thereunder and the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
continuous service of one year and regularization etc. and
it is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the terms of
employment specified in the Standing Order would prevail
over the corresponding contract of service.
The further case of the union as presented on behalf
of the workman is that the management of Wani Area sent
a list of 15 workers to the headquarters of WCL, Nagpur
including the name of the workman at Serial No. 15, for
regularization as clerk grade-III and in the said list, the
name of Shri Vijay Anand Katakar, trainee (maintenance)
cat.-II, who was transferred and placed in clerical job w.e.f.
01.10.1988 was included at Serial No. 14, contrary to the
direction contained in the minutes of discussion with
R.K.K.M.S., where in the cutoff date was 25.08.1998 and
the same was done only to favour the members belonging
to the particular union and though there were lesser number
of clerks than the sanctioned manpower, as approved by
the Functional Director and four and nine workers, out of
the list of 15 workers were regularized by Party No. 1
notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1999, with financial benefit from
01.01.2000, as per letter dated 03.11.2000 and 22.09.2004
respectively, but the Party No. 1 did not regularize
Shri Vijay Anand Kaharkar and the workman as clerk grade-
III, on the grounds that Shri Vijay was diverted from
01.10.1998 i.e. after the date of embargo (25-08-1998) and
the workman could no put 240 days of attendance either in
the year 1998 or 1999 and PartyNo. 1 regularize the services
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5371
of Shri Vijay and three others as clerk grade-III with
immediate effect as per letter dated 29.03.2004 followed by
letter dated 12.01.2005 and from such facts, it is clear that
Party No. 1 showed favoritism towards certain union and
the workman was not regularized, even though, he was
placed as Tripman in clerical grade-III w.e.f. 08.01.1998, much
before the date of embargo i.e. 28.08.1998 and though the
workman made several representations including the
representations in the year 2003 and 2004 for his
regularization after completion of the required attendance,
his case was not considered and the Personnel Manager,
Mungoli sub-area submitted the detailed particulars of
attendance of the workman to Dy. Chief Personnel
Manager, Wani Area vide note sheet dated 08/09.01.2007
through the proper channel and the attendance of the
workman in the calendar year 2001 was 241 days and in
the year 2004 and 2005 was 241 days and 286 days
respectively and as such, the workman is entitled for
regularization w.e.f. 2001 notionally and to get financial
benefit from 01.01.2002 in clerical grade-III and other
consequential benefits and the workman is entitled for
regularization in clerical grade-III w.e.f. 08.07.1998, in
terms of certified standing order or from 08.01.1999, after
expiry of one year from the date of his deployment.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the case filed on behalf of the
workman is false, fabricated, frivolous and not maintainable
in the eye of law and is liable to be rejected and the
workman has suppressed the material facts and tried to
mislead the Tribunal and he has not approached the Tribunal
with clean hands and on that count, the reference is to be
answered in the negative. It is further pleaded by the Party
No. 1 that the workman was appointed as a Badli worker
on 28.01.1985 at Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery, Chandrapur
Area and he was regularized as General Mazdoor-Cat-I
w.e.f. 01.06.1986 and he was transferred to Wani are and
posted at Mungoli Sub-Area on 07.01.1998 and the
workman was being occasionally deployed as and when
required basis, as Tripman and in the year 2001, vide letter
dated 08.06.2001, decision regarding regularization of
daily/time rated employees, who were being deployed to
do clerical nature of work, in the post of clerical grade-III,
mentioning the criteria fixed for assessing eligibility for
regularization in the post of clerical grade-III was
communicated by G.M. (IR) and the said letter was issued
as per the meeting held with RKKMS union on 3rd, 6the
and 7th March, 2000, for regularizing daily rated
employees, who were doing the duty of clerk prior to
25.08.1998 and as per the said decision, all the eligible
daily rated employees had to fulfill two conditions for
regularization in clerical grade and the conditions are that
the eligible workman must have been engaged in clerical
job prior to 25.08.1998 and he must have put in 240 days in
the preceding calendar year (i.e. 1999 as the decision was
taken in the year, 2000) and the workman had not completed
240 days attendance in the calendar year 1999, as required
by the condition for regularization in clerical grade-III and
he had put in only 193 days of work in 1999 and as such, he
was not eligible for regularization in clerical grade-III and
as per the said decided norm of reuglarisation of daily/time
rated employees in clerical grade, the employees, who
fulfilled the conditions were regularized and this procedure
of regularization continued till the year 2004 for Wani Area
and the workman was not paid the wages of clerical grade-
III he was not regularized in the said post and the minutes
of the meeting is not contrary to the provisions of certified
standing order or the Act and Rules made thereunder or
the Mining Act and rules made thereunder the workmen,
who were found to be eligible as per conditions decided
for regularisation in clerical grade-III were regularized
irrespective of their union membership and when such
regularisation has already been completely banned, it is
not open for the union at this belated stage to say that the
minutes of the meeting is contrary to the certified standing
order and other laws. It is further pleaded by Party No. 1
that they had never shown any favour to any particular
union and so far regularization of Shri Vijay Anand Katarkar
is concerned, the same was done as per the norms of
regularization, as it was subsequently found that he was
deployed as clerk in central workshop, Tadali from 01.07.1998
and subsequently, he was transferred to Wani area, where
he continued to be deployed as clerk from 01.10.1998 and
he had more than the minimum required attendance of 240
days in 1999 and the workman was never victimized and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, the union has reiterated the facts
mentioned in the statement of claim. It has further pleaded
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of decision have
held that 240 days of work includes the days of sick leave
and authorized leave etc. and according to the Party No. 1,
the practice of regularization continued till 2004 for Wani
Area and as the workman put in 241 days of attendance in
the year 2001, which was much prior to 2004, he is entitled
for regularization.
5. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,
the union has examined two witnesses, namely, Shri
Narendra Chanderya Nune and Shri Surendra Kalbal (the
workman) in support of its case. No oral evidence has been
adduced on behalf of the management.
Both the witnesses examined by the union have
reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim and
rejoinder, in their evidence on affidavit.
6. Perused the materials on record including the
pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them.
In view of the pleadings of the parties and the documentary
evidence, I find that there is no necessity to analyze the
oral evidence adduced by the union.
5372
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. It is not disputed by Party No. 1 about issuance of
the letter regarding "Promotion Avenue of daily rated
workers regularized as clerk" and that on the basis of such
letter, the name of the workman along with 14 others were
submitted for consideration for regularisation as clerk
grade-III and that out of the list of 15 employees, except
the workman, the other 14 employees were regularized in
different batches as clerk grade-III and besides them, some
other daily rated workers deployed to do the work of clerk
grade-III were also regularized upto the year 2004. The
case of the Party No. 1 in not regularizing the workman is
that he did not fulfill the condition of working 240 days in
the preceding year, i.e. 1999.
8. On perusal of the record, it is found that the
workman himself has pleaded that he worked for 193 days
in the year 1999. The workman has no where pleaded that
he had worked for 240 days in the year including sick leave
and authorized holiday. In absence of such pleadings, the
submission that the days of sick leave and authorized
holiday should be taken into consideration at the time of
calculating 240 working days in a year, is of no avail to the
case of the workman.
9. The case of the workman is not a case of treating
him as a permanent employee after working for 240 days
in a year or that he was employed to work as a clerk on
probationer and as such, the submissions made by the
learned advocate for the union in that regards cannot be
entertained.
10. The union has tried to blow hot and cold in the
same breathe. The union though has claimed the benefit
for the workman basing on the letter for regularisation of
daily rated workman as clerk grade-III, it has challenged
the said letter stating that the same is against the certified
standing order and other laws. Hence, the contention raised
in that regard by the union fails.
11. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found
that the workman completed 241 days of work in 2001.
The Party No. 1 pleaded in the written statement that the
procedure of regularization in clerk grade-III continued
till 2004. It is also found that Party No. 1 had given notional
fixation to different employees on different dates i.e. to
four employees w.e.f. 01.01.1998 as per Ext. W-III, to four
employees w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and five employees w.e.f.
01.01.2000 as per W-IV, to one employee w.e.f. 01.01.1999
and three employees w.e.f. 01.01.2000 as per Ext. W-VIII.
From Ext. W-VIII, it is found that Party No. 1 had also
made regularization of four employees on 12.01.2005 and
not till 2004, as claimed by Party No. 1. As the workman
fulfilled the condition in 2001 and the Party No. 1
implemented the instruction of regularization of clerical
grade-III till 12.01.2005, it is found that the workman is
entitled for regularization in clerical grade-III notionally
w.e.f. 01.01.2001 and financial benefits from 01.01.2002.
hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The demand of Sanyukt Koyala Mazdoor Sangh,
(SKMS) for regularization of Shri Surendra Kalwal in the
post of Clerk is legal and justified. The workman is entitled
for regularization in clerical grade-III notionally w.e.f.
01.01.2001 and financial benefits from 01.01.2002
alongwith all consequential benefits.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2029.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
MCY;w lh ,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 123@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@181@2002&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2029.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 123/2003)
of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Limited,
A.B. Incline Silewara, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/181/2002-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/123/2003
Dated 27.05.2013
Party No. 1
:
The Superintendent of Mines/
Manager, Western Coalfields
Limited, A.B. Incline Silewara,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
V/s.
Party No. 2
:
Shri Mukesh S. Ghodeswar,
R/o ward No. 4,
Near Ranchhodas Primary
School, PO. Khparkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 27th May, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5373
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Mukesh
Ghodeswar, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/181/
2002-IR (CM-II) dated 08.05.2003, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s. Western Coalfields Ltd. through the
Superintendent of Mines/Manager, A.B. Incline
Silewara Group of Mines, P.O. Silewara, Distt. Nagpur
in dismissing the workman Shri Mukesh Shivcharan
Ghodeswar from Service w.e.f. 06.07.1999 is justified?
If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman, Shri Mukesh
Ghodeswar, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL ("Party No. 1" in short)
filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that the Party No. 1 is an industry and
he is a workman and the employees of Party No. 1 are
governed by the Standing Order of the Party No. 1 and so
also by the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and other
Statutes framed for the benefits of the employees and he
was appointed by the Party No. 1 as a workman in Sillewara
colliery and his entire service record was clean and excellent
and he was performing his duty sincerely, honestly and to
the satisfaction or his superiors and there was never any
complaint or show cause notice against him during his
service tenure and due to working continuously in the
underground, he suffered from chest pain and other
diseases and due to such ailments, he was remaining under
continuous medical treatment and due to his illness,
whenever he was not in a position to attend duties, he
used to proceed on medical leave and after becoming fit,
he used to submit fitness certificate granted by the doctor
and to resume duty and Party No. 1 was very much aware
about his such ailments and treatment and inspite of the
same, Party No. 1 developed grudge against him and started
issuing charge sheet against him on the pretext of his not
attending duties regularly and enjoying leave without
sufficient cause and Party No. 1 issued charge sheets No.
658 and 683 against him in 1994 and in 1995 respectively,
for remaining absent from duty, but later on dropped the
proceedings and such action of Party No. 1 clearly shows
that they had intended to remove him from services and
Party No. 1 again submitted charge sheet no. 431 dated
23.8.1997 against him, on the allegation of his remaining
absent without any just and proper reason and he was in
habit of remaining absent without sanctioned leave and he
submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 25.08.1997, with
a request to withdraw the same, but the Party No. 1
appointed enquiry officer for conducting the enquiry and
the enquiry officer started the enquiry, but the enquiry
was postponed, as his co-worker remained absent on the
date of enquiry and thereafter, he made representation to
allow him to change his representative and in the mean
time, he fell ill and as such, he sought for adjournment of
the enquiry, but his request fell into the deaf ears of the
enquiry officer and inspite of his best efforts to attend the
enquiry, he could not able to attend the enquiry due to his
illness and consequently, the enquiry officer submitted his
report to the concerned authority, without following the
principles of natural justice or giving him any opportunity
to change his representative and to defend himself and as
such, the enquiry is illegal, arbitrary and perverse and in
utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and the
final order of his dismissal from services was issued on
06.07.1999, without giving him full and proper opportunity.
It is further pleaded by the workman that Party No. 1
had sanctioned the period of his absence as sick leave and
made endorsement on the certificate and when leave had
been allowed by the Party No. 1, his so-called absence
from duties cannot be said to be absence without just and
proper reasons and as such, the very ground of charge
sheeting him was false to the knowledge of the Party No. 1
and therefore, the final order passed by Party No. 1 cannot
stand to reason and the same cannot be sustained.
The further case of the workman is that as he was
suffering from ailment since the year 1996, the Chief Medical
Officer, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Charitable Hospital had
advised light duty to him and he had also applied to Party
No. 1 by his letter dated 05.11.1996 for light duty, but his
request did not yield any result and he was forced to work
underground, due to which his health deteriorated and he
was required to take medical treatment every now and then
and Party No. 1 had also issued another charge sheet
against him for his absence during the year 1998-99, even
though, they were aware of submission of similar charge
sheet in the year 1996 and the conduct of Party No. 1 clearly
shows that they were not acting in good faith and even
though he was made to answer the charge sheet for his
absence during 1996 and 1998, the Party No. 1 while passing
the final order dated 06.07.1999, considered his absence
from duty for another five years, for which he was not
given any opportunity to show cause and Party No. 1 thus
had acted upon extraneous material, while passing the final
order and the facts and circumstances of the case clearly
show that the action of Party No. 1 amounts to unfair labour
practice by way of victimization and in colourable exercise
of the powers and with undue haste, without following the
principles of natural justice and patently for false reasons.
The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the
order dated 06.07.1999 and to reinstate him in service with
continuity and full back wages.
5374
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement, denying
the allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded
inter-alia that WCL is a Central Government undertaking
and is having all medical facilities at every minor and is
also having super specialty facility in their hospitals for
the sole benefit of the employees working with them and
they have their own certified standing order and the
employees working with them are governed by the same
and the workman is not governed by the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act and other Statutes and the workman attended
duties for 80 days, 72 days, 57 days, 43 days, 79 days and
22 days in the years 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 and up to
May 1999 respectively and the said figures clearly
demonstrate the fact that the workman himself was bent
upon for enjoying leave, without any just and proper reason
and without obtaining the leave from them and charge sheet
dated 28.03.1997 was issued against the workman on the
ground of absenteeism and the workman submitted his
reply to the same and having found the reply of the workman
not to be sufficient, they appointed enquiry officer to
conduct the enquiry against the workman in terms of the
charge sheet and the enquiry officer commenced the
enquiry proceedings and the same were adjourned on the
request of the workman himself and the workman had never
requested to allow him to change his representative and on
the first day of the enquiry, i.e. 12.01.1998, the
representative of the workman failed to attend the
proceedings and therefore, the proceedings came to be
adjourned to 21.02.1998 and as on 21.02.1998, even
though, neither the workman nor his representative attended
the enquiry, the enquiry officer adjourned the enquiry to
03.03.1998, to give a chance to the workman to take part
in the enquiry and in the interest of natural justice and as
on 03.03.1998 also, neither the workman nor his
representative attended the enquiry, the enquiry officer was
constrained to proceed exparte against the workman and
second show cause notice was issued to the workman on
05.12.1998, but the workman failed to reply to the same
and in order to give full and fair opportunity to the
workman, they issued the second show cause notice again
on 18.05.1999, calling upon him to give his reply to the
same, but the workman failed to give any reply, so, the
order of dismissal from services was passed on 06.07.1999
and the period of absence of the workman was never treated
as sick leave and the same was never allowed.
It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that it is settled
position of law that even during the pendency of an enquiry
proceedings, the employer is not debarred from issuing
another charge sheet against the delinquent employee, in
case of committing of similar misconduct during subsequent
periods and no unfair labour practice was adopted by them
and the workman was not victimized in any manner.
The specific plea of the Party No. 1 is that the workman
had formed the habit of remaining absent from duties
without giving any kind of intimation to them and at no
point of time, he had submitted any application for any
kind of leave or any medical certificate to demonstrate the
fact of his illness and the workman was given all kind of
opportunities, before issuance of the termination order and
from the conduct of the workman, it was clear that he was
not interested in continuing in services and he choose to
remain absent not only from duties, but also did not
participate in the enquiry proceedings and the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. In his rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the
facts mentioned in the statement of claim.
5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the
fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken
up as a preliminary issue for consideration and as per order
dated 03.01.2013, the departmental enquiry was held to
be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, the learned advocate for
the workman reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement
of claim and rejoinder. It was further submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that in the years 1994
and 1995, Party No. 1 had submitted separate charge sheets
against the workman on the allegations of remaining
habitually absent from duty, but dropped the said
proceedings and the Party No. 1 intended to remove the
workman anyhow from his services and in view of such
facts, it can be safely said that the present removal of the
workman from services is nothing but by way of
victimization and in colourable exercise of power and due
to working continuously in the underground, the workman
suffered from chest pain and other diseases and he was
undergoing continuous treatment and he used to proceed
on medical leave and after becoming fit, he used to submit
fitness certificates from the doctor and used to resume duty
and inspite of such facts, Party No. 1 had developed grudge
against the workman and as the enquiry officer without
offering any opportunity to the workman to defend himself
had submitted the enquiry report, the said report is illegal,
arbitrary and perverse and in utter disregard to the principles
of natural justice and the so-called absence from duty of
the workman was treated as sick leave and there were
endorsement on the medical certificate regarding grant of
such sick leave and as such, it cannot be said that the
absence of the workman from duty was without just and
proper reasons and thus, the very ground of submission of
the charge sheet is false and therefore, the final order dated
06.07.1999 cannot stand to reason and cannot be sustained.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the charge sheet submitted
against the workman in 1994 and 1995 were dropped on
humanitarian ground and to give him opportunity to
improve his conduct, but inspite of the same, the workman
failed to improve his attendance and remained absent
without obtaining any leave and as such, the Party No.1
was constrained to submit the charge sheet on 21.08.1997
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5375
and the charges were duly proved against him in the
departmental enquiry and accordingly, the service of the
workman was terminated vide dismissal order dated
06.07.1999 and the workman has not filed a single document
to demonstrate that he was ever suffering from any disease
and he has informed about the same to Party No.1 and
obtained leave and the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman has already been held to be legal and
proper and the order of punishment cannot be termed as
harsh and there is no scope to interfere with the punishment.
In support of the contention, the learned advocate for
the Party No.1 placed reliance on the decision reported in
(2008) SCC-224 (L&T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udaykumar).
8. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention the
principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of
decisions including the decision cited by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 regarding the jurisdiction and
power of the Tribunal in regard to interference with the
findings and punishment in a departmental enquiry.
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with
the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be
equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal
cannot interfere with the findings of the enquiry
officer or competent authority where they are not
arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose
penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the
competent authority either by an Act of legislature
or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the
Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent
with the rules and in accordance with principles of
natural justice what punishment would meet the ends
of justice is a matter exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty
can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the
proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to
substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.
The adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is
certainly not a matter for the Tribunal to concern
itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with
the penalty if the conclusion of the enquiry officer
or the competent authority is based on evidence even
if some of it is found to be irrelevant or extraneous
to the matter."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate authority, being fact finding authorities have
exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view
to maintain discipline. They are invested with the
discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping
in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.
The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power
of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own
conclusion on penalty and impose some other
penalty. If the punishment imposed by the
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority
shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it
would appropriately mould the relief, either directing
the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the
penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may
itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof."
In departmental proceedings, the disciplinary
authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal is
presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority
has also the power/and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being
the sole fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based
on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court
in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those
factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings
were based either on no evidence or that the findings were
wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy
or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be
canvassed before the High Court. Since the High Court
does not sit as an appellate authority over the factual
findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while
exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion,
with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the
departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of
penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment
or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental
appellate authority, is either impermissible or such that it
shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not
normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and
the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored
the well-settled principle that even though judicial review
of administrative action must remain flexible and its
dimension not closed, yet the Court, in exercise of the
power of judicial review, is not concerned with the
correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which
the orders are made so long as those findings are
reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived
at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the
process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial
review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the
decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-
making process."
So, keeping in view, the principles as mentioned
above, now, the present case in hand is to be considered.
9. On perusal of the materials on record including the
documents produced by the parties, it is found that this is
not a case of no evidence against the workman. Though
the workman has taken the plea that due to his illness, he
5376
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was remaining absent from duty after due intimation to
Party No.1 and during the relevant period, he was ill and
after becoming fit, he submitted fitness certificate issued
by the doctor and the period of absence was treated as
sick leave and there was endorsement in that regard on
the medical certificate, the workman has failed to produce
a single document regarding the same. The workman
has failed to prove that he had intimated the Party No.1
about his remaining absent from duty, due to his illness,
by filing any application or even submission of any
application for sick leave or that sick leave was granted
to him.
On perusal of the materials on record, it is found
that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are based on the
evidence on record of the enquiry and not on any
extraneous matters. The Enquiry Officer has assigned
reasons in support of his findings, after analyzing the
evidence in a rational manner. The findings of the Enquiry
Officer are not as such, which cannot be reached by a
prudent man on the materials available on record. The
findings are also not against the evidence on record.
Hence the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be
said to be perverse.
10. So, far the proportionality of the punishment
imposed against the workman is concerned, commission
of gross misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty
has been proved against the workman in a properly
conducted departmental enquiry. The punishment of
dismissal from service imposed against the workman is
therefore cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate,
calling for any interference. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. Western
Coalfields Ltd. through the Superintendent of Mines/Manager,
A.B. Incline Silewara Group of Mines, P.O. Silewara, Distt.
Nagpur in dismissing the workman Shri Mukesh Shivcharan
Ghodeswar from Service w.e.f. 06.07.1999 is justified. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2030.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012-
13½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@159@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2030.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012-
13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/159/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/19/2012-13
Date: 27.06.2013.
Party No.1
:
The Chief General Manager,
WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba
Road,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
Party No.2
:
The General Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines
Mazdoor Union,
(CITU), C/o. WCL Coal
Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 27th June, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Vijay
Kashinath, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/1/2012-
IR (CM-II) dated 16.11.2012, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL,
Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing
Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Vijay Kashinath
while providing lighter job on surface due to his
accident on 24.09.2004 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim
and written statement and accordingly, the workman,
Shri Vijay Kashinath ('the workman" in short), filed
the statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled
for pay protection after he was provided light job on
surface.
3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written
statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5377
was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to
dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.
4. In the pursis, it is mentioned that in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated
15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip
Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the
circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms
of the above said judgment, the parties entered in
anamicable settlement with the terms that the pay of the
workman shall be protected and the amount of difference
of wages shall be paid to him within a period of six months
from the date of order by the Tribunal.
As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by
amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly,
the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman in
terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise
pursis. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in favour of the workman
in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise
pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
Ref. No. CGIT/NGP/19/2012
F.F. 17.6.2013
Party No.1
:
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.
Nagpur Area, Nagpur
VERSUS
Party No. 2
:
Vijay Kashinath
COMPROMISE PURSIS
The parties to the reference most respectfully begs
to submit as under:
1.
That the Party No. 2 workman has filed the present
reference claiming pay protection since the date
he has been posted in alternate job after meeting
with an accident.
2.
That the Party No. 2 has approached the Party
No. 1 to settle their claim of pay protection in
terms of Judgement Dt. 15.11.2011 of Hon'ble High
Court in Writ Petition No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip
Mankar Vs. Union of India & Ors.).
3.
That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular
Dt.11.5.2013 No.WCL/ IR/ SE/2013/C-160/988 in
terms of the aforesaid judgement.
4.
Hence the parties have entered into a amicable
settlement on the following terms :
(a)
That the pay of the Party No. 2 shall be
protected.
(b)
That the amount of difference of wages of Party
No. 2 shall be paid by the Party No. 1 to the
Party No. 2 within a period of six months from
the date of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(c)
That the Party No. 2 shall not be entitled for
interest on the said amount of difference of
wages from the Party No. 1 and shall also not
claim the same at any time in future.
(d)
That the Party No. 2 shall not be entitled for
any costs arising out of this litigation and shall
also not claim the same at any time in future.
(e)
That the right of the Party No.1 to send back
the Party No. 2 on his original post in case the
Party No. 2 is medically found to be fit.
Subsequently for the said post shall not be
affected.
5. That the present reference as such may be disposed
off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as
agreed upon by and between the parties.
Nagpur
Party No. 2
Dt.17.6.2013
Sd/-
S/d-
C.F. Party No. 1
Vijay Kasinath
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2031.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 20@2012-
13½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@160@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e& II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2031.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 20/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur Area,
and their workman, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/160/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
5378
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/20/2012-13
Date: 27.06.2013
Party No.1
The Chief General Manager,
WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba Road,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
Party No.2
The General Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,
(CITU), C/o. WCL Coal Estate,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 27th June, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Sankata
Prasad Hira Prasad, for adjudication, as per letter
No.L-22012/160/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 12.11.2012, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL,
Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing
Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Sankata Prasad
Hira Prasad while providing lighter job on surface
due to his bilateral Profound hearing loss (on hearing
aids) is legal and justified? What relief the workman
is entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sankata
Prasad Hira Prasad ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled for pay
protection after he was provided light job on surface.
3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written
statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise
was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to
dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.
4. In the pursis, it is mentioned that in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated
15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip
Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the
circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms
of the above said judgment, the parties entered an amicable
settlement with the terms that the pay of the workman shall
be protected and the amount of difference of wages shall
be paid to him within a period of six months from the date
of order by the Tribunal.
As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by
amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly,
the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman in
terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise
pursis. Hence, it is ordered :—
ORDER
The reference is answered in favour of the workman
in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise
pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
Ref.No.CGIT/NGP/20/2012F.F. 17.6.2013
Party No. 1
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.
Nagpur Area, Nagpur
VERSUS
Party No. 2
Sankata Prasad Hira Prasad
COMPROMISE PURSIS
The parties to the reference most respectfully begs
to submit as under :
1. That the Party No.2 workman has filed the present
reference claiming pay protection since the date he has
been posted in alternate job after meeting with an accident.
2. That the Party No.2 has approached the Party No.1
to settle their claim of pay protection in terms of Judgement
Dt.15.11.2011 of Hon'ble high Court in Writ Petition
No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India &
Ors.).
3. That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular
Dt.11.5.2013 No.WCL/IR/SE/2013/C-160/988 in terms of the
aforesaid judgement.
4. Hence the parties have entered into a amicable
settlement on the following terms :
(a)
That the pay of the Party No.2 shall be protected.
(b)
That the amount of difference of wages of Party
No.2 shall be paid by the Party No.1 to the Party
No.2 within a period of six months from the date
of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(c)
That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for interest
on the said amount of difference of wages from
the Party No.1 and shall also not claim the same at
any time in future.
(d)
That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for any
costs arising out of this litigation and shall also
not claim the same at any time in future.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5379
(e)
That the right of the Party No.1 to send back the
Party No.2 on his original post in case the Party
No.2 is medically found to be fit. Subsequently
for the said post shall not be affected,
5. That the present reference as such may be disposed
off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as
agreed upon by and between the parties.
Nagpur
ladBk izlkn
Dt.17.6.2013
Party No. 2
S/d-
S/d-
C.F. Party No. 1
C.F. Party No. 2
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2032.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ
MCY;w lh ,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2012&13½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@161@2012&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2032.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2012-
13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Coalfields
Ltd., Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/161/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/21/2012-13
Date: 27.06.2013
Party No.1
The Chief General Manager,
WCL Nagpur Area, Kasturba Road,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
Party No. 2
The General Secretary,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,
(CITU), C/o. WCL Coal Estate,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 27th June, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workmen, Shri Kasim Ali
Wald Chand Miya, for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-22012/161/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 16.11.2012, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL,
Nagpur through its General Manager in not providing
Pay Protection of Category-IV to Shri Kasim Ali
Wald Chand Miya while providing lighter job on
surface due to total knee replacement on the left side
already where heavy load bearing in contraindicated
is legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Kasim Ali
Wald Chand Miya, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim, claiming that he is entitled for pay
protection after he was provided light job on surface.
3. When the reference was fixed for filing of written
statement by the Party No.1, a joint pursis of compromise
was filed by the parties on 17.06.2013 with a prayer to
dispose of the reference in terms of the compromise.
4. In the pursis it is mentioned that in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, dated
15.11.2011 in writ petition no. 4700/2010 (Dhammadip
Mankar Vs. Union of India and others) and in view of the
circular dated 11.05.2013 circulated by Party No.1 in terms
of the above said judgment, the parties entered in an
amicable settlement with the terms that the pay of the
workman shall be protected and the amount of difference
of wages shall be paid to him within a period of six months
from the date of order by the Tribunal.
As the parties have settled the Industrial dispute by
amicable settlement, the pursis is allowed. Accordingly,
the reference is to be answered in favour of the workman
in terms of the settlement as mentioned in the compromise
pursis. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in favour of the workman
in terms of the settlement mentioned in the compromise
pursis. The compromise pursis is made part of the award.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
5380
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
Ref.No.CGIT/ NGP/ 21/ 2012
F.F. 17.6.2013
PARTY No. 1
The Chief General Manager,
Western Coalfields Ltd.,
Nagpur Area, Nagpur
VERSUS
PARTY No. 2
Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya
COMPROMISE PURSIS
The parties to the reference most respectfully begs
to submit as under :
1. That the Party No.2 workman has filed the present
reference claiming pay protection since the date he has
been posted in alternate job after meeting with an accident.
2. That the Party No.2 has approached the Party No.1
to settle their claim of pay protection in terms of Judgement
Dt.15.11.2011 of Hon'ble high Court in Writ Petition
No.4700/2010 (Dhammadip Mankar Vs. Union of India &
Ors.).
3. That the Party No.1 has taken out a Circular
Dt.11.5.2013•No.WCL/IR/SE/2013/C-160/988 in terms of the
aforesaid judgement.
4. Hence the parties have entered into a amicable
settlement on the following terms:
(a)
That the pay of the Party No.2 shall be protected.
(b)
That the amount of difference of wages of Party
No.2 shall be paid by the Party No.1 to the Party
No.2 within a period of six months from the date
of order of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(c)
That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for interest
on the said amount of difference of wages from
the Party No.1 and shall also not claim the same at
any time in future.
(d)
That the Party No.2 shall not be entitled for any
costs arising out of this litigation and shall also
not claim the same at any time in future.
(e)
That the right of the Party No.1 to send back the
Party No.2 on his original post in case the Party
No.2 is medically found to be fit. Subsequently
for the said post shall not be affected.
5. That the present reference as such may be disposed
off in terms of the aforesaid compromise/settlement as
agreed upon by and between the parties.
Nagpur
Dt.17.6.2013
S/d-
S/d-
C.F. Party No. 2
C.F. Party No. 1
(Kasim Ali Wald Chand Miya)
Party No. 2
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2033.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@97@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2033.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2006)
of the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Murpar Project (Umrer Area)
of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/97/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COUR, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/26/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No.1(a)
:
The Sub Area Manager,
WCLMurpar Project (Umrer
Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b)
:
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt.
Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No.2
Shri Ramkishan
S/o Sh. Sakharam
Tekam, R/o.Murpar, Post:
Khadsanghi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt.
Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5381
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workmen Shri Ramkishan
Sakharam Tekam, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/
97/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Ramkishan S/o
Sakharam Tekam is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ramkishan
Sakharam Tekam, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a)
i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No.1 (b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a General
Mazdoor on 07.06.1992 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party
No.1 (b) w.e.f. 01.05.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and
Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No.1 (a)
and party No.1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party
No.1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by Parties No.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no.1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no.
1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No. I was the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was the
contractor of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the
Party No.1 (b), the Party No.1(a) was responsible and as
such, the Party No.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No.1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3
1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and
after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to
Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at
Murpar project and the dates of commencement and
completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and
01.12.2001 respectively and it [Party No.1(a)] was related
to Party No.1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it
was not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
Party No.1 (a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
5382
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No.1 (b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and
also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed
for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case
as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove
the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1 (a) and BGML
engaged him from 07.06.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a General
Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party No.1 (b),
another contractor from 01.05.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never
the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed
by Party No.1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that
Party No.1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he
had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary
to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational
training for any person, who works underground in a coal
mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the
management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational
training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be
deemed to be an employee of Party No.1(a), as because, he
was sent for vocational training by Party No.1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he
was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise
such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and
such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be
raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be
said that the workman was the workman of the principal
employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No.1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon’ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5383
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period
of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled.
The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read
into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days
in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous
service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B
only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee)
in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of
the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the
amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by
substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed
year of continuous service" has removed a discordance
between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is
necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of
twelve calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service
must be during a period of twelve calendar months
preceding the date with reference to which calculation has
to be made. The last amendment has now removed a
vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)- Continuous service-Scope of sub-sections (1)
and (2) is different, (words and phrases-Continuous
Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service for not less than one
year under that employer, who has retrenched him from
service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the
expression "continuous". Both in principle and are
precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends
a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period
of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the relevant
date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be
deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S.25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services
without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case of
workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination- Claim denied by
management- Onus lies upon workman to show that he
had in fact worked for 240 days in a year-In absence of
proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence
to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2034.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 27@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@98@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2034.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref.27/2006 of
the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
5384
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/98/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/27/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No.1(a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) :
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Shri Manohar S/o Sh. Gopala Dehade,
R/o. Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi, Teh.-
Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur Maharahtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Manohar
Gopala Dehade, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/
98/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Manohar S/o Gopala
Dehade is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he
is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manohar
Gopala Dehade, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No.1 (a)
i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No.1 (b), M/
s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till Party
No.1 (b) is working with Party No.1(a) for the purpose of
preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Pump
Khalasi/Loader on 17.08.1993 and he continued to work
till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized
by Party No.1 (b) w.e.f. 05.01.1997 continuously till
28.12.2001 and Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational
training from time to time and he had under gone the said
training successfully and as such, he is a workman/
employee of Party No.1 (a) and Party No.1(a) is the
principal employer and his appointment by both the
contractors was oral and the Party No.1 (b) terminated his
services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for
more than 240 days preceding to his termination and while
terminating his services, mandatory provisions of section
25-F of the Act were not complied with and neither one
month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu of notice,
nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him by parties
no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his services is
illegal and though at the time of his termination, more than
700 workers were working with parties no.1 (a) and (b),
they did not prepare and publish final seniority list of all
the workers including himself, at least seven days prior to
the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no
compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination
of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time
of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now
also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and
1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section
25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that
he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the parties no.1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfil the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services
with many other workers were terminated and wages for
December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No.1 was
the principal employer and Party No.1(b) was the contractor
of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the Party No.1
(b), the Party No.1(a) was responsible and as such, the
Party No.1 (a) is responsible for his illegal termination. The
workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No.1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5385
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3
1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and
after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to
Party No.1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft at
Murpar project and the dates of commencement and
completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and
01.12.2001 respectively and it [Party No.1(a)] was related
to Party No.1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it
was not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
Party No.1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by Party No.1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti [2006 (2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No.1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No.1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of sections 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013
and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was
closed for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar colliery by Party No.1(a) and
BGML engaged him from 17.08.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
Pump Khalasi/Loader and that he was again engaged by
Party No.1(b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No.1(a). The only claim
of the workman is that Party No.1(a) had sent him for
vocational training and he had under gone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No.1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No.1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But
that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
5386
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No.1(a) and he was employed by the
contractors and the Party No.1(a) was not controlling or
supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite stand
taken by workman that he had been working under the
contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his mouth
to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he was
also the workman of the principal employer. To raise such a
mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law and such
mutually destructive plea should not be allowed to be raised
even in an industrial adjudication. Hence, it cannot be said
that the workman was the workman of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No.1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs.
Their workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a period
of 12 calendar months both the conditions are fulfilled.
The definition of "Continuous Service" need not be read
into section 25-B. The fiction converts service of 240 days
in a period of twelve calendar months into continuous
service for one complete year. The amended section 25-B
only consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and 2(eee)
in one place, adding some other matters. The purport of
the new provisions, however, is not different. In fact, the
amendment of section 25-F of the principal Act by
substituting in clause (b) the words "for every completed
year of continuous service" has removed a discordance
between the unamended section 25-B and the unamended
Cl. (b) of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is
necessary it the total service is 240 days in a period of
twelve calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this service
must be during a period of twelve calendar months
preceding the date with reference to which calculation has
to be made. The last amendment has now removed a
vagueness which existed in the unamended section 25-B."
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)—Continuous service-Scope of sub-sections (1)
and (2) is different, (words and phrases-Continuous
Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service for not less than one
year under that employer, who has retrenched him from
service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the
expression "continuous". Both in principle and are
precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends
a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period
of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the relevant
date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be
deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947)- S.25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation—Termination of services
without payment of—Dispute referred to Tribunal-Case of
workman/workman that he had worked for 240 days in a
year preceding his termination—Claim denied by
management—Onus lies upon workman to show that he
had in fact worked for 240 days in a year—In absence of
proof of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient evidence
to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above
that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is
necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days
in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting
backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such
proof is upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5387
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2035.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@99@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2035.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2006) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/99/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/28/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a)
: The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Shri Mahadeo S/o Vikru Shivarkar,
R/o Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra .
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in short),
the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute
between the employers, in relation to the management of
WCL and their workman Shri Mahadeo Vikru Shivarkar, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22019/99/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Mahadeo S/o Vikru
Shivarkar is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mahadeo
Vikru Shivarkar, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1(a)
i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground roap up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b),
M/s Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1947 and till
Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the
purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning
of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as
a General Mazdoor on 18.08.1993 and he continued to
work till 02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were
utilized by Party No. 1(b) w.e.f. 20.01.1997 continuously
till 28.12.2001 and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational
training from time to time and he had under gone the said
training successfully and as such, he is a workman/
employee of Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal
employer and his appointment by both the contractors
was oral and the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services
orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than
240 days preceding to his termination and while terminating
his services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the
Act were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was paid to him by parties no. 1(a) and (b)
and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though
at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were
working with parties no.1(a) and (b), they did not prepare
and publish final seniority list of all the workers including
himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as
provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G of
the Act and the termination of his services amounted to
retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of
work was available and now also, plenty of work is available
with parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ
him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is further
5388
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other workers
had submitted charter of various demand to the parties no.
1(a) 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same and for that a
dispute was pending before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and
for the said reason, his services with many other workers
were terminated and wages for December 2001 was not
paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the principal employer
and party 1(b) was the contractor of Party No. 1(a), for
each and every act of the Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a)
was responsible and as such, the Party No. 1(a) is
responsible for illegal termination. The workman has prayed
for his reinstatement in services with continuity and full
back wages.
3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has
pleaded inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction
of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal
mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract,
the open excavation work was to be completed within a
period of 3 1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within
eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party
No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline
shaft through sedimentary rocks like and stone from seam
VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the said
contract were 29.5.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and
it [party no1(a)] was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per
the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for
providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty
of the contractors to appoint the employee as per their need.
It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per the
provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way invovled in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show that
he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006
(2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regulariziation or reinstatement in service as
he was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexux
between the contract given to B.H.M.L. and the contract
given to party Party No. 1(b), as they were of having
different legal entities and if they had engaged the same
workman for doing separate works, the workman did not
become permanent or entitle for regularization and there
was never any relationship of employer and employee
between it and the workman and he was never in its
employment and as such, there was no question of
compliance of the principles of section 25-F, 25-G or H of
the Act or payment of wages by it to the workman and the
workman is not entitled for any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in suport of their respective claims, they failed to
adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent on
28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and
also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed
for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
undeground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1(a) and
BGML engaged him from 18.08.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party
No. 1(b), another contractor from 20.01.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim
of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for
vocational training and he had undergone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or a
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5389
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and workman does not
show that a legal relationship between a person employed
in an industry and the owner of the industry if created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that a combined reading of the term "establishment"
and workman shows that a workman engaged in an
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But that is true of
a workman could not be correct of contract labour. The
provisions of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and
so also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinon not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually, destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the
workman of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrrupted service is
necessary if the total service is 240 days in a period
of twelve calendar months either before the several
changes or after these. The only change in the Act is
that this service must be during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference
to which calculation has to be made. The last
amendment has not removed a vagueness which
existed in the unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd)., the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disptues Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2) - Continuous service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to
show that he has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under that employer, who has
retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the
dictionary clause for the expression "continuous".
Both in principle and are precedent it must be held
that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where
a workman to not in employment for a period of 12
calendar months, but has rendered for a period of
240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the
relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for
a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B
and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 203 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947-S.25-F, 10—
Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services
without payment of —Dispute referred to Tribunal-
Case of workman/workman that he had worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination-Claim
denied by management—Onus lies upon workman
to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a
year—In absence of proof of receipt of salary
workman is not sufficient evidence to prove that he
had worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination.''
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above
that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is
5390
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days
in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting
backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such
proof is upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYYkh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2036.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@100@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2036.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area)
of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/100/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/29/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b)
: M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No.2
: Shri Vijay S/o Sh. Tulshiram Athargade,
R/o, Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Vijay Tulshiram
Athargade, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/100/
2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Vijay S/o Tulshiram
Athargade is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vijay
Tulshiram Athargade, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1
(a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and party no.
1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." is short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5391
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General
Mazdoor on 17.05.1992 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party
No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 05.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and
Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a)
and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party
No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no.1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no.
1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no. 1(a) and 1(b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC(C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1 (b) was
the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of
the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and
as such, the Party No. 1 (a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3
3-— months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the
said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively
and it Party No. 1(a) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as
per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible
for providing employees to the contractors and it was the
duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per
their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as
per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006
(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
2
1
5392
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and
also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed
for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case
as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove
the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and
BGML engaged him from 17.05.1992 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party
No. 1(b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim
of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for
vocational training and he had undergone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But
that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the Principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
serivce must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-
B(1) and (2)-Continuous serivce-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5393
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under that employer, who has retrenched him
from serivce. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the
expression "Ccontinuous". Both in principle and are
precedent it must be held that section 25-B(2) comprehends
a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period
of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the relevant
date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be
deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947) S-25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services
without payment of-Dispute referred to Tribunal-
Case of workman/workman that he had worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination-Claim
denied by management-Onus lies upon workman to
show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a
year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman
is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above
that for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is
necessary to prove that the workman worked for 240 days
in preceding 12 calendar months commencing and counting
backwards from the relevant date and the burden of such
proof is upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2037.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 31@2006½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@102@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2037.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 31/2006) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02.09.2013.
[No. L-22012/102/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a) : The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b) : M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
: Shri Pundlik S/o Shri Manik Kosare,
5394
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsanghi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated : 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Pundlik
Manik Kosare, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
102/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL and
M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in terminating
the services of Shri Pundlik S/o Manik Kosare is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Pundlik
Manik Kosare, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement
of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1"
in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1
(a) i.e. Sub-Areas Manager, Murpar Project and Party
No. 1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the
purpose of preparing the underground roads for functioning
of the said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as
a Loader on 11.07.1993 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by
Party No. 1(b) w.e.f. 05.1.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001
and Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from
time to time and he had under gone the said training
successfully and as such, he is a workman/employee of
Party No. 1(a) and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer
and his appointment by both the contractors was oral and
the Party No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f.
29.12.2001 and he had worked for more than 240 days
preceding to his termination and while terminating his
services, mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act
were not complied with and neither one month's notice,
nor one month's wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment
compensation was paid to him by parties No. 1(a) and (b)
and as such, termination of his services is illegal and though
at the time of his termination, more than 700 workers were
working with parties No. 1(a) and (b) they did not prepare
and publish final seniority list of all the workers including
himself, at least seven days prior to the termination, as
provided under Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957 and there was no compliance of section 25-G
of the Act and the termination of his services amounted to
retrenchment and at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of
work was available and now also, plenty of work is
available with parties No. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not
re-employ him in violation of section 25-H of the Act. It is
further pleaded by the workman that he alongwith other
workers had submitted charter of various demand to the
parties No. 1(a) and 1(b), but they did not fulfill the same
and for that a dispute was pending before the ALC(C)
Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services with many
other workers were terminated and wages for December,
2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was the
principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was the contractor
of Party No. 1(a), for each and every act of the Party No.
1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as such, the
Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal termination.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1 (b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has
pleaded inter-alia that it has entered into a contract with
B.G.M.L. for carrying out open excavation, for construction
of a pair of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal
mine of Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract,
the open excavation work was to be completed within a
period of 3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within
eight months and it also awarded another contract to Party
No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline
shaft through sendimentary rocks like sand stone from seam
VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar Project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the said
contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively and
it (Party No. 1(a)) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as per
the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible for
providing employees to the contractors and it was the duty
of the contractors to appoint the employees as per their
need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as per
the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5395
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show that
he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as temporary contingent labour in the project and
in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, Union
Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006 (2)
Scale 115) and many others, the workman is not entitled
for regularization or reinstatement in service as he was a
temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013
and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was
closed for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1 (a) and
BGML engaged him from 11.07.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
Loader and that he was again engaged by Party No. 1 (b),
another contractor from 05.01.1997 to 28.12.2001. It is never
the case of the workman that he was engaged or appointed
by Party No. 1 (a). The only claim of the workman is that
Party No. 1 (a) had sent him for vocational training and he
had under gone the training successfully. It is necessary
to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo vocational
training for any person, who works underground in a coal
mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of the
management of the coal mine to arrange for such vocational
training as per the Mines Act and the workman cannot be
deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as because, he
was sent for vocational training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an estblishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a), and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a), was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was laso the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
5396
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by subsituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2) — Continuous Service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to
show that he has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under that employer, who has
retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the
dictionary clause for the expression "continuous".
Both in principle and are precedent it must be held
that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where
a workman to not in employment for a period of 12
calendar months, but has rendered for period of 240
days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the
relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for
a period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B
and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S.25-F,
10 — Retrenchment compensation —Termination of
services without payment of — Dispute referred to
Tribunal — Case of workman/workman that he had
worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination- Claim denied by management- Onus lies
upon workman to show that he had in fact worked
for 240 days in a year-in absence of proof of receipt
of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termiantion."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the
workman has failed to discharge the burden which was
upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2038.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 268@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5397
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@180@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2038.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 268/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/180/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/268/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Ravindra Ramesharan Yadav, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/180/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Ravindra Ramesharan Yadav,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ravindra
Ramesharan Yadav, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 02.09.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the
duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision of
section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was
performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a
perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and
unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
5398
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the
Party No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, it was the
mandatory duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract
labour system in all places and management of FCI
implemented the notification only at Nagpur and Manmad
and absorbed the Security Guards working at Nagpur and
Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia
districts, the contract labour system was continued by the
management, with an intention to deprive him from the
benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
02.09.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief from
them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P.
No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said
WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the
decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and
they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as Torch, Lathi, Whistle and Uniform, etc to
the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled. to
any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5399
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 02.09.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/S Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/S Security services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/S Industrial Security and Fire Services
from16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness
has also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors,
the workman worked continuously in FCI from 02.09.1993
till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply
of security guards was given to M/S Industrial security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 02.09.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March,1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03 05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to
produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by
the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
5400
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationsthip between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25- F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in the
written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no
question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the
Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.
1 that the workman and some others had approached the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High
Court while depositing of the said petition have held that
the termination of the workman by the contractor was a valid
one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the workman
cannot agitate the question again and the decision of the
Honble High Court operates as res-judicata between the
parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhnim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd.' and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5401
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other facts
which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon’ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the employer
including Central and State Governments started
entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of
contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a
contractor, with or without the knowledge of the
principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other
than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture
to such establishment, through contract labour or
who supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in
relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
Government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section
5402
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10, of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in
any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation
to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and
benefits provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12
enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section
17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed
by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed and
all expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
of the authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21,
if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal
employer shall be liable to make payment of wages
in full to the contact labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from the
contractor. Any contravention of the provisions
aforesaid has been made penal for which punishment
can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate Government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the Central Government or the
State Government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for
regulation and abolition of contract labour. The
underline policy of the Act is to abolish
contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished
to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the
working conditions of the contract labour
should be so regulated as to ensure payment
of wages and provisions of essential amenities.
This is why the Act provides for regulated
conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5403
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central Government
in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is
not for the court to enquire into the question and to
decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment should be abolished or not. That has
to be decided by the Government after considering
the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the
Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor
Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have
not been found to have direct connection with the
refinery. In other words, there was no relationship of
employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers
concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National
Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out
that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i)
to regulate the conditions of service of the worker
employed by the contractor who is engaged by a
principal employer and (ii) to provide for the
abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain
notified processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate Government, under
section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
Government or by any appropriate Government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and
the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-11 LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to
do........................". 'The expression' employed has
at least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by express
or implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or
kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
5404
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator•
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the ground
of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance of various beneficial legislations so as
to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If
the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so called contract labour will have
to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of
the contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall
give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996,
D/-9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/-17-
4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000
(Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/- 23-12-1999
(Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
in connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between
the person employed in any industry and the owner
of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as
to who has brought about such relationship. The word
"Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic
term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
any establishment would have direct relationship with
the principal employer as a servant of master. But
what is true of a workman could not be correct of
contract labour. When the provisions of the Act
neither contemplate creation of direct relationship
of master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship be
implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A
fortiori much less can such a relationship be found
to exist from the rules and the forms made there
under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5405
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of
such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained.
Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and
the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given
to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his
cross-examination that contract for supply of security
guards was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors,
the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged
by the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is
held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,
1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are
liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was
lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of
contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be
illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that
the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for
supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was
not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The
workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing
cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour
contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or
camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial
legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits
there under. The workman has not been able to produce
any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.
1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the
evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three
months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No.
1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or
compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of
the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
as mentioned above, which are quite different from the
facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions, on which reliance is placed by the union
representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said
decisions have no clear application to the present case in
hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the
reference. The said contractor has not been added as a
party in this reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary
party, the reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the
discussions made above and applying the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three
decisions mentioned above, the reference cannot be
answered in favour of the workman. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2039.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;, ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 269@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@181@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
ch-,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
5406
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
S.O. 2039.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 269/20030
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/181/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/269/2003
Date 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1 (a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1 (b) :The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Raju Tukaram Badage, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-22012/181/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule :—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the
services of Shri Raju Tukaram Badage, Security Guard
w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Raju
Tukaram Badage, ('the workman' in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 06.01.1991 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one months' wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5407
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by he contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 06.01.1991
to 14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between them
and the workman at any point of time and under section 10
of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act,
they were exempted by the Central Government, so the
allegations made by the workman against them are not true
and there was no question of violation of the provisions of
25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and
the work of providing security guards was given to other
Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home
guards and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any
relief from them and the work of security is not perennial in
nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with food
grains, then only, services of the security guards are required
and in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminated any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to
the, workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not isued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
5408
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 06.01.1991. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security Services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also
admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 06.01.1991 till
14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of
security guards was given to M/s. Industrial security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 06.01.1991 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of workman, fresh hands were
engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a comouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party
No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Part No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005-I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the
Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage
contract labours and infact the so called contractors were
mediators and not contractors and even though there
was legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the
Party No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as
security guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the
evidence on record and the admission of the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date
of his initial engagement the workman worked till
14.03.1999 clearly show that the workman was the
employee of the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 is the real
employer and there was master and servant relationship
between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the so
called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without any contractor, the workman continued the work
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5409
with Party No. . 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid
the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25- F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011(128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs.
D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatment in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs soughts in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other facts
which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted.
** ** **
5410
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case,
the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper. The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman engaged by the contractor. The
workman has not produced any evidence to show that he
was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new
turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State Governments
started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of
contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a contractor,
with or without the knowledge of the principal
employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to
mean a person who undertakes to produce a given
result for the establishment, other than a mere supply
of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who
supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean,
(i) in relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section
10 of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in
any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation
to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5411
benefits provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12
enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section
17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed
by the contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed and
all expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
of the authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21,
if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal
employer shall be liable to make payment of wages
in full to the contact labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from the
contractor. Any contravention of the provisions
aforesaid has, been made penal for which punishment
can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the central government or the
state government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for
regulation and abolition of contract labour. The
underline policy of the Act is to abolish
contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished
to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the
working conditions of the contract labour
should be so regulated as to ensure payment
of wages and provisions of essential amenities.
This is why the Act provides for regulated
conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has provided
for its abolition by the Central Government in
appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is
not for the court to enquire into the question and to
decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment should be abolished or not. That has
to be decided by the government after considering
the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the
5412
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor
Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR
684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in
its employment saying that, the contract labourers
have not been found to have direct connection with
the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers
concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National
Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out
that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i)
to regulate the conditions of service of the worker
employed by the contractor who is engaged by a
principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition
of contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate government, under
section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
government or by any appropriate government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been Insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor•retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be Pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and
the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do........." 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5413
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as a such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the ground
of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance of various beneficial legislations so as
to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If
the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so called contract labour will have
to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of
the contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall
give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996,
D/ -9-5-1997(Ca1): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m
D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999,
D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999,
D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between
the person employed in any industry and the owner
of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as
to who has brought about such relationship. The word
"Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic
term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
any establishment would have direct relationship with
the principal employer as a servant of master. But
what is true of a workman could not be correct of
contract labour. When the provisions of the Act
neither contemplate creation of direct relationship
of master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship be
implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A
fortiori much less can such a relationship be found
to exist from the rules and the forms made there
under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence-, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
5414
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the dicisions
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2040.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 270@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@182@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2040.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award Ref. 270/2003 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/182/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5415
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/270/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of
Industrial Disptues Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act in short),
the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute
between the employers, in relation to the management of
Food Corporation of India and their workman, Shri
Washudeo Namdeo Sarkate, for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-22012/182/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the
following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Washudeo Namdeo Sarkate,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Washudeo
Namdeo Sarkate, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 06.01.1991 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch , lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
5416
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 06.01.1991 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor and made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle ad uniform etc to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 06.01.1991. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply for security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5417
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd, from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/S Chitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May, 1992 to M/S Security service
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/S Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also
admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 06.01.1991
till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply
of security guards was given to M/S Industrial security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerend officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 06.01.1991 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as requried under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the cotnract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of none documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 not
a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to
produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by
the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri
Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1
unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not
accept the same
and without any contractor, the workman
continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and
the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to
14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that
the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was
Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman
without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section
25F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
5418
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-
H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along-with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibliim' had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5419
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-11 LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-11 CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new
turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State Governments
started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the employment
of contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a contractor,
with or without the knowledge of the principal
employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to
mean a person who undertakes to produce a given
result for the establishment, other than a mere supply
of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who
supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i)
in relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section
10, of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in
any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation
to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and
benefits provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12
enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section 17,
section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract
labour employed in an establishment, is not provided
by the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer
within such time as may be prescribed and all
expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
5420
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
of the authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if
the contractor fails to make payment of wages within
the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contact labour employed by the contractor and
recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the central government or the
state government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
Limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for
regulation and abolition of contract labour. The
underline policy of the Act is to abolish
contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished
to altogether, the policy of the Act is that the
working conditions of the contract labour
should be so regulated as to ensure payment
of wages and provisions of essential amenities.
This is why the Act provides for regulated
conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central Government
in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It is
not for the court to enquire into the question and to
decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment should be abolished or not. That has
to be decided by the government after considering
the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the
Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor
Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR
684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in
its employment saying that, the contract labourers
have not been found to have direct connection with
the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers
concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National
Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out
that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i)
to regulate the conditions of service of the worker
employed by the contractor who is engaged by a
principal employer and (ii) to provide for the
abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain
notified processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate government, under
section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
government or by any appropriate government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5421
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and
the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had noting to do with the manner of
handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do.........". 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he
contracted with a third person to accomplish on the
definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor
would not without something more become the
workman of that third person. Therefore, when the
workmen employed by the contractor were certainly
not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to
that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
have to consider the question whether the contractor
has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for work
of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of
the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be
not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called
5422
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract labour will have to be treated as employees
of the principal employer who shall be directed to
regularize the services of the contract labour in the
concerned establishment. If the contract is found to
be genuine and the principal employer intends to
employ regular workmen he shall give preference to
the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found
suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time of
their initial employment by the contractor and also
relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications
other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/
-12.08.1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-
9.5.1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m, D/-
17.4.1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2.8.2000
(Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23.12.1999
(Bom.), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virture of engagement
of contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an establishment,
the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract
labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of
the terms "Contract Labour", "Establishment" and
"Workman" does not show that the legal relationship
between the person employed in any industry and
the owner of the industry is created irrespective of
the fact as to who has brought about such relationship.
The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is
a generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would have
direct relationship with the principal employer as a
servant of master. But what is true of a workman
could not be correct of contract labour. When the
provisions of the Act neither contempalate creation
of direct relationship of master and servant between
the principal employer and the contract labour nor
can such relationship be implied from the provisions
of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and the
forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the Union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated
28.05.92, Government of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned
or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of
India and some other departments was lifted by the Central
Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the
Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from
the materials on record that the appointment of labour
contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was
genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by
the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim
by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or
camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5423
legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits
there under. The workman has not been able to produce any
document to show that at any point of time. Party No. 1 paid
his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence
that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the
workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the
contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the
evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a
contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as
such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master
and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence,
there was no question of termination of the services by the
Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections
25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions
on which reliance is placed by the union representative, with
respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no
clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The Reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2041.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,QlhvkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 271@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-09-2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@183@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2041.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 271/
2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02.09.2013.
[No. L-22012/183/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/271/2003
Dated: 02.04.2013
Part No. 1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Part No. 1(b)
: The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchagatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Part No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Gautam Ramdas Meshram, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/183/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Gautam Ramdas Meshram,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Gautam
Ramdas Meshram ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Part No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
5424
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
guards in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and work which he was performing is constantly in
existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his
termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him, and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
01.08.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has to right to claim any relief from
them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5425
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendence of the the security guards to find out as to
whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. l.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the party No.l. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the
written statement, in his examination in chief, which is on
affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted that the workman was appointed on 0l.08.1993.
He has also admitted the suggestions given to him in his
cross-examination that contract for supply of security
guards was given to Singh Security Services for two years
and subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996
and the contract for supply of security guards was also
given to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune
from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya Industrial
Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January
1992 to May, 1992, to M/s Security Services Intelligence
Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s
Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to
15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that
inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked
continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993 till14.03.1999 and on
14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was
given to M/s Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay
by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned
officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the
petitioner and other security guards and the contractors
engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security
Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one months notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duitres of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour such action of the Party
No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him from which,
it could have been held without any doubt that the workman
was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a contract
labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order
dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce the
documents, but inspite of the order passed by the Tribunal
for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed to
5426
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
produce the documents and as such, adverse inference is
to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.02.1998 and thought Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1
unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not
accept the same and without any contractor, the workman
continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the
Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of
the Act. In support of the submission, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98)
FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of
UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs.
D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the party no 1 was exempted by the Central Government
from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers,
so contract was given to the security contractor, as per
rules, for supply of security guards and due to the
notification of the Government for abolition of contract
labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were
appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control
over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some other had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5427
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1), the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX
XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate quthority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the
statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman
that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India
Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In
paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has
mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the
Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period
of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case
of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No.1
on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was
not disturbed from services and he worked continuously
without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a
security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed
that as the Central Government issued notification on
01.11.1990 •to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented
such• direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994-
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is •placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation
of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB
IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the employer
including Central and State Governments started
entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
5428
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of
contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a
contractor, with or without the knowledge of the
principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other
than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture
to such establishment, through contract labour or
who supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in
relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section
10, of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in
any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation
to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and
benefits provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12
enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section 17,
section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract
labour employed in an establishment, is not provided
by the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer
within such time as may be prescribed and all
expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor
to ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence
of the authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section 21, if
the contractor fails to make payment of wages within
the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contact labour employed by the contractor and
recover the amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the •contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the central government or the
state government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5429
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
limited Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline policy
of the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central Government
in appropriate cases under section 10 of the Act. It
is not for the court to enquire into the question and
to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment should be abolished or not. That has
to be decided by the government after considering
the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of
the Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery
Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the
contract labourers have not been found to have
direct connection with the refinery. In other words,
there was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court
pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes
to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of
the worker employed by the contractor who is
engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide
for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in
certain notified processes, operation or other works
in any establishment by the appropriate
government, under section 10 of the Act. It was
further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules
framed by the central government or by any
appropriate Government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly
absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point, of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers
and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do..........." The expression employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in that
5430
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
industry and that there should be, in other words,
an employment of his by the employer and that
there should be a relationship between the employer
and employee or master and servant unless a person
is thus employed there can be no question of his
being a "workman" within the definition of the term
as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and
no claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before by and contract in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
have to consider the question whether the contractor
has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract
or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employers who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract
is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular worken he shall given
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable and if necessary by relaxing
the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking
into consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and also
relaxing the condition as to academic qualifiacation
other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): No. 6545 (W) if 1996, D/ -9-5-1997
(Cal): W.A.Nos. 345-354 of 1997 m D/-17-4-1998
(Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2.8-2000 (Bom) and
W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998
Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between
the person employed in any industry and owner of
the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The word
"Workman" is defined in wide terms. It it a generic
term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
any establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master.
But what is true of a workman could be correct of
contract labour. When the provision of the Act
neither contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship be
implied from provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A
fortiori much less can such a relationship be found
to exist from the rules and the forms made their under."
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5431
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1 there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
dicisions by the Hon’ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the Union representative, with respect, I
am of the view that the said decisions have no clear
application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of
such pleading, the contention cannot be entertained.
Moreover, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and
the evidence on record and the specific suggestions given
to the witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his
cross-examination that contract for supply of security
guards was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors,
the workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged
by the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is
held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,
1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are
liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibiton of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workiman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that threre was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite differenct from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. so the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enuniciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned
above, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the
workman. Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2042.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh vkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 299@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@242@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
5432
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2042.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 299/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Indusutrial Dispute
between the Management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/242/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/299/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No.1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Ajani,
Nagpur,
Nagpur -440015.
Party No.1(b):
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400020.
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind
Nagar, Ward No. 2,
Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Uttam Narayan Sawale, for adjudication, as
per letter No.L-22012/242/2003- IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Uttam Narayan Sawale, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Uttam
Narayan Sawale, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5433
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so-called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleaded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services
of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and
Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No.1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
5434
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
the workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given
to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune
from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya Industrial
Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January
1992 to May, 1992, to M/s Security services Intelligence
Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s
Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to
15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that
inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked
continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on
14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was
given to M/s Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay
by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned
officers of FCI were issuing necessary directions to the
petitioner and other security guards and the contractors
engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security
Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce
the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. Anr. vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so-called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so-called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No.1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1
unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not
accept the same and without any contractor, the workman
continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the
Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No.1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5435
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National
Union water front workers and others [reported in
2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners
cannot be granted since the petition involves
disputed question of facts as also other facts which
are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted.
xx
xx
xx
xx
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
5436
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper". The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
vs. M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the employer
including Central and State Governments started
entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of
contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a
contractor, with or without the knowledge of the
principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other
than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture
to such establishment, through contract labour or
who supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in
relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section 10,
of the appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a State
Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette,
employment of contract labour "in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment," Sub-
section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing
any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall
have regard to the conditions of work and benefits
provided for the contract labour in that establishment
and other relevant factors. One of the relevant
factors, which is to be taken into consideration is
whether the work performed by the contract
labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5437
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable
shall undertake or execute any work through contract
labour except under and in accordance with a license
issued in that behalf by the licensing authority. The
license so issued may contain conditions in respect
of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential
amenities in respect of contract labour as the
appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in
accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if
any amenity required to be provided under section
16, section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit
of the contract labour employed in an establishment,
is not provided by the contractor within the time
prescribed by the contractor therefore, such amenity
shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed
incurred by the principal employer in providing the
amenity may be recovered by the principal employer
from the contractor "either by deduction from any
amount payable to the contractor under any contract
or as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21
says that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by him
as contract labour, but at the same time in order to
protect the interest of such contract labour, it requires
every principal employer to nominate a representative
duly authorized by him to be present at the time of
disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement
of wages in the presence of the authorized
representative of the principal employer. Because of
sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to
make payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contact labour
employed by the contractor and recover the amount
so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of
the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for
which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the Central Government or the
State Government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to
be absorbed or to become the employees of the
principal employer. This court in the case of Gammon
India Limited Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596,
pointed out the object and scope of the act as
follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630
it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished
the contract labour as such but has provided for its
abolition by the Central Government in appropriate
cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the
court to enquire into the question and to decide
whether the employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court
refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to
absorb the contract labourers in its employment
saying that, the contract labourers have not been
5438
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer
and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in
Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1,
this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to
provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether,
in certain notified processes, operation or other works
in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that
neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central
Government or by any appropriate government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However,
such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers
and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:-
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do...........". 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he
contracted with a third person to accomplish on the
definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor
would not without something more become the
workman of that third person. Therefore, when the
workmen employed by the contractor were certainly
not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to
that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5439
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
have to consider the question whether the contractor
has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract
or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract
is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of
the workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -9-
5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-
1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000
(Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999
(Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between
the person employed in any industry and the owner
of the industry is created irrespective of the fact as
to who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would have
direct relationship with the principal employer as a
servant of master. But what is true of a workman
could not be correct of contract labour. When the
provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation
of direct relationship of master and servant between
the principal employer and the contract labour nor
can such relationship be implied from the provisions
of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and the
forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No.1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
5440
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No.1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is
held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,
1976, then the persons responsible for such violation
are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of
the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer
any right on the workman to claim regularisation in
service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
as mentioned above, which are quite different from the
facts and the circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions, on which reliance is placed by the union
representative, with respect, I am of the view that the said
decisions have no clear application to the present case in
hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:-
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2043.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ MCY;w lh ,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 10@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@125@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2043.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 10/2009) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Ballapur Area, Ballarpur Western
Coalfields Ltd. WCL, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/125/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5441
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/2009
Date: 17.05.2013.
Party No. 1 :
Chief General Manager,
Ballarpur Area, Ballarpur Area
Of Western Coalfields Ltd.,
At/P.O. Sasti, Distt. Chandrapur,
Chandrapur (M.S.)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
Koyla Shramik Sabha (HMS),
At/P.O. Ballarpur, Distt.
Chandrapur (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 17th May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Western Coalfields Ltd., and their workman,
Shri M.S. Bhasarkar for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
22012/125/2008-IR (CM-II) dated 06.03.2009, with the
following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur
Area of WCL in denying promotion to Shri M.S.
Bhasarkar, ignoring his merit and seniority is legal
and justified? To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled and from which date?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Koyla Shramik
Sabha" ('the union" in short), filed the statement of claim
on behalf of the workman and the management of Western
Coalfields Ltd., ("Party No. 1" in short), filed its written
statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the
statement of claim by the union is that it (union) is a
registered trade union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926
and the Party No. 1 is a Government Company and is a
"state" within Article-12 of the Constitution of India and
the provisions of the National Coal Wages Agreements
("NCWA" in short) are mandatory and binding on all the
Coal Companies including the Party No. 1 and the Joint
Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry, ("JBCCI" in
short) vide different implementation instructions issued
through the Director (P&IR) Coal India Ltd.-cum-Secretary
to JBCCI has evolved different promotional cadres of
different trades and in ministerial cadre scheme itself,
promotional channels have been evolved separately for
General Clerical Cadre, Store Personnel, Loading Personnel,
Cash Personnel and Secretariat Cadre etc and the present
reference is concerned with cadre scheme for Ministerial
Staff (General Cadre) and Ministerial Staff (Loading
Personnel) and as per Cadre Scheme VIII-1, given in the
implementation Instruction No. 34 dated 17.07.1984, the
carrier growth for Ministerial Staff (General Clerical Cadre)
is Clerk Grade-III,, Clerk Grade-II, Typist, Clerk Grade-I,
Special Grade Clerk/Sr. Clerk and finally Office
Superintendent in Technical and Supervisory Grade A and
as per Cadre Scheme VIII, the carrier growth of Loading
Personnel is Asstt. Loading Clerk Grade-III, Loading Clerk
Grade-II, Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt.
(T&S) Grade-C, Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt. Loading
Supdt. (T&S) Grade-B and finally Sr. Loading Inspector/Sr.
Loading Supdt. (T&S) Grade-A.
The further case of the workman as presented by the
union is that the workman belongs to Schedule Caste
community and he passed the SSC examination in 1981 and
he was appointed as a trainee, vide letter dated 12.04.1989
at Sasti Open Cast Project and he was placed in Category-
II w.e.f. 15.05.1990, vide letter No. 1877 dated 07.11.1990
and soon after his regular appointment, due to acute
exigencies of job, Party No. 1 placed him to supervise one
of the shifts of loading of coal in Pander Pawani Railway
siding of Sasti Open Cast Project and the letter dated 27/
28.10.1990 of the Sub-Area Manager addressed to Pander
Pawani Railway siding in-charge confirms such claim and
the workman was performing the job of Asstt. Loading
Inspector/Asstt. Loading Supdt. as per the cadre scheme
of Loading Personnel and was thus entitled to be put in
technical and supervisory grade 'C' and to be paid the
remuneration accordingly, from the date he was placed as
such, but the Party No. 1 adopted unfair labour practice
and did not pay him wages of Technical and Supervisory
Grade 'C' and the Dy. Personnel Manager, Sasti Sub-Area
issued office order No. 277 dated 13.01.1992/01.02.1992,
allowing officiating allowance of clerical grade-III to him
w.e.f. 15.02.1992 and vide order dated 07/11.08.1993 of the
Dy. Personnel Manager, the workman was promoted/
regularized as Clerk-Grade-III w.e.f. 15.05.1993 and he was
put on probation, without mentioning any time limit, against
the terms and conditions of the Certified Standing Order
and as per letter No. 495 of 1993 of the Sub-Area Manager,
Sasti Sub-Area, the workman was designated as Asstt.
Loading/Weigh Bridge Clerk and though the workman was
senior, his basic wages were so fixed that his juniors used
to get more, but the mistake was rectified vide office order
No. 3013 dated 07/09.12.1993 and though the workman had
been representing for his promotion and regularization in
higher grade, according to the job performed by him, his
appeal remained unheard and unattended and the workman
was promoted as Loading Clerk Grade-II w.e.f. 10.07.1997.
5442
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the
workman that, two clerks of general clerical cadre, too junior
to the workman and not belonging to the Loading Personnel
Cadre, namely, Shri M. Prabhudas and Shri Venu Gopal
Kusuma were transferred from Gauri Sub Area to Sasti Open
Cast Sub Area in 1996 and though Shri M. Prabhudas and
Shri Venu Gopal Kusuma were not in Loading Personnel
Cadre, they were promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector,
Grade-C, w.e.f. 01.01.1998, vide office order No. 4025 dated
06/08.06.1998 of Personnel Manager, Sasti Sub Area and
there had been manipulation and their categorization is
irregular, illegal and without adhering to procedure laid
down to change of cadre and ignoring the seniority and
merit of the workman, Party No. 1 again promoted Shri M.
Prabhudas as Loading Supdt./Inspector (T&S) Grade-B
from Grade-C vide order No. 6726 dated 14.10.2005 of Area
Personnel Manager, Ballarpur Area and similarly, Shri
Venugopal was also promoted as Supdt./Inspector (T&S)
Grade-B from Grade-C w.e.f. 14.10.2005 and the workman
was promoted from Loading Clerk Grade-II to Asstt. Loading
Inspector (T&S) Grade-C w.e.f. 25.03.2002 vide letter No.
1017 dated 25.03.2002 and the workman had been
representing against the injustice meted out towards him
by submitting the comparative chart containing his service
details alongwith that of Shri Prabhudas, Shri Venugopal
and one Shri Atul G. Deolkar, but no action was taken by
the Party No. 1 on his representations and Shri M.
Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal Kusuma were appointed as
General Mazdoors daily rated category-I w.e.f. 09.12.1992
and 21.12.1992 respectively and were regularized as General
Clerk in Clerical Grade III from 01.01.1994 and just after one
year, they were further regularized as Clerk Grade II w.e.f.
01.01.1995 and on the same analogy, the workman is entitled
to be regularized as Asstt. Loading Inspector/Asstt.
Loading Supdt. In Grade-C, after his completing of 240
days of attendance, i.e. with effect from 01.01.1992 and he
should have been treated as such for all purposes and he
is entitled for the differential salary from 27/28.10.1990 to
31.12.1991 and he is entitled to Grade B w.e.f. 01.01.1997.
The union has further pleaded that one Shri Atul Dewalkar
of Dhoptala open cast mine was categorized as loading
clerk from other cadre without following the due procedure
and he was regularized as loading clerk grade II w.e.f.
01.01.1995 and though Shri Dewalkar was junior to the
workman, he was promoted to the post of Asstt. loading
Inspector/Asst. loading Supdt. (T&S) grade C w.e.f.
01.07.1998, where as the workman was promoted to grade
C (T&S) w.e.f. 25.03.2002.
The union has prayed to direct the Party No. 1 to
give promotion to the workman with retrospective effect
with wages and all consequential benefits and compound
interest @ 18% per annum on the dues and to place the
workman in the seniority list in the proper place.
3. The Party No.1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter alia that the reference is vague, due to non-
mention of the designation of the workman, the post to
which his right and seniority was ignored in the matter of
promotion, the date from which the benefit was deemed to
accrue etc. and as the essential ingredients of the reference
are absent, the reference is not maintainable in the eyes of
law and the reference is highly belated, as retrospective
promotion is being claimed from the year 1992, starting
from the post of Assistant loading clerk (grade III ) on
wards to different higher posts and the union has raised
the industrial dispute after sixteen years of the alleged
cause of action and as such, the reference is not
maintainable. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 that it
is settled principles of law that giving promotion to the
employees is a managerial function, which depends upon
availability of sanctioned post, need of the management to
fill up the post, eligibility of the employees and
determination of their competence through the process of
Departmental Promotion Committee and promotion cannot
be claimed in general terms and more over, the subject
matter of promotion is not within the second or third
schedule of the Act and therefore, the reference is not
maintainable.
The further case of the Party No.1 is that it is evident
from the statement of claim that at different stages,
promotions had been taken place in the cadre of Ministerial
staff ( Loading Personnel ) on and from the year 1992 and if
any disturbance is caused in the cadre, after such a long
time, it will lead to serious repercussion and disturbance of
industrial peace and harmony, as number of disputes are
likely to emerge on behalf of the other employees in the
cadre and as the purpose of industrial adjudication is to
minimize emergence of industrial disputes and not to
fructify them, the reference is not to be entertained. It is
further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that in the cadre scheme
for the loading personnel, there are five stages of growth,
starting from Assistant Loading Clerk Grade III to Senior
Loading Inspector/Senior Loading Supervisor Grade A and
there is no provision of time bound promotion in the cadre
scheme and as the ministerial staff (General ) and Loading
Personnel belong to ministerial staff, sometimes inter-
changeability takes place and for promotion from one post
to another, minimum qualification (educational/technical),
eligibility norms
and modes of promotions have been
provided, by the JBCCI and the relevant cadre scheme,
Annexure - 1 filed by the union is not disputed and the
consideration zone for promotion to the posts upto Grade
'B' is area wise and for Grade 'A' is company wise and
within the area, posts upto Supdt. Grade 'C' are considered
on unit/sub area level and the posts in Grade 'B' are
considered at area level and such promotions are examined
and considered by the Promotion Committee constituted
for the purpose and when a employee is transferred from
one establishment/consideration zone to another
establishment/consideration zone on administrative
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5443
grounds/ needs of necessity of the management, he carries
his seniority of post to the new place of posting and if the
employee is transferred on his own request, he looses his
seniority at the new place of posting and his seniority at
the new place of posting in the relevant post is being count
from the date of his joining and the workman was appointed
as a trainee in category - I, w.e.f. 12.04.1989 at Sasti Open
Cast project and after completion of his training, he was
appointed as a regular employee in category - II w.e.f.
15.05.1990 and while the workman was in category - II, he
was allowed to officiate in the post of clerical grade - III
(Asstt. loading clerk) w.e.f. 15.05.1992 alongwith 15 others
and subsequently, he was promoted/regularized alongwith
three others to the post of clerk grade - III w.e.f. 15.05.1993
and the workman did not have any grievance against the
management at that stage and he did not lodge any protest
and according to his job performance in the loading cadre,
he alongwith some others was recategorized/redesignated
as Asstt. Loading! Weighbridge clerk corresponding to
clerk grade - III in general clerical cadre and the same was
also not protested or objected by the workman as he found
the said arrangement in his interest and on the ground of
anomaly, his pay was stepped up by one increment w.e.f.
01.06.1993 and the workman was again promoted as loading
clerk grade - II w.e.f. 01.07.1997, vide office order dated
25.10.1997 and he was further promoted to the post of Asstt.
Loading Inspector (T&S) Grade - 'C' vide order dated
25.03.2002 and all the promotions were given to the workman
between the years 1990 to 2002, i.e. within a period of 12
years and the cadre norms were followed and his merit and
seniority were duly considered and therefore, the grievance
contemplated in the terms of the reference had stood
complied and there is no ground for holding adjudication
on this issue and the office order dated 06/08.06.1998, which
has been filed by the union as document No. W-8 shows
that Shri Venugopal Kusuma and Shri M. Prabhudas were
shown as Loading Clerk Grade - II and as such, they were
rightly promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector, Grade - 'C'
and the workman did not lodge any protest against the
promotion of Shri Kusuma and Shri Prabhudas at the
relevant time and to say that the workman was superseded,
after a gap of 10 years is merely an afterthought and
Shri Kusuma and Shri Prabhudas had come on transfer to
Sasti Sub Area from Gauri Sub Area, vide office order dated
07.11.1996 and vide corrigendum dated 14.03.1997, issued
by the Sub Area Manager, Gauri Sub Area, those two persons
had been performing loading jobs alongwith five others
and in the year 2005, a DPC was held at the area level for
promotion to Technical Supervisory, Grade- 'B' post and as
the workman had not put in the requisite experience in the
lower post i.e. Grade-'C', he could not be considered for
promotion and therefore, the question of considering him
for Grade -`B' post did not arise at that time and another
DPC was held in the year 2007, for promotion to Technical
Supervisory, Grade - 'B' post and in the said DPC, 16
candidates including the workman were recommended for
promotion, but since there were only five sanctioned posts,
the employees, who were at serial numbers 1,2,3,4 and 6
were promoted and as the name of the workman was at
serial no. 13, the question of his promotion at that stage
did not arise and in the DPC held on 15.11.2008, the name
of the workman was at a much lower position in the panel
and as there was only one sanctioned post, Shri R.D.
Nishad, who was no. 1 amongst the 13 recommended
candidates was given the promotion and the workman was
not promoted and as the workman was given promotions
at relevant stages,by considering his merit and seniority,
the reference is to be answered against the workman,
holding that no industrial dispute exists.
It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the letter
dated 27/28.10.1998 is misinterpreted by the union and the
endorsement of the said office order to the workman was
as a clerk alongwith three others and the workman was
never called as Shift In-charge and he was never asked to
do the jobs of the Shift In-charge and no unfair labour
practice was adopted by the management and the workman
when was promoted to Grade - 'C', he did not claim any
retrospective benefit and as the workman was never
authorized/deputed to work as Asstt. Loading Inspector,
the question of paying wages of the said post does not
arise and in any case, if there was any of truth in the
statement, then why the grievance was not ventilated by
the workman for red-ressal and raising of such a claim,
after a gap of nearly 10 years is highly belated and untenable
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, the union has pleaded that as the
reference has been made by the Central Govt. to this
Tribunal for adjudication, after considering the merit of the
dispute, the Tribunal is competent to adjudicate the same
and the Act is a social welfare legislation and the same
should be interpreted as such and the provisions of
limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under
the Act and relief under the Act cannot be denied to
workman merely on the ground of delay and there is no
delay in this case.
5. In order to prove their respective stands, the parties
have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on the
documentary evidence. The workman has examined himself
as a witness in support of his case, where as, one Shri V.S.
Ramanujam, the Manager (Personnel) of Ballarpur Area
Office has been examined as a witness by the Party No. 1.
In this examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim and rejoinder. However, in the cross-
examination, the workman has admitted that after completion
of his training, he was appointed in category - II on
15.05.1990 and on 15.05.1993, he was regularized as Asstt.
Loading Clerk w.e.f. 05.05.1990 and as per office order dated
5444
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
25.10.1997, he was promoted to Clerk Grade - II w.e.f.
01.07.1997 and by office order dated 25.03.2002, he was
promoted as Asstt. Loading Inspector (T&S), Grade - 'C'
w.e.f 25.03.2002 and in document no. W-II, his designation
has been mentioned as a clerk. The workman has further
admitted that in 1996, Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal
Kusuma were transferred from Gauri Sub Area to Sasti Sub
Area and at that time, they were in Clerical Grade-II and he
did not lodge any protest against the transfer of those two
employees. The workman has further admitted in his cross-
examination that in 1998, a DPC was held at Sasti Sub Area
for promotion to the post of Technical Grade-'C' and the
DPC recommended the promotion of Shri Venugopal and
Shri Prabhudas for promotion to Technical Grade-'C' and
did not recommend his name for promotion and he did not
protest in writing regarding the promotion of Shri Venugopal
and Shri Prabhudas and in the year 2008, the union for the
first time raised the dispute.
6. The witness examined on behalf of the Party No. 1
has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement by Party No. 1, in his evidence on affidavit. In
his cross-examination, the witness for the Party No. 1 has
stated that the initial date of appointment of Venugopal
Kusuma is 21.12.1992 and Prabhudas is 09.12.1992 and as
per document W-XIII, Kusuma and Prabhudas were
regularized as Clerk Grade-III, vide order dated 16/17.03.1994
from the post of General Mazdoor and as per office order
No. 1379, Kusuma and Prabhudas were regularized as Clerk
Grade-II w.e.f. 01.01.1995.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman was
appointed on 12.04.1989, as operator trainee and after the
training was completed, he was placed in Cat. II, w.e.f.
15.05.1990 and he was deployed to work as Loading In-
charge of Pandhar Rly. Siding and such fact is proved by
the document, W-II and the workman was duly appointed
by the Sub Area Manager as Loading In-charge, but the
workman was kept in Cat-II and he was allowed officiating
allowance of Asstt. Loading Clerk, Grade-III from 15.05.1992
and he was promoted/regularized as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f.
15.05.1993 and the workman was entitled for promotion,
above Venugopal Kusuma and M. Prabhudas, in view of
the seniority list, Ext. M-IV (Annexure-F) filed by
management, in which the name of the workman is at serial
No. 8, whereas, names of Kusuma and Prabhudas are at
serial No. 9 and 10 respectively and Kusuma, Prabhudas
and so also other workers, who had been given promotion
earlier to the workman were not eligible for entry into
Loading Clerk Grade-III and the workman has been
victimized and Party No. 1 has adopted unfair labour practice
and the workman is entitled for the reliefs as claimed.
It was also submitted by the learned advocate for
the workman that when the reference has been made by
the appropriate Government the Tribunal is required to
adjudicate the same and the law of limitation does not apply
to the proceedings under the Act and the Tribunal cannot
travel outside the terms of reference and is bound to
adjudicate the dispute limited to the points of reference.
In support of the contentions, the learned advocate
for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported
in 2001 AIR SCW-2685 (Sapan Kumar Pandit Vs. U.P. State
Electricity Board), AIR 1994 SC 853 (S.P. Chengal Varaya
Naidu Vs. Jagannath), AIR 1968 SC 1413 (Gopal K. Ketkar
Vs. Md. Haji Latif), AIR 1986 SC 132 (H.D. Singh Vs. RBI),
2007 (115) FLR 427 (Mehan Mahato Vs. M/s. Central
Coalfields Ltd.) and AIR 2000 SC 469 (National Engineering
Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
8. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the
Party No. 1 in his argument, reiterated the stands taken by
the Party No. 1 in the written statement, including the
validity and maintainability of the reference on the grounds
that the reference is vague and the claim raise by the union
on behalf of the workman is a state claim and no industrial
dispute was in existence at the time of making the reference.
9. Keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited by the learned
advocate for the workman, the present case in hand is to
be considered. However, at this juncture, I think it
appropriate to mention that out of the decisions cited by
the learned advocate for the workman, the decisions
reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 (Supra), AIR 1968 SC 1418
(Supra) and AIR 1986 132 (Supra) and regarding production
of documents and withholding of vital documents relevant
to litigation, by a party. As in this case there is no material
to show that the Party No. 1 has not produced any relevant
document or withheld any vital document relevant to the
litigation, with respect, I am of the view that the said
decisions have no direct application to the case in hand.
10. So far the first contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 regarding the non-
maintainability of the reference due to vagueness of the
schedule of reference is concerned, admittedly the
designation of the employee, the post of which right to
seniority and merit was ignored and the date from which
the benefit deemed to be accrued are not mentioned in the
schedule of reference. However, in the statement of claim
such facts have been given by the union. Hence, it is found
that there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
11. The next contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 is in regard to raising of the
dispute belatedly by the union, without any explanation.
In this regard, I think it proper to mention the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2685 (Supra), which has been
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5445
cited by the learned advocate for the workman. The Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that:—
"There are cases in which lapse of time had caused
fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had
kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is
reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case
that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But
when the dispute remained alive though not
galvanized by the workman or the union on account
of other justified reasons it does not cause the
dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case when
the Government have chosen to refer the dispute for
adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Act the
High Court should not have quashed the reference
merely on the ground of delay. Of course, for making
the adjudication could be considered by the
adjudicating authorities, while moulding its reliefs.
That is a different matter altogether. The High Court
has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order
of reference made by the Government for adjudication.
Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal
culmination."
As in the case in hand, the Government has made
the reference, it can be presumed that in the opinion of the
Government, there existed the industrial dispute on the
date of reference. However, it is found from the materials
on record that there is inordinate delay of about sixteen
years in raising the dispute and such delay has not been
explained either by the union or the workman. Applying
the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
judgment reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2685 (Supra), the delay
in raising this industrial dispute will be taken into
consideration, in case of grant of reliefs to the workman on
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.
12. The first claim made by the union on behalf of the
workman is that soon after the completion of the training
by the workman he was placed in Category-II w.e.f.
15.05.1990 and due to acute exigencies of job, Party No. 1
placed him to supervise one of the shifts of loading of coal
at Pander Pawani Railway Siding and the document W-II,
the letter No. WCL/BA/SAM/SSA/1752 dated 27/
28.10.1998, Sasti Sub Area amply proves the said fact and
as the workman performed the duty of Asstt. Loading
Inspector/Asstt. Loading Superintendent as per cadre
scheme for Loading Personnel, he was entitled to be put in
Technical and Supervisory Grade 'C' and paid accordingly
from the date he was placed on such duty, but Party No. 1
by adopting unfair labour practice and did not pay him
wages of T&S Grade 'C' and allowed officiating allowance
of Clerical Grade-III w.e.f. 15.02.1992.
It is well settled and so also the stand taken by the
union in the rejoinder that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically
referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental thereto
and the Tribunal cannot go beyond the terms of reference.
On perusal of the terms of reference of the case in
hand, it is found that the first claim raised by the union as
mentioned above has not been referred for adjudication
and on that score, the same cannot be considered or
adjudicated.
However, on perusal of the materials on record
including the evidence produced by the parties, it is found
that the union and so also the workman has failed to prove
that the workman worked as an Asstt. Loading Inspector/
Astt. Loading supdtt., Grade 'C' w.e.f. 27/28.10.1990. The
document, W-II filed by the union instead of supporting
the claim raised by the union falsifies the same. On perusal
of the letter, W-II, it is found that the same is a letter
addressed by the Sub Area Manager, Sasti Sub Area dated
27/28.10.1990 to Shri Narayan Agnu, the In-charge of
Pander Pawani Siding for loading of the wagons as per the
decision of the committee constituted for the same. The
said letter was not addressed to the workman as the Siding-
in-charge or Shift-In-charge. Rather, copy of the said letter
was given to the workman and three others, who were
working as clerks to ensure correct loading. The workman
in his cross-examination has also admitted that the copy of
the said letter was given to him as a clerk. Hence, it is found
that the first claim made by the union is not tenable.
13. The next claim made by the union on behalf of the
workman is that Shri M. Prabhudas, Shri Venugopal
Kusuma and Shri Atul Dewalkar, who belonged to
Ministerial Staff (General Cadre) and much juniors to him
were brought to Loading Personnel Cadre illegally and were
given promotion as Asstt. Loading Inspector in Grade w.e.f.
01.01.1998, 01.01.1998 and 01.07.1998 respectively, whereas,
the workman was promoted to the said post w.e.f 25-03-
2002 and Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were again
promoted to Grade - 'B' from Grade 'C' vide order dated
14.10.2005 ignoring the seniority of the workman and
Sarbeshree B.W. Ghomase, M.D. Bhagat, David Kampelli,
A.G. Dewalkar and B.S. Pade were promoted to Grade - 'B'
from Grade 'C' w.e.f. 15.10.2007, even though the name of
the workman was recommended for promotion by the DPC
and as such, the workman is entitled for the reliefs as
claimed.
The Party No. 1's case is that the workman was given
promotions as per rules by taking into consideration about
his merit & seniority and the workman did not raise any
objection to the transfer of Shri Prabhudas and
Shri Venugopal and their categorization and promotion, at
any point of time and so also the promotion of others and
as an afterthought, the dispute was raised in 2008 by the
union and as there was no illegality in the promotion of
Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal or the other workers,
the workman is not entitled of any relief.
5446
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14. The workman has claimed the document, Ext. M.IV
(annedure-F) as a seniority list and according to him, his
name was at serial no. 8 in the said list, where as the names
of Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were below him.
However, on perusal of Ext. M-IV, it is found that the same
is not a seniority list, but the same is an office order
regarding the redesignation of the workman and eleven
others and in the said list, names of Prabhudas and
Venugopal are not there. So, the claim of the workman in
that regard is found to be not correct.
On perusal of the documents, including Ext. M-III,
M-VI, M-VII, M-XI, M-XII and MXIII, it is found that the
workman became eligible for job rate clerical grade III on
15.05.1992 and he was re-designated as Asst. loading/weight
bridge clerk as per the order, Ext. M-IV and he was
regularized as clerk grade III w.e.f 15.05.1993 and he was
promoted to loading clerk grade II w.e.f 01.07.1997 and as
Asst. Inspector grade C w.e.f. 25.03.2002, whereas, Shri M.
Prabhudas and Shir Venugopal Kusuma were transferred
to Sasti Sub-Area from Gouri sub-Area as clerk grade II,
vide office order dated 07.12.1996 and they were designated
as clerk grade II performing the job of loading clerk, as per
order dated 14/ 15.03.1997. The workman did not raise any
objection or protest either to the transfer of the said two
employee or their designation or even their promotions.
The workman did not protest about the promotion of the
other employees, whose names have been mentioned in
the statement of claim. Though, the union has mentioned
in the statement of claim. Though, the union has mentioned
in the statement of claim that the workman was all-along
was protesting the denial of promotion to him, not a single
document has been filed in support of such claim. Hence, it
can be held that there was never any protest from the side
of the workman prior to 23.10.2007. It is also found from the
record that the workman accepted all his promotion without
any objection. It is also found from the record that the
made of promotion to the post of clerical grade II onwards
in the cadre of loading personnel is on the recommendation
of the D.P.C. It is also clear from the materials on record
that the workman was not recommended for promotion,
when Shri Prabhudas and Shri Venugopal were promoted
as Asst. Loading Inspector grade C on the recommendation
of the D.P.C. The said two employees were already in clerical
grade II, doing loading work, prior to the promotion of the
workman as loading clerk grade II. It was the same case in
respect of Shri Atul Dewalkar, as according to the own
pleading of the union, Shri Dewalkar was promoted as
Loading Clerk Grade - II on 01.01.1995. In absence of the
particulars of the other employees named in the statement
of claim, it cannot be said that they were juniors to the
workman or that their promotion was illegal. It is clear from
the materials on record that the workman was given
promotions on the due dates by Party No. 1 by taking into
consideration his merits and seniority and he was not
superseded by his juniors and he is not entitled for the
reliefs claimed.
15. It is necessary to mention here that at the time of
argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the
workman that the name of the workman was recommended
by the DPC for promotion to (T&S), Grade - 'B', but Party
No. 1 did not give promotion to him on the ground of
pending of the case before this Tribunal, which is illegal.
On perusal of the documents, it is found that the
name of the workman has been recommended by the DPC
for promotion to the post of (T&S) Grade - 'B' and on the
recommendation of the DPC, two other employee Shri M.G.
More and Shri Haridas Dhale have been promoted to (T&S),
Grade - 'B' on 28.02.2012. So, in the interest of justice, the
Party No. 1 is directed to give promotion to the workman to
(T&S) Grade - 'B' from the date Shri M.G. More and Shri
Haridas Dhale have been promoted. Hence, it is orderd:
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative and against
the workman. The workman in not entitled to any other
relief except the relief mentioned in paragraph 15 of the
award.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2044.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dj 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2006½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@85@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2044.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 24/2006
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cun-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Murpar Project of
(Umrer Area) of WCL and their workman, received by the
Central Governmenet on 02.09.2013
[No. L-22012/85/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Deck Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5447
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/24/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of
WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tab-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b):
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2:
Shri Bhaurao S/o Purushottam Bawane
R/o. Minzhari, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur,
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Bhaurao
Purushottam Bawane, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-
22012/85/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh and Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Bhaurao
S/o Purushottam Bawane is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Bhaurao
Purushottam Bawane ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1
(a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No. 1 (b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General
Mazdoor on 10.06.1993 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party
No. 1 (b) w.e.f. 01.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and
Party No.1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a)
and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party
No. 1 (b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001
and he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
parties no. 1 (a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with parties no.
1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the parties no. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was
the contractor of Party No. 1 (a), for each and every act of
the Party No. 1 (b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and
as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 (a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of
5448
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3½ months and the incline shaft drivage within eight
months and it also awarded another contract to Party No. 1
(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft
through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII
to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the
said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively
and it (Party No. 1(a)) was related to Party No. 1(b) only as
per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible
for providing employees to the contractors and it was the
duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per
their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 (a) that
as per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person,
whether employed by the principal employer or the
contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in permanent
capacity, to work in an underground mine, is required to be
imparted vocational training by the principal employer and
the cost of the training is borne by the contractor concerned
and the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti (2006
(2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and
also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed
for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case
as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove
the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1(a) and
BGML engaged him from 10.06.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and that he was again engaged by Party
No. 1(b), another contractor from 01.01.1997 to 28.12.2001.
It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or
appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman
is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training
and he had under gone the training successfully. It is
necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo
vocational training for any person, who works underground
in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of
the management of the coal mine to arrange for such
vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman
cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a), as
because, he was sent for vocational training by Party No.
1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5449
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Honble Apex Court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25 B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon’ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)-Continuous service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under that employer, who has retrenched him
from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the
expression "continuous". Both in principle and are
precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends
a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period
of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the relevant
date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be
deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947- S. 25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation-Termination of services
without payment of -Dispute referred to Tribunal-
Case of workman/workman that he had worked for
240 days in a year preceding his termination- Claim
denied by management-Onus lies upon workman to
show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a
year-In absence of proof of receipt of salary workman
is not sufficient evidence to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for
any relief.
5450
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2045.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&22012@86@2003&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2045.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2006) of
the Cent.Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/86/2003- IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/25/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No.1(a) :
The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of
WCL,
Post: Khadsanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b):
M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar,
Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2:
Shri Manik S/o Bisan Dodake
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Manik Bisan
Dodake, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/86/2003-
IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh as Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Manik S/o Bisan
Dodake is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
he is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manik Bisan
Dodake, ("the workman" in short) filed the statement of
claim and the management of the WCL ("Party No. 1" in
short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1
(a) i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No.
1(a) engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No.1(a) also engaged Party No. 1 (b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No.1 (b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L as a Surface
Tramer on 16.03.1994 and he continued to work till 02.07.1996
and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party No. 1 (b)
w.e.f. 03.02.1998 continuously till 28.12.2001 and Party No.
1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to time and
he had under gone the said training successfully and as
such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1 (a) and
Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his appointment
by both the contractors was oral and the Party No. 1(b)
terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and he had
worked for more than 240 days preceding to his termination
and while terminating his services, mandatory provisions
of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and
neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid to him
by parties no. 1 (a) and (b) and as such, termination of his
services is illegal and though at the time of his termination,
more than 700 workers were working with parties no. 1 (a)
and (b), they did not prepare and publish final seniority list
of all the workers including himself, at least seven days
prior to the termination, as provided under Rule 77 of the
Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and there was no
compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the termination
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5451
of his services amounted to retrenchment and at the time
of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available and now
also, plenty of work is available with parties no. 1(a) and
1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of section
25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman that
he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of various
demand to the Parties No. 1 (a) and 1 (b), but they did not
fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending before
the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his services
with many other workers were terminated and wages for
December, 2001 was not paid to him and as Party No. 1 was
the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was the
contractor of Party No.1 (a), for each and every act of the
Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and as
such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period of 3
1/2 months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to Party No.1 (b) for
construction of drivage of a pair of incline shaft through
sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam VII to seam V
at Murpar project of which the date of commencement and
completion were 01.01.1997 and 28.02.1998 respectively and
after a gap of 15 months, another contract was given to
Party No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of incline shaft
at Murpar project and the dates of commencement and
completion of the said contract were 29.05.1999 and
01.12.2001 respectively and it (Party No. 1(a)) was related
to Party No. 1(b) only as per the terms of contract and it
was not at all responsible for providing employees to the
contractors and it was the duty of the contractors to appoint
the employees as per their need. It is further pleaded by the
Party No. 1(a) that as per the provisions of the Mines Act,
every person, whether employed by the principal employer
or the contractor, whether in a casual capacity or in
permanent capacity, to work in an underground mine, is
required to be imparted vocational training by the principal
employer and the cost of the training is borne by the
contractor concerned and the engagement of the labourers
was the job of the contractor and it was no way involved in
the matter and no document has been produced by the
workman to show that he was appointed by it and the
contractor had appointed the workman till the completion
of the contract and the documents filed by the workman
show that he was appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract
works at Murpar project, as a temporary contingent labour
in the project and in view of the principles enunciated by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka
Vs. Umadevi, Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish
Jayanti (2006 (2) SCALE 115) and many others, the workman
is not entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service
as he was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities—and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of Section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013 and
also did not make any argument. Hence the case was closed
for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality
of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the illegality
of the order and if no evidence is produced, the party
invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In this case
as the workman has not adduced any evidence to prove
the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1(a) and
BGML engaged him from 16.03.1994 to 02.07.1996 as a
Surface Tramer and that he was again engaged by Party
No. 1(b), another contractor from 03.02.1998 to 28.12.2001.
It is never the case of the workman that he was engaged or
appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim of the workman
is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for vocational training
and he had under gone the training successfully. It is
necessary to mention here that it is obligatory to undergo
vocational training for any person, who works underground
in a coal mine in any capacity and it is the statutory duty of
the management of the coal mine to arrange for such
5452
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vocational training as per the Mines Act and the workman
cannot be deemed to be an employee of Party No. 1(a),
as because, he was sent for vocational training by Party
No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But that
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract labour.
The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
he was also the workman of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law and such mutually destructive plea should not be
allowed to be raised even in an industrial adjudication.
Hence, it cannot be said that the workman was the workman
of the principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1 (b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs. Their
workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25-B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B".
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.), the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that,
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section 25-B
(1) and (2)- Continuous service—Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases-
Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to show
that he has been in continuous service for not less than
one year under that employer, who has retrenched him
from service. Section 25-B as the dictionary clause for the
expression "continuous". Both in principle and are
precedent it must be held that section 25-B (2) comprehends
a situation where a workman to not in employment for a
period of 12 calendar months, but has rendered for a period
of 240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the relevant
date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has, he would be
deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one
year for the purpose of section 25-B and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar) has
held that:—
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947-S.25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation—Termination of
services without payment of -Dispute referred to
Tribunal—Case of workman/workman that he had
worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination—Claim denied by management—Onus
lies upon workman to show that he had in fact worked
for 240 days in a year—In absence of proof of receipt
of salary workman is not sufficient evidence to prove
that he had worked for 240 days in a year preceding
his termination."
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5453
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the workman
has not produced any other evidence in support of his
claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in the
preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman has
failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not applicable
to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2046.—vkSn~;ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eS- ch
,u ih ijhcl ds izcaèra= ds lac} fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd
vf/kdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 38@2007½ dks izdkf'r
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@135@2006&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2046.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 38/2007)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
disputes between the management of M/s. BNP Paribas,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No.L-12012/135/2006-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT
K.B. Katake
Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2/38 of 2007
Employers in relation to the management of
M/S. BNP PARIBAS, Mumbai
The Chief Executive Officer &
Country Manager/Secretary General
M/s.BNP Paribas
French Bank Building
62, Homji Street
Fort Mumbai 400 001.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The President
Shramik Mahasangh
180-C, 1st floor
Dharavi Koliwada
J.J. Keni Lane
Dharavi Road
Mumbai 400 1017
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer :
Mr. R.N. Shah,
Advocate.
For the workmen :
Ms. Ketki Rege,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 11th March, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-12012/135/2006-IR (B-I),
dated 16.08.2007 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 have referred
the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication:
''Whether the demand of the union Shramik
Mahasangh for reinstatement of Shri Uday Gajanan
Mhatre in service of M/s BNP Paribas, Mumbai, with
full back wages and continuity of service w.e.f.
07/12/2001 is legal, proper and justified? If so, to
what relief Shri Uday Gajanan Mhatre is entitled and
from which date?''
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
5454
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
party union filed their statement of claim at Ex-4. According
to them, the workman Mr. Mhatre was employed by the
first party management since October, 1996. He was orally
appointed by the first party. To conceal the employer-
emplyee relationship he was initially shown on paper as a
smoke-screen as employed through so called courier agency
namely mail order, marketing service. Since June, 1999 he
was shown as employee of another courier, i.e. M/s. Tawde
couriers. All his wages were paid against vouchers. From
13/6/2000 till 7/12/2001 his wages were paid in cash against
vouchers directly by the Bank. All the vouchers are lying
with the Bank. He was empolyed by Bank and doing the
work of the Bank. He used to sign on behalf of the Bank.
His services were illegally terminated from 7/12/2001.
He made various representations to the Higher Authority
and management. However they did not give any response.
Therefore the workman through union approached the
ALC © who called the management and made at attempt of
conciliation. As conciliation failed on the report of ALC, ©
the Union Labour Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal.
The union therefore prays that, he be reinstated in the service
with full back wages with interest thereon at commercial rate
w.e.f. 7/12/2001 and continuity service.
3. The first party resisted the statement of claim of
the union vide its written statement at Ex-7. According to
them the reference is not tenable. It is mis-conceived and
malafied and not maintainable in the eye of law. They
contended that, the reference is made at a belated stage
after a delay of 5 years. Therefore it suffers by principles of
delay and laches. The second party workman was never
employed or recruited by the management. On the other
hand he was employee of a courier service agency. Initially
he was working for Mail Order Marketing Services during
the period from Oct, 1996 to June, 1999 and used to visit
the establishment of first party either for delivery or
receiving the communication from the first party. Since
June, 1999 first party discontinued the services of Mail
Order Marketing Services and entered into courier service
contract with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. The workman
concerned thereafter joint M/s. Tawde Courier Services
and was doing the work of Tawde Courier Services. As he
was not employee of the first party, the industrial dispute
is not tenable. There was no vacant post and the workman
was never recruited by the Bank. He was working with the
Bank till December, 2001. Since December, 2001 M/s Tawde
Courier Services informed the Bank that it has decided to
change the work of place of the workman and their three
other employees who were doing the courier work of the
first party. Since then workman did not report the office of
the first party or to M/s. Tawde Courier. He falsely wrote
letters alleging that he was performing duty for the first
party and requested for regularisation of his services. The
first party immediately informed him that he was employee
of courier services and at no point of time he was employed
by the first party and there is no post in the establishment.
According to them the courier service agency M/s. Tawde
Courier is necessary party to the reference. Therefore
reference is bad for want of necessary party. They have
denied all the contents in the statement of claim and
contended that, as the second party workman was not
their employee, the reference is not tenable and submitted
that he is not entitled to any relief. Therefore they pray that
the reference be rejected with cost.
4. The workman has filed his rejoinder at Ex-8. He
denied the contents raised in the written statement and
reiterated the points raised in his statement of claim.
5. Following are the issues re-casted for my
determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons to
follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Does second party prove his
relation with first party as employee
Yes.
2.
Does first party prove that
Government cannot make reference
on the subject matter?
No.
3.
Does it further prove that second
party union has no locus standi to
raise dispute?
No.
4.
Does it prove that second party is a
contract worker and not its employee?
No.
5.
Whether non-impleading M/s. Tawde
Courier effects on claim of second party?
No.
6.
Does he prove that contract is sham
and bogus?
Yes.
7.
Is second party entitled for relief
Partly in
sought?
the affirmative.
REASONS
Issues nos. 1, 4 & 6
6. These issues are interlinked, therefore in order to
avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed and
decided simultaneously. It is the case of the second party
that he is employee of first party and was performing the
work of the first party whereas it is the case of the first
party that second party is not their employee. On the other
hand he is employee of independent contractor. Therefore
no industrial dispute arises. The second party claimed that
the so called contract is sham, bogus and mere camouflage
to deprive the workman from getting the benefits of
permanent employee. From these pleadings my Id.
predecessor has framed the aforesaid three issues.
7. In this respect the first party Bank has examined
their witness Mr. George Rodrigues who has deposed at
Ex-19. According to him the second party is employee of
M/s. Tawde Courier Services. There was service contract
entered into with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. According
to him initially the second party was employee of Mail
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5455
Order Marketing Services from October, 1996 to June, 1999
with whom Bank had entered into service contract.
According to the first party the second party was working
with them as employee of the contractor Mail Order
Marketing Services from 1996 to June, 1999. According to
them since June 1999 they have entered into service contract
with M/s. Tawde Courier Services. According to them
workman left his job with Mail Order Marketing Services
and joined M/s. Tawde Courier Services and working with
the Bank. According to them in December 2001 M/s. Tawde
Courier Services decided to change the workplace of the
workman concerned and their three other employees.
Thereafter the second party stopped attending the duty
and approached the first party and claimed that, he is their
employee. The first party replied to his letter and explained
that he has no concern with the first party. In support of
their contention the first party has examined one more
witness Shri Surendra Jagannath Tawde (Ex-33) who was
proprietor of M/s. Tawde Courier Services till 2004. In his
affidavit he says that, there was courier agreement between
Tawde Courier Services and the first party Bank w.e.f. 24/
06/1999 to June 2000 and subsequently it was renewed
from time to time. In his chief he has supported the case of
the first party. In his cross examination this witness says
that, appointment letters were not given to these employees.
He further says that they used to maintain attendance
registers of these employees and used to pay salary by
cash and used to obtain signature on the salary register.
However neither the attendance register nor the salary
register is produced on record. They have produced on
record the courier agreement at Ex-20. They have produced
on record the o/c of the letter correspondence with Tawde
Courier at Ex-24, 25 & 27 to 29. However these documents
are not sufficient to show that the second party was the
employee of Tawde Courier Services.
8. In this respect the Id. adv for the second party
submitted that the contracts between the courier service
agencies are sham, bogus, and mere camouflage to deprive
the workman from his legitimate rights. She further pointed
out that it is not disputed that the workman was working
for the first party Bank from 1996 up to December, 2001
continously. According to the Id. Adv. initially Mail Order
Marketing Services Agency was shown as contractor till
June, 1999. Thereafter the Bank has shown M/s. Tawde
Courier Services as the contractor. However the workman
is the same person who was working for the Bank. The
version of the Bank is thus unacceptable that, Mr. Mhatre
left the Job of Mail Order Marketing Services and joined
the services of Tawade Couriers. It indicates that the first
party had changed the contractor however the same
workman continued to work for them. It shows the contract
was a mere papar work. In support of his contention the Ld
Adv. for the second party further pointed out that, the
Bank had issued letters to RBI and State Bank of India and
other banks that, second party Mr. Uday Mhatre is their
representative and they should hand over the cheques
and other correspondence of the Bank to him. Fact is not
disputed that at the instance of the first party RBI had
issued pass to the first party. The second party has
produced copies of number of letters correspondence
issued by the first party to various Banks to handover
their correspondence to the workman Mr. Uday Mhatre.
They have also issued letter to Manager RBI to issue
quarterly pass to Mr. Uday Mhatre for all Banking
transactions. Accordingly RBI had also issued pass in the
name of the workman. Copies thereof are on record with
list Ex-11. It indicates that the workman was doing the work
for the first party of collecting cheques and other
correspondence from various banks including RBI and SBI.
He also used to carry correspondence and cheques of the
first party and used to deliver to the concerned officers. In
this respect the Id. adv. pointed out that MW-1 Mr. George
Rodrigues had admitted in his cross that, Bank official used
to give directions to the second party worker in respect of
delivery of the documents he used to collect from the Bank.
He has also admitted that the workman used to come daily
to their Bank. He used to sit across a table and used to sort
out the leters and used to go. The Id. adv. in this respect
pointed out that the workman was working continuously
since 1996 to December, 2001. Every time contractors were
changed and the workman was same. He was under direct
control of officials of the Bank. It indicates that he was
employee of the Bank and not of the contractor. In support
of her argument the Id. adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling
in Hindalco Industries Ltd. V/s. Association of Engineering
Workers 2008 I CLR 1023. Facts in that case are identical to
the case in hand, i.e. the canteen employees therin were
continued despite change of canteen contractors. The
employees were under the ultimate control of the
management. In the circumstances, Hon'ble Court observed
that;
"The industrial Court is perfectly right in arriving the
conclusion that the evidence coupled with the term
of agreement show that the contract is nothing but
paper agreement."
9. In this case also the worker is shown as contract
worker merely to avoid the responsibility and to deprive
him from getting the benefit of permanency. It amount to
exploitation of the poor class. In a recent Apex Court ruling
Hon'ble Court has condemned such type of exploitation of
the poor workmen by showing them as daily wager or
contract workers. The Hon'ble Court has also taken into
consideration the globalized welfare of the workmen and
various labour welfare legislations. In Bhilwara Dugdh
Udpadak Sahakari S. Ltd. V/s. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors.
2011 III CLR 386 the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of
exploitation in the name of so called contract labourers or
daily wagers observed that;
"This appeal reveals the unfortunate state of
affairs prevailing in the field of labour relations
in our country. In order to avoid their liability
under various labour statute employers are
every often resorting to subterfuge by trying
5456
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to show that their employees are in-fact the
employees of a contractor. It is high time that
this subterfuge must come to an end. Labour
statutes were meant to protect the employees/
workmen because it was realised that the
employer and the employees are not on an
equal bargaining position. Hence protection
of employees was required so that they may
not be exploited. However this new technique
of subterfuge has been adopted by some
employers in recent years in order to deny the
rights of the workmen under various labour
statutes by showing that the concerned
workmen are not their employees but are the
employees/workmen of a contractor or that
they are merely daily wage or short term or
casual employees when in fact they are doing
the work of regular employees."
In this respect Hon'ble Court further observed that;
"This Court cannot countenance such practices
anymore. Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of
growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation
of workers."
10. In the light of the above rulings and fact and
circumstances on record I am convinced that the workman
was an employee of the first party. He was working
continuously though the contractor was changed.
Furthermore he was working under the direct control of the
officers of the first party. The work of collection of cheques
and correspondence from various banks as well sorting
out the cheques and correspondence of other banks and
giving delivery thereof to the respective banks is perennial
type of work. The workman was performing the same work
continuously since Oct. 1996 up to Dec. 2001. These facts
as discussed above are sufficient to arrive me at the
conclusion that the contract was sham and bogus and the
workman was not the employee of the contractors. On the
other hand he was an employee of the first party Bank and
there exists employee-employer relationship between them.
Accordingly I decide these issues nos. 1 & 6 in the
affirmative, and issue no. 4 in the negative.
Issue no. 2
11. The Id. adv for the first party in this respect
submitted that the Government erred in making the
reference. According to them as there was no employee-
employer relationship between the concerned workman and
the first party, therefore no industrial dispute arises. In
support of his argument the Id. adv. resorted to Apex Court
ruling in Secretary Indian Tea Association V/s. Ajit Kumar
Barat and Ors. 2000 I LLJ 809 wherein in para 11of the
judgement Hon'ble Court observed that;
"Respondent no. 1 has not been able to show that
while passing the above administrative order State
Government took into consideration any irrelevant
or foreign matter. We therefore hold that above
administrative order was passed by the State
Government after taking into consideration material
available on record and it could not be faulted."
In this judgement the Hon'ble Court has referred its
earlier decision in Abad Dairy Dudh Vikram Kendre
Sanchalak Mandal. V/s Abad Dairy & Ors. 1993 III LLJ
(Supplement) 855 wherein the Hon'ble Court on the point
observed that;
"This issue requires detailed examination and can be
satisfactorily adjudicated upon only by Tribunal."
12. In short the Government is not expected to make
detail inquiry while making reference and the administrative
order can be passed on the basis of material before the
Government concerned. In the case at hand the second
party workman has contended that he is employee of the
first party and the contract is sham and bogus. That suffices
the purpose to make the reference by the Government to
adjudicate whether his termination is fair and proper. In
this respect the Id. Adv. for the first party also resorted to
another Apex Court ruling in M/s. Hochtief Gammon V/s.
State or Orissa and Ors. 1975 LAB IC 1608 wherein in
respect of the order passed or deicsion taken by executive,
the Hon'ble court observed that;
"The executives have to reach their decisions by
taking into account relevant consideration. They
should not refuse to consider relevant matter nor
should they taken into account wholly irrelevant or
extraneous consideration. They should not misdirect
themselves on a point of law."
However this ruling also does not extend any help to
the first party as it lays down the limitation of the executive.
In the case at hand the order of the Government is well
within the limits and guidelines given by the Hon'ble Court.
13. Furthermore in this respect I would also like to
point out that, the Government had initially refused to make
the reference. This reference is made as per the direction of
Hon'ble High Court in WP no. 353 of 2007. Furthercome I
would also like to point out that is the above discussed
issues nos. 1,4,6, it is held that, there in employee-employer
relationship between the parties and the contract is found
to be sham and bogus. The said point is adjudicated by the
Tribunal which is the base of the reference. The Government
was not empowered to adjudicate these issues. In this case
the employee-employer relation is established. In the
circumstances the order of Government making reference
cannot be faulted. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 2 in
the negative.
Issue no. 3
14. It is the case of the first party that, the second
party union is neither a majority union nor there are
members from the first party Bank. According to it, there is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5457
another union by name French Bank Employees Union
functioning for the employees of the first party and the
first party had entered into various settlements with the
said union. Therefore it is contended on behalf of the first
party that Shramik Mahasangh cannot espouse this
dispute. In this respect it is rightly pointed by the Ld. Adv.
for the second party that in this matter it is case of illegal
termination claimed by the second party. In the
circumstances u/s 11-A of the I.D. Act 1947 even individual
workman without the help of union can raise the industrial
dispute. In the circumstances the objection raised on behalf
of the first party is found to be devoid of merit. The second
party union or even workman can very well espouse the
dispute as it is related to termination of services of the
workman. Accordingly I decide this issue no 3. in the
negative.
Issue no. 5
15. In this respect it is submitted on behalf of the first
paty that lastly the workman was the employee of
M/s. Tawde Courier Services Agency and he used to work
with the first party as employee of M/s. Tawde Courier
Services. Therefore accordingly to the first party,
M/s. Tawde Courier services is the necesssary party to the
reference. In this respect the Id. adv. for the second party
pointed out that in the statement of claim, second party
has pleaded that he was employee of the first party and
contract with M/s. Tawde Courier Agency and other
agencies were sham and bogus. In the circumstances
according to the second party M/s. Tawde Couriers has no
concern to implead as a party. Therefore the said agency
need not be a party to the dispute.
According to the Ld. adv. for the second party the
reference can be adjudicated effectively without making
the courier agency as a party to the dispute. Furthermore
the courier agency has not concerned with the dispute. On
the other hand it is submitted that if at all first paty want to
rely upon their pleading in the written statement, they may
call the concerned person from M/s. Tawde Courier services
as their witness. I do agree with the submission of the
second party that the reference can be adjudicated
effectively without making M/s. Tawde Courier as party to
the reference. Therefore it is not necessary party to the
reference. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 5 in the
negative that the reference is not hit by the principle of
non-joinder of necessary parties.
Issue no. 7
16. In the light of findings on issues no. 1,4, & 6 it is
clear that the second party has established that workman
is the employee of the first party. It is also held that there
exists employee-employer relationship between workman
with the first party. The contract is also held to be sham
and bogus. In the circumstances the workman is enttitled
to be reinstated in the service of the Bank as a sub-staff.
17. In resepct of back wages the Id. adv. for the first
party submitted that, the second party is not all working
with the first party since December, 2001. It is further
submitted that the second party has raised the dispute
after a period of 5 years and he must be working earning.
The Id. adv. further submitted that 'no work no wages' is
the settled principle of law. In this back drop he submitted
that the second party is not entitled to any back wages. In
this respect it was submitted on behalf of the second party
that, he is victim of unfair labour practice adopted by the
first party. He was illegally terminated from the services.
Due to his illegal termination he and his family suffered a
lot. He is not employed anywhere since the date of his
termination. Therefore, it is submitted that the workman is
entitled to full back wages. After giving conscious thought
to the submissions of both the parties I am of the opinion
that awarding full back wages without performing any work
would put necessary financial burden on the first party. At
the same time I also take into consideration that the second
party is a very poor person serving for about four years at
a meagre pay of Rs. 3000/- p.m. He was shown as a contract
worker merely be avoid the liability of paying him pay and
allowances as like regular employees. Furthermore I would
also like to consider the fact that, the workman is not
employed anywhere and had suffered a lot due to his illegal
termination. I also consider the fact that there is about
five years delay in raising the dispute. The workman is not
entitled to any back wages for the said period of delay of
5 years. In the circumstances to meet the ends of justice I
think to award 25% back wages excluding the period of
delay 5 years. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 7 that the
workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service as sub
staff with 25% back wages, excluding the period of delay.
Thus I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The reference is partly allowed with no order as to cost.
(i) The second party workman is declared to be
employee of first party and the service contract is
declared to be sham and bogus.
(ii) The termination of services of the workman is
declared as illegal.
(iii) The first party is directed to reinstate the second
party workman forthwith with 25% back wages
(excluding the period of delay of 5 years in making
refer
ence) with continuity of service.
(iv) The first party shall pay to the second party
workman arrears of back wages arrears and other
allowances and benefits at par with the regular
employees.
Date: 11.03.2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
5458
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2047.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@16@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2047.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/16/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 28 OF 2007
Parties :
Secretary
Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor
Congress, Bishunpur, Dhanbad Vs.,
General Manager, Mugma area of M/s.
BCCL, Dhanbad
On behalf of
the workman :
Mr. U.P. Sinha, Ld. advocate
On behalf of the
Management :
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State :
Jharkhand
Industry :
Coal
Dhanbad, Dated the 1st Aug., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under
Sec. 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/16/2007-IR (CM-I) dt. 03.05.2007
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Hariajam
Colliery of M/s. ECL in not referring Shri Mansha Manjhi,
Wagon Loader to the Apex Medical Board for assessment
of his correct age is justified and legal? If not, to what relief
is he concerned workman entitled.”
2. Mr. U.P. Sinha, the Ld. Advocate for the Union is
present but no workman Mansha Manjhi, the W/Loader
appeared nor any witness for the evidence of the workman
produced. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. advocate for the O.P./
Management is present. Mr. Sinha, the Ld. advocate for
the Union/workman has urged for a needful order, as no
workman appears to be interested in proceeding with the
case, despite his solid steps for proceeding.
On going through the case record, I find that the case
has been pending for the evidence of the workman since
27.8.2012, for which Regd. Notice dt. 8.3.2013 was issued
to the Secretary of the Union concerned. The present
reference relates to a matter of not referring the workman
to the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his correct
age. In view of the submission of the Mr. Sinha, the
Ld. Counsel for the Union and the present status of the
case, the conduct of the workman appears to be his
unwillingliness to proceed with the case.
In result the case is closed as no industrial dispute
and accordingly it is passed an order.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2048.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZlh,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
16@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@10@2007&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2048.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of The General Manager,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5459
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/10/2007-IR (CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 16 OF 2007.
Parties :
Secretary
Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor
Congress, Bishunpur, Dhanbad Vs.,
General Manager, Mugma area of M/s.
BCCL, Dhanbad
On behalf of
the workman :
Mr. U.P. Sinha, Ld. advocate
On behalf of the
Management :
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State :
Jharkhand
Industry :
Coal
Dhanbad, Dated the 1st Aug., 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
10/2007-IR (CM-I) dt. 11.04.2007
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Chapapur
Colliery of M/s. ECL in superannuating Shri Pran Manjhi
Mazdoor w.e.f. 1.7.2006 is justified and legal? If not, to
what relief is the concerned workman entitled.”
2. Mr. U.P. Sinha, the Ld. Advocate for the Union/
workman is present but no workman Pran Masjhi, Timber
Mazdoor, appeared nor any rejoinder on his behalf filed nor
any document on his behalf. Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.
Advocate for the O.P./Management is present. Mr. Sinha,
the Ld. Advocate for the Union submits that the workman is
not appearing for proceeding with the case despite his best
effort; as such he apperars to be disinterested in his case.
On perusal of the case record, I find that the case has
been pending since 3.12.2012 for filling rejoinder of the
workman. The workman by his conduct clearly appears to
be not interested to contest his case, which is related to an
issue about his superannuation w.e.f. 1.7.2006.
Hence, the case is closed as no Industrial dispute
existent; and accordingly it is passed an order/Award of
no dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2049.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119 of 1991½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@11@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2049.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119/
1991) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. CCL, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 02/
09/2013.
[No. L-20012/11/1991 - IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE No. 119 OF 1991.
Parties :
Vice President, C.C.L. Colliery Karmchari
Sangh, Toppa, Hazaribagh Vs. Project
Officer, Ara Colliery of M/s. C.C.L. Kuju,
Hazaribagh
APPEARANCES:
On behalf of the
workman/Union : Mr. Chandrika Prasad, Ld. Advocate
3
5460
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
On behalf of the
Management :
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated : Dhanbad, the 29th July, 2013.
AWARD
The Government 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-20012/11/91-IR (Coal-I).
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of Ara
Colliery of M/s. C.C.L., P.O. Kuju, Dist. Hazaribagh by
not allowing to resume duty to Sh. Jagnath Nayak, Wagon
Loader of Chainpur Siding Ara Colliery and not making
payment to his legal dues is justified? If not, to what relief
the workman concerned is entitled to?”
2. The case of the C.C.L. Colliery Karmchari Sangh,
Topa, Hazaribagh, for workman Jagnath Nayak is that the
workman was working as wagon loader at Chainpur Siding
at Ara Colliery, Kuju Area of the Central Coalfields Ltd.,
He is quite illiterate and Schedule Caste. On falling ill, he
reported to the Colliery Doctor, Ara Colliery Hospital who
after some days referred him to Central Hospital, New Saray
for his treatment, wherefrom after his treatment for a few
days he was referred to the C.C. Hospital, Gandhi Nagar,
Ranchi on 25th April, 1988, but again on his reference to
Pranava New Sewa Sadan, Sitgora (Jamshedpur),
Singhbhum (E), wherein he remained admitted under
Sl. No. 76 from 14.10.1988. After his return therefrom, as
per advice of the Doctor of Gandhi Nagar for his check up
on 28.2.1989, he remained admitted under the Doctor's
treatment upto 29.3.1989. After his reference to Gandhi
Nagar Hospital on 1.4.1989, the Doctor carefully checked
and gave him medicine for relief of the disease, and finally
found him fit for a light duty on 29.8.1989. When he went
with his sick Certificate to the management for resumption
of his duty but he was discriminately and illegally not
allowed to join his duty. Thus, he is entitled to joining his
duty with full back wages and all other consequential relief.
The management did not even agree to the conciliation
and arbitration.
3. No rejoinder could be filed on behalf of the
workman concerned, rather repeated the two same petitions
dt. 26.4.1995, 2.5.95 and third petition dt. 1.2.2006 filed
by petitioner Mohan Nayak for his substitution of deceased
workman Jagnath Nayak all along pending for its hearing
since long due to non-filing of the relevant documents by
the petitioner. A rejoinder of it filed by the O.P./
Management on 09.01.2008. After hearing both the parties
over it, the petitioner as the sole legal heir as an adopted
son of Late workman Nayak (Jagnath), who died on
18.12.1993 was allowed as a party to the reference. Though
an additional Written statement without his substitution
was earlier filed by the petitioner on 05.12.2005, it remained
unpressed on his behalf.
4. In a challenge to the maintainability of the
reference, the contra pleaded case of the O.P./Management
with categorical denials is that the Union has no locus standi
to raise the industrial dispute, as the workman was also not
a member of it. So it is not an industrial dispute as referred.
Workman Jagnath Nayak was employed as a Wagon Loader
at the Chainpur Railway Siding of the Ara Colliery of the
Management. His main duty was to load coal into Railway
Wagons as the Wagon Loader do in gangs as well as they
shovel coal into cane buckets carried by others. The
workman had fallen sick in April, 1988. He was provided
treatment at different Hospitals of the Management, and at
outside one. He was declared fit for light duty by the Central
Hospital of the Central Coalfields Ltd., where he was also
earlier treated. the 'light duty' meant not completely fit for
his original and normal duty. The employer instructed him
to be completely fit for the particular job he was employed
for, and not to claim for some other job on the ground of
his inability to do his original job, as there is no such light
duty nor light wages. The wages as defined under Sec. 2(rr)
of the Industrial Dispute Act and Sec. 2(vi) of the Payment
of Wages Act are payable to the workman, subject of
fulfillment of the express or implied terms of Employment
and the work done. As such the management could not
provide any light duty to the workman because the
management has a lot of surplus workers affecting its
financial capacity, so as per the provision of the NCWA
for Voluntary Retirement subject to an employment to one
of the dependants of the workman, the workman in state of
his disablement was given an opportunity to get a voluntary
retirement from serviceman to secure an employment for
his dependant, but he declined to avail of it. In such
circumstances, where the workman himself could not
perform his job nor his dependant could be provided an
employment according to the V.R.S. rules, the management
is not required to take any action as referred in the reference.
Therefore the workman was not entitled to any relief.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder his
categorically parawise denied all the allegations of the
Union/workman as baseless and frivolous.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the reference, WWI Mohan Nayak, as an
adopted son of the deceased workman Jagnath Nayak, the
Wagon Loader, has been examined on behalf of the Union
concerned. But in spite of the ample opportunity, no
management could examine on its behalf. Hence, it came
up for hearing final argument of both the parties.
Mr. C. Prasad, the Learned Advocate, for the
petitioner, submits that the most vital thing is that the
workman was working as Trammer (nowhere pleaded as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5461
Trammer) but due to his suffering from Leprosy followed
by T.B., he was firstly referred to the Central Hospital, Nai
Sarai, then to the C.C.L. Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, where
from to Sitagora, Jamshedpur, Dist. Singhbhum (E) where
he was kept from 28.2.1989 to 23.3.1989, but was referred
back to the C.C.L. Hospital, Gandhi Nagar, where he was
declared medically fit, so when he went to Ara Colliery to
resume his duty, submitting all his relevant documents, yet
the management disallowed him to resume his duty,
resulting in his sitting idle, as such he is entitled to his
wages and Medical Allowances. Further submitted on
behalf of the petitioner that since the workman died during
the pendency of the case, his adopted son petitioner be
provided the privilege to get an employment with all due
benefits. Further Mr. C. Prasad, Learned Counsel, for the
Union/petitioner submits that the death of the workman
would not abate the proceeding; and the benefit would go
in favour of the petitioner as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sri Rameshwar Manjhi
Vs. Sangramgarh Colliery 1994 (L&S), 521 (DB).
7. In the terms of the reference, the contention of
Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned Counsel for the O.P./
Management, is that admittedly, the workman was all along
sick, so refusal of the management to resume his duty was
not illegal, and that after substitution, the petitioner claims
for his employment which is quite beyond the terms of the
reference.
8. As per the statement of WWI Mohan Nayak, the
petitioner, as the adopted son of the deceased workman
Jagnath Nayak, his adopted father worked as a wagon
loader at Ara Colliery, Chainpur Siding, Kuju Area of M/s.
BCCL; he was illiterate and Schedule Caste; on falling sick,
his father in course of employment had reported to the
management; then the Colliery Doctor referred him to the
CCL Hospital, Naisarai for treatment. But at his no
recovery, he was referred to Gandhi Nagar, CCL Hospital,
Ranchi wherefrom the Pranabananda Seva Sadan, Sitgora,
Jamshedpur for his treatment where the Doctor reported
about the workman suffering from T.B., and Leprosy, as
per his original prescriptions issued by Gandhi Nagar
Hospital and Pranabananda Seva Sadan, Sidhgora,
Jamshedpur (Ext. W1 Series — Seven Sheets). After his
discharge from his recovery from the aforesaid Jamshedpur
based Hospital, his father as per his representation
(dt. 28.8.89, its photocopy Ext. W. 2) had represented to
the Project Officer, Ara Colliery, for his duty, but he was
not allowed to resume his duty nor any dues of his service
was paid to him; his father through the Union raised the
Industrial Dispute, but he expired in the year 1993
(Ext. W.3, the Medical Certificate of the cause of Death of
Jagarnath Nayak (PRW) by the C.C.L. dt. 18.12.1993) The
petititoner was adopted as a son of/by the deceased
workman in the year 1990. Admittedly his adopted father
(the workman) had both T.B. and Leprosy. Though the
petitioner denies, yet accepted the instruction of the
management to the workman to seek V.R.S. on that ground.
The petitioner's denial to disallow his adoptive father from
duty on the basis of the medically unfitness of his adoptive
father also refers to the reference of the workman's case by
the Dy. M.S. on 9.9.89 to the Medical Board for change of
job since his suffering from T.B. and Leprosy as evident
from the representation of the workman for his duty
(Ext. W.2).
In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that the argument
of Mr. C. Prasad, Ld. Counsel for the Union/petitioner
appears to be quite reasonable and the aforesaid verdict of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cited case holds good with
the present case at the point of its non-abatement for the
death of the workman during the trial of the case.
On consideration of the materials as produced by
the petitioner, it is found that since the workman had
undoubtedly T.B. and Leprosy, highly infectious diseases,
and at his alleged recovery, he was rightly referred on that
ground by the management to the Medical Board for change
of his job in view of his physical conditions, as joining of
his duty by a workman firstly inevitably presupposes his
medical examination for his medical fitness as per rule of
the management. But meanwhile, the workman died.
In result, it is, in terms of the reference, hereby:
ORDERED
That the Award is and the same be passed that the
action of the management of Ara Colliery of C.C.L. P.O.
Kuju, Hazaribagh, by not allowing the workman Jagnath
Nayak, Wagon Loader of Chainpur Siding, Ara Colliery
was quite justified at the relevant time, but not making
payment of his legal dues was/is unjustified. Since the
workman was died during the pendency of the references,
the petitioner Mohan Nayak, the adopted son of the
deceased workman is entitled to his (adoptive father's) legal
dues, Gratuity, C.P.F. etc. including Medical Allowance
for the relevant period of his illness as well as to the
employment of the petitioner but subject to the rules of the
C.C.L. Company concerned, if the workman died premature
to his retirement.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2050.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2012-
13½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks
izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@62@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
5462
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2050.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2012-
13) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Padampur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/62/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL,
NAGPUR
No. CGIT/12/2012-13
05
Advocate for the management is present.
08.04.2013
No statement of claim is filed by the
petitioner even if a last chance was given
to the petitioner for the same on the previous
date.
Petitioner is absent on call. None appears
on behalf of the petitioner. No step of any
nature is taken on behalf of the petitioner. It
appears from record that the petitioner is
not interested to proceed with the case.
Hence, the case is closed. Put up later on
for award.
Later
Party No. 1 :
The Sub-Area Manager,
08.04.2013
Padmapur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL,
Post-Padmapur,
Distt:- Chandrapur,
Maharashtra
V/s
Party No. 2 : The Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Congress,
Vijay Bhawan,
Vithal Mandir Ward,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 8th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Ramayya
Laxamayya Racchawar, for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-22012/62/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 24.07.2012, for
adjudication with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of
Padmapur Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapur
Area of Western Coalfields Ltd., in denying
employment to Shri Pawankumar the dependent
son of Shri Ramayya Laxamayya Racchawar, Ex-
employee who retired on 31-05-2011 after putting
in 35 years service, which is contrary to the
provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is legal and
justified? To what relief is the workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and the case was fixed to 16.10.2012 for filing
of statement of claim alongwith documents, list of reliance
and witnesses. On 16.10.2012, the management of WCL
appeared through their advocate. Though the service of
notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement due
was sufficient on the petitioner, neither the petitioner
appeared in the case nor filed any statement of claim. In
the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 03.01.2013
for filing of statement of claim. To give a chance to the
petitioner to file the statement of claim, the case was
adjourned from 03.01.2013 to 18.02.2013. To give a last
chance to the petitioner to file the statement of claim, the
case was adjourned to 08.04.2013 from 18.02.2013.
On 08.04.2013 advocate for the management was
present. The petitioner did not appear on repeated calls.
No statement of claim was also filed. As it appeared from
the record that the petitioner was not interested to proceed
with the case, the case was closed and posted for passing
of award.
3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the
petitioner, in spite of giving sufficient scope for the same,
it is necessary to pass a "no dispute" award. Hence, it is
ordered:—
ORDER
The reference be treated as "No dispute" award. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2051.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2012&13½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@63@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5463
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2051.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2012-
13) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Padampur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/63/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
05
Advocate for the management is present.
08.04.2013
No statement of claim is filed by the
petitioner even if a last chance was given
to the petitioner for the same on the previous
date.
Petitioner is absent on call. None appears
on behalf of the petitioner. No step of any
nature is taken on behalf of the petitioner.
It appears from record that the petitioner is
not interested to proceed with the case.
Hence, the case is closed. Put up later on
for award.
Later
Party No. 1 :
The Sub-Area Manager,
08.04.2013
Padmapur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL,
Post-Padmapur,
Distt:- Chandrapur,
Maharashtra
V/s
Party No. 2 : The Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Congress, Vijay Bhawan,
Vithal Mandir Ward,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 8th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Rustam
Bhikaji Shirsat, , for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
63/2012-IR(CM-II) dated 24.07.2012, for adjudication with
the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of
Padmapur Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapur
Area of Western Coalfields Ltd., in denying
employment to Shri Sandeep the dependent son
of Shri Rustam Bhikaji Shirsat, Tyndle Jamadar
who has already put in 35 years service, which is
contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA
is legal and justified? To what relief is the
workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and the case was fixed to 16.10.2012 for filing
of statement of claim alongwith documents, list of reliance
and witnesses. On 16.10.2012, the management of WCL
appeared through their advocate. Though the service of
notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement due
was sufficient on the petitioner, neither the petitioner
appeared in the case nor filed any statement of claim. In
the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to
03.01.2013 for filing of statement of claim. To give a
chance to the petitioner to file the statement of claim, the
case was adjourned from 03.01.2013 to 18.02.2013. To
give a last chance to the petitioner to file the statement of
claim, the case was adjourned to 08.04.2013 from
18.02.2013.
On 08.04.2013 advocate for the management was
present. The petitioner did not appear on repeated calls.
No statement of claim was also filed. As it appeared from
the record that the petitioner was not interested to proceed
with the case, the case was closed and posted for passing
of award.
3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the
petitioner, in spite of giving sufficient scope for the same,
it is necessary to pass a "no dispute" award. Hence, it is
ordered:—
ORDER
The reference be treated as "No dispute" award. The
petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2052.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxdh
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2012&13½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&22012@71@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
5464
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2052.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industries Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2012-
13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Padmapur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No L-22012/71/2012-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
No. CGIT/NGP/14/2012-13
05
Advocate for the management is present.
08.04.2013
No statement of claim is filed by the
petitioner even if a last chance was given
to the petitioner for the same on the previous
date.
Petitioner is absent on call. None appears
on behalf of the petitioner. No step of any
nature is taken on behalf of the petitioner. It
appears from record that the petitioner is
not interested to proceed with the case.
Hence, the case is closed. Put up later on
for award.
Party No. 1:
The Sub-Area Manager,
Padmapur O/c Mines of
Chandrapur Area of WCL.,
Post-Padmapur,
Distt:-Chandrapur,
Maharashtra
V/s.
Party No. 2 :
The Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Congress, Vijay Bhawan,
Vithal Mandir Ward,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 8th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the emlpoyers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Narayan Adku
Sontakke, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/71/
2012-IR(CM-II) dated 24.07.2012, for adjudication with the
following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of
Padmapur Open Cast Sub Area of Chandrapur
Area of Western Coalfields Ltd., in denying
employment to Shri Mahendra the dependent son
of Shri Narayan Adku Sontakke, Electrician who
has already put in 35 years service, which is
contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA
is legal and justified? To what relief is the
workman is entitiled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and the case was fixed to 16.10.2012 for filing
of statement of claim alongwith documents, list of reliance
and witnesses. On 16.10.2012, the management of WCL
appeared through their advocate. Though the service of
notice sent by registered post with acknowledgement due
was sufficient on the petitioner, neither the petitioner
appeared in the case nor filed any statement of claim. In
the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to
03.01.2013 for filing of statement of claim. To give a
chance to the petitioner to file the statement of claim, the
case was adjourned from 03.01.2013 to 18.02.2013. To
give a last chance to the petitioner to file the statement of
claim, the case was adjourned to 08.04.2013 from
18.02.2013.
On 08.04.2013 advocate for the management was
present. The petitioner did not appear on repeated calls.
No statement of claim was also filed. As it appeared from
the record that the petitioner was not interested to proceed
with the case, the case was closed and posted for passing
of award.
3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the
petitioner, in spite of giving sufficient scope for the same,
it is necessary to pass a "no dispute" award. Hence, it is
ordered:—
ORDER
The reference be treated as "No dispute" award. The
petitioner is not entitiled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2053.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxdh
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@248@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II)]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5465
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2053.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industries Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Dhoptala Sub Area of Balarpur
Area of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/248/2007-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/15/2008
Dated:12.4.2013
Party No. 1 :
The Sub Area Manager,
Dhoptala O/c Sub Area,
Ballarpur Area of WCL,
Post-Sasti, Tah. Rajura,
Chandrapur (M.S.)
Versus
Party No. 2 :
The Working President,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,
Vithal Mandir Ward, Chandrapur (M.S.).
AWARD
(Dated: 12th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Smt. Satyamma,
for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/248/2007-
IR(CM-II) dated 09.05.2008, with the following
schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of M/s.
WCL in not allowing Smt. Satyamma the benefit
of special voluntary retirement scheme for females
is legal & justified? To what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the applicant, Shri Aleti
Yugender, ("the applicant" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short)
filed their written statement.
The case of the applicant as stated in the statement
of claim is that his mother, Smt. Satyamma Aleti ("the
workman" in short) is in the service of Party No. 1 as a
sweeper at Dhoptala colliery for the last more than 20 years
and a Special Female Retirement Scheme, 2001 ("SFRC" in
short) was introduced by Party No. 1 for providing
employment to the dependant of the female workers with
retirement benefits and under the said scheme, he was
selected for employment as the son of the workman along
with five others and out of the six persons selected for such
employment, except himself, the rest five persons were
given employment and as such, the dispute was raised
before the ALC, Chandrapur for conciliation, but as the
conciliation failed, failure report was submitted to the
Central Government by the ALC. The further case of the
applicant is that he was selected in the interview conducted
by Party No. 1, but still then, he was not provided with the
job, even though the other five candidates were provided
with the job and therefore great injustice was caused to
him and therefore, it is necessary to retire his mother, Smt.
Satyamma from service with retirement benefits and to
provide him employment as a general mazdoor in place of
his mother.
3. In their written statement, Party No. 1 have pleaded
inter-alia neither the name of the person, who has signed
the statement of claim has been mentioned nor there appears
and verification of the claim made by the person in the
statement of claim and therefore the statement of claim is
not tenable and the disputant union has not filed any
document establishing that the workman is a member of their
union and there is no testimony to demonstrate that the
present dispute has been duly espoused, supported and
championed by the union and in absence of the same, it
cannot constitute as a valid industrial dispute as contemplated
under section 2(k) of the Act. The further case of Party No. 1
is that the plain reading of the term of reference shows that
the controversy involved in the present reference is regarding
the special voluntary retirement scheme and the above subject
does not fail with the ambit of schedules II and III of the Act
and on that ground also, the reference is not maintainable in
law. The further case of Party No. 1 is that to facilitate the
female employees working in WCL to relinquish job, a
special voluntary scheme only for female employees was
introduced by the management of WCL on adhoc basis
strictly for limited period, with the terms and conditions
stipulated there in and the special scheme of VRS of female
employees came to be introduced vide Coal India Ltd.
circular dated 2nd August, 2002 followed by the circular of
WCL and Smt. Satyamma Aleti, who is presently working
at Dhoptala Mines applied under the said scheme and her
application was duly considered and approved by the
management, subject to the condition that her son, Shri
Yogendra would appear before and committee at the
Headquarters on 09.03.2004 at 10.30 AM and intimation to
the said effect was given by Suptd.(M)/Manager, Dhoptala
O C Mines vide letter No. 506 dated 27/28.02.2004 to
Shri Satyamma and she had received the said letter, but her
son did not appear before the committee even though two
5466
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
opportunities were given and later on, Satyamma informed
that as her son was sick, he could not able to appear before
the committee and the case of Smt. Satyamma Aleti went by
default, which would not be extended further and it was on
16.04.2005, much after the expiry of the scheme, for the
first time Smt. Satyamma Aleti enquired into the fate of her
application for VRS and Smt. Satyamma was all along in
employment and she is in service till today and the approval
of the application of Smt. Satyamma was valid for 45 days,
where after, it ceased to operate and as the conditions required
to be fulfilled were not fulfilled, the benefit of the special
VRS could not be given to Smt. Satyamma.
4. The applicant has examined himself as a witness in
support of his claim, besides placing reliance on the
documentary evidence. The evidence of the applicant is on
affidavit. In his evidence, the applicant has reiterated the
facts mentioned in the statement of claim. However, in the
cross-examination, the applicant has admitted that his mother,
Smt. Satyamma Aleti is still working at Dhoptala, WCL and
the application filed by his mother for voluntary retirement
was rejected by the WCL authority and the scheme of
voluntary retirement for women workman was for a limited
period and as within the said period, he was not selected for
appointment, he was not given any employment.
5. One Shri Sashikanta Rameshwar Tupparwar has
been examined as a witness on behalf of Party No. 1. In his
examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, this witness
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement.
In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that as the
applicant did not appear with his mother before the Board,
he was not given the employment.
6. At the time of argument, the learned advocates for
the parties reiterated the stands taken by the parties in their
respective pleadings. It was submitted by the learned
advocate for the applicant that Party No. 1 illegally did not
give employment to the applicant. Learned advocate for
the Party No. 1 submitted that as the applicant did not
appear before the committee and failed to fulfill the
conditions within the stipulated time, he was not given the
employment.
7. In this case, all most all the facts are admitted. It
is clear from the materials on record and the own admission
of the applicant that the scheme of VRS for female workman
was for a limited period and within the said period, the
workman was not selected for appointment and he did not
appear before the committee at the headquarters at Nagpur,
as required and as such, he was not given the employment
and the mother of the applicant, Smt. Satyamma has been
in continuous service of Party No. 1. From the materials
on record and the discussions made above, it is found that
no illegality was committeed by the Party No. 1 in not
allowing the benefits of special voluntary retirement scheme
for females to Smt. Satyamma. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s. WCL is not
allowing Smt. Satyamma the benefit of special voluntary
retirement scheme for females is legal and justified. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2054.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lsUVªy
ekbfuax] Iyku ,.M fMtkbfuax bULVhV~;wV ds izca/kra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@13@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2054.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2008)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Mining, Planning and
Design Instt. Ltd., and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/13/2008-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/18/2008
Date: 12.04.2013
Party No. 1(a) :
The Regional Director, Central Mining,
Planning and Design Instt. Ltd.,
Jaripatka, Nagpur.
1(b) :
The Chairman, Central Mining, Planning
& Designing Instt. Ltd., Gondwana
Place, Kankee Road, Ranchi-834008.
1(c) :
The Deputy Peronel Manager, Central
Mining, Planning & Disigning Instt.
Ltd., Jaripatka, Nagpur.
V/s
Party No. 2
:
Shri Maroti Abhinan Shende,
At Bhidoni, Post: Chavarni,
Tehsil Sansar, Distt. Chhindwara,
Chhindwara (M.P.).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5467
AWARD
(Dated: 12th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Maroti, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/13/2008-IR
(CM-II) dated 03.06.2008, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the alleged action of the management
of M/s. Central Mining, Planning & Designing
Institute in superannuating Shri Maroti
prematurely is legal and justified? To what relief
is the workman entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Maroti,
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of CMPDI, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed
the written statement.
The case of the workman is that he was appointed as
a Security Guard w.e.f. 03.02.1969 by Party No. 1 and his
appointment was of a permanent nature and Party No. 1
(b) had also issued a certificate dated 08.10.1987 in that
respect in his favour and he was also issued with an identity
card and in the said identity card, his date of birth had
been mentioned as 12th March, 1942 and he was born in
village Vairagad in the District of Chhindwara and he had
taken education upto 2nd standard and at the time of joining
the service, he had submitted the birth certificate issued by
the Grampanchayat of village Vairagad, showing his date
of birth as 12.03.1942 and on the basis of the birth
certificate, his date of birth was mentioned as 12.03.1942
in the 'B' form and identity card.
The further case of the workman is that initially, the
age of retirement of the employees of his cadre was 59
years, but the age of retirement was enhanced to 60 years
as per order dated 27/28.10.1975 issued by the Deputy
Superintendent of the collieries, Sillewara Project and in
view of such order, he ought to have been retired at the age
of 60 years, but Party No. 1 made him retired from service
w.e.f. 15.01.1993, by order dated 14.01.1993, i.e. nine years
prior to the age of retirement and due to such premature
retirement, he lost his salary for the period of nine years
amounting to Rs. 3,24,000 and being aggrieved by such
action, he issued a legal notice to the Party No. 1, but Party
No. 1 neither gave any reply to the said notice nor
considered his claim, so he filed U.L.P.C. No. 244/93 before
the Second Labour Court, Nagpur and on 28.01.2002, due
to want of jurisdiction, the Second Labour Court dismissed
the complaint, and thereafter, he filed O.A. No. 2109/2002
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, but by order
dated 21.01.2003, he was allowed to withdraw the application
by the CAT with the liberty to approach the Competent
Authority within a period of two weeks. The workman has
further pleaded that then he raised the industrial dispute
before the ALC (Central), Nagpur vide proceedings No.
ALCN-1/55(8)/2003, but the ALC dismissed the complaint
on merit, so he filed Writ Petition No. 2834/2004 before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and the Hon'ble
High Court directed the ALC to submit failue report to the
Central Government and accordingly, the ALC submitted
the failure report and the Government in its turn, referred
the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The workman has prayed to direct the Party No. 1 to
pay him the salary of nine years with interest at the rate of
18% per annum and all consequential monetary benefits.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the workman was retired from
service on 15.01.1993 and received all retirement benefits
and it is well settled that no person can be permitted to
seek correction of his date of birth at the fag end of the
service, but in this case, the workman has raised the dispute
regarding his date of birth after his retirement and as such,
the claim is liable to be rejected summarily. The further
case of Party No. 1 is that the claim of the workman is hit
by the law of estoppels, as because, after superannuation,
he accepted all the retirement dues without any protest and
as such, he is stopped from challenging his superannuation.
It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the claim of the
workman suffers from inordinate delay and latches and he
was not at all diligent in filing the case in the proper court
unde the proper provisions of law and on the ground of
delay and latches also, the claim of the workman is liable
to be rejected.
It is further pleaded by Party No. 1 that identity cards
are filled in either by the employees themselves or by the
staff on the basis of the instructions given by the concerned
employee and the contents of the identity card are only for
the purpose of identity of the concerned employee and the
said contents do not from part of the statutory service
records and they are not aware as to who, how and when
the date of birth of the workman in the identity card came
to be mentioned as 12.03.1942 and the identity card is not
a statutory document and it cannot be relied upon and the
applicant, during his entire service tenure had never
informed them that he had studied up to 2nd standard and
that he does posses a birth certificate and he had not
produced any such certificate at the time of joining his
services, otherwise it would have been available in his
service record and as no certificate of birth or school leaving
certificate was produced by the workman at the time of his
joining the service, his age on the basis of his physical
appearance and medical examination came to be recorded
as 45 years as on 20.12.1976 and the said fact was
acknowledged by the workman by signing the form of Coal
5468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mines Family Provident Scheme, 1971 and as such, the
workman cannot be permitted to challenge the same after
superannuation and the workman was retired with effect
from 15.01.1993, after attaining the age of superannuation
i.e. 60 years and the pension scheme came into existence
in the year 1994 and as such, he is not entitled for the same
and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the workman that
he is virtually illiterate and as such, he received the
retirement dues without protest and there is no inordinate
delay and latches and due to approaching wrong forum,
there was delay in filing the claim and such delay was not
due to his fault and in 1974, some officers from Ranchi
came to take photographs of himself and 25 others and
those officers directed him to produce proof regarding his
date of birth and he produced the certificate issued by the
Gram Panchayat, Vairagad and the certificate issued by
the Tehasildar, Saunser, where his date of birth was
mentioned as 12.03.1942 and on the basis of the photograph
taken by the officers and the relevant documents, the Party
No. 1 prepared his identity card and the said documents is
a statutory document and his age was not determined as 45
years in 1976 on the basis of his physical appearance and
medical examination and only to deprive him from the
benefits of the pension scheme, the Party No. 1 made him
retired from services prematurely at the age of 51 years on
15.1.1993 and he is entitled for the benefits as claimed by
him.
5. Besides placing reliance on the documentary
evidence, the workman has examined himself as a witness.
In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, the
workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement
of claim and rejoinder. He has also proved the identity card,
copies of his two representations made to Party
No. 1 dated 16.01.1993 and 05.02.1993 and his voter
identity card as Exts. W-I to W-IV respectively.
In his cross-examination, the workman demolishing
his own claim has stated that he did not read in any school
and he was born in village Bhidoni, which is under Chavarni
Panchayat in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he had not
filed any certificate granted by the Panchayat regarding
his date of birth and he does not have any such certificate
in his possession and he does not have any proof that he
had submitted the Panchayat certificate before the authority
of CMPDI and he had signed the Coal Mines Provident
Fund declaration and he has received some dues from the
CMPF in terms of the said declaration.
6. No oral evidence was adduced by Party No. 1.
However, Party No. 1 placed reliance on documentary
evidence.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman joined
in service as a Security Guard on 03.02.1969 and in 1974,
he had produced the copy of the birth certificate issued by
the Gram Panchayat and the certificate issued by the
Tehasildar, sounser, in which his date of birth was
mentioned as 12.03.1942, before the officers, who had
come from Ranchi to take the photograph of the workman
and on the basis of such documents, the identity card Ext.
W-I, issued to the workman was prepared, mentioning the
date of his birth as 12.03.1942 and in the documents filed
by the Party No. 1, the date of birth of the workman has
not been mentioned and only to retire the workman
prematurely, the date of birth was not mentioned, but his
age "45 years" was mentioned and as the date of birth of
the workman is 12.03.1942, he was to retire in 2002 on
attaining the age of 60 years, but due to the premature
retirement on 15.01.1993, the workman lost nine years of
service and as such, he is entitled for the salary of nine
years and the benefits of pension, as the pension scheme
came into force in the year, 1994.
8. Party No. 1 did not advance any argument.
9. On perusal of the record including the pleadings
of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence, it is
found that the workman has not come to the Tribunal with
clear hands. In his statement of claim, the workman has
mentioned that he belongs to village Vairigad (or Wairgad,
as mentioned at some places in statement of claim).
Where as in his cross-examination, he has stated
that he was born in village, Bhidoni, which is under Chavarni
Panchayat. The voter identity card, Ext. W-IV produced by
the workman also shows that he belongs to village
Bhiwdoni under Sounsur Tahasil of Chhindwada district
(M.P.). In the statement of claim, the workman has mentioned
that he studied up to standard II, but in his cross-
examination, he has categorically admitted that he did not
read in any school. It is necessary to mention here that in
the statement of claim, the workman has not mentioned the
name of the school where he studied upto Standard II and
the name of the panchayat under which, village Vairagad
@ Wairgad is situated. In the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that he produced the certificate
issued by the Panchayat at the time of his joining the
service, but contradicting such statement, in his rejoinder,
the workman has mentioned that he produced the certificate
issued by the Panchayat and so also the certificate issued
by the Tahasildar, Sounsur in the year 1974, before the
officers, who had come from Ranchi office to take his
photograph and on the basis of such documents, his identity
card was prepared and his date of birth was mentioned as
12.03.1942. The workman has njot produced either the
certificate granted by the Panchayat or the certificate issued
by the Tahasildar, Sounsur or even the school leaving
certificate in support of his claim that his date of birth is
12.03.1942. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that he has not filed any certificate granted by the
Panchayat and he does not have such a certificate in his
possession. From the materials on record, it is found that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5469
untrue statements, as mentioned above have been made
by the workman only to suit his claim.
10. The most significant fact as found from the record
is that the workman neither in the statement of claim nor in
his evidence on affidavit has claimed that he was born on
12.03.1942 or that his real date of birth is 12.03.1942. His
claim is that in the certificate granted by the Panchayat,
his date of birth was mentioned as 12.03.1942. If for the
sake of argument, it is held that the date of birth of the
workman is 12.03.1942, then he was below 18 years of
age on 03.02.1969, i.e. the date of his appointment. It is
never the case of the workman that he got the appointment
and joined service on 03.02.1969, even though he was a
minor at that time. Such facts clearly show that the claim
of the workman is not true.
11. The workman has produced Ext. W-IV, the voter
identity card in support of his claim. On persual of Ext W-
IV, it is found that in the same his age has been mentioned
as 54 years as on 01.01.1995. On calculation, by taking
the age mentioned in Ext. W-IV, the date of birth of the
workman comes to 01.01.1941 and not 12.03.1942 as
claimed by him.
12. On the other hand, the two documents filed by
the Party No. 1, show that the age of the workman was
45 years as on 20.12.1976. The workman has admitted
those two documents bear his signatures. The genuineness
of the said two documents has not been disputed by the
workman. So, if the workman was 45 years of age on
20.12.1976, then his year of birth is 1931. Admittedly, the
workman was retired from service on 15.01.1993. So, on
calculation, it is found that on the date of retirement, the
workman had already attained the age of superannuation
i.e. 60 years.
From the discussions made above and the materials
on record, it is found that the workman was rightly retired
from services on 15.01.1993 by the Party No. 1. Hence it
is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of M/s Central Mining,
Planning and Designing Institute in superannuating Shri
Maroti is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled
to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2055.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2012&13½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@90@1992&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2055.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2012-
13) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Western Coalfields Ltd.
Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/90/1992-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/29/2012-13
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Kamptee Sub Area of WCL,
Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. (M.S.)
V/s
Party No. 2 :
Shri Bhutan Ramakant,
Inder Colliery of WCL,
Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Bhutan
Ramakant, to CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/90/92-IR (CM-II)
dated 26.06.1992, with the following schedule:—
”Whether the action of the management of
Kamptee Colliery of WCL, in terminating the
services of Shri Bhutan Ramakant w.e.f
03.07.1990 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief is the concerned workman is entitled?”
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed to
file their respective statement of claim and written statement,
in response to which, the workman, Shri Bhutan Ramakant,
5470
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
("the workman" in short) filed the statement of claim and
the management of WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed the
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he had been working with Party
No. 1 as a general mazdoor at Kamptee colliery since 1979
and he was served with the charge sheet dated 01.02.1990,
wherein false allegation of committing theft of rollers in
the night of 30.01.1990 was made against him and he
submitted his reply to the said charge sheet on 26.02.1990,
denying the charges levelled against him and such rollers
were never found in his possession and during the domestic
enquiry, the name of the two persons alleged to be with
him at the time of the commission of the alleged theft were
not disclosed and no charge sheet was submitted against
any co-worker alongwith him and the contents of the charge
sheet is vague and was not bonafide and the date and time
of commission of the alleged theft of ten rollers were not
mentioned in the charge sheet and according to the
allegations, he was suspected to have committed the theft
of the rollers on 30.01.1990 and after his duty was over on
30.01.1990 in the second shift, he handed over the charge
to shri Vinod, the guard of the third shift and while he was
passing the main check post, he was asked by Shri Telkar
to perform duty in the third shift also, as one person was
required for performing the duty and while he was
performing duty in the third shift, Shri Ramsurendra, a
guard of third shift reported about the theft of rollers at the
main check post and without any preliminary enquiry, false
allegation of commission of the theft was made against
him with malafide intention and in the domestic enquiry,
he was not given sufficient opportunity to plead his case
and his witnesses were not allwed to be examined and the
enquiry was held without following the principles of natural
justice and the enquiry is unjustified, illegal and contrary
to law.
It is further pleaded by the workman that he was
provided work from 22.03.1990 to 02.07.1990, during the
pendency of the enquiry, which clearly indicates that he
was not involved in commission of major misconduct and
he was served with the termination order dated 03.07.1990,
on the basis of the illegal domestic inquiry and as such, he
is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and
full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was appointed as a
general mazdoor at Inder colliery, Kamptee vide order dated
21.08.1978 and on 30.01.1990, between 2.30 A.M. to 3.00
A.M., the workman was caught red handed, while
committing in the coal handling plant and a complaint was
received from the security officer regarding attempt to
commit theft by the workman and as such, charge sheet
dated 02.02.1990 was submitted against him and the
workman submitted his reply on 26.02.1990 and as his reply
was found unsatisfactory, by order dated 06.03.1990,
Shri L. George, Personnel Officer was appointed as the
enquiry officer to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry
into the charges levelled against him and the workman
attended the enquiry with his coworker and their witnesses
were examined in presence of the workman and were cross-
examined by the workman and his co-worker and the
enquiry proceedings continued from time to time on various
dates and after closure of the evidence from their side, the
workman was given opportunity to produce his defence
evidence and the workman gave his own statement and
declined to examine any other witness and thereafter, the
enquiry officer closed the proceedings and gave his findings
holding the workman guilty of the charges levelled against
him and on the basis of the findings of guilt by the enquiry
officer and after due approval of the competent authority,
by order dated 03.07.1990, punishment of dismissal from
services was imposed against him and the workman was
given full opportunity to defend himself and the enquiry
was conducted as per the principles of natural justice and
the enquiry was legal and proper and the punishment
imposed is just and proper and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that, in this
reference, award had been passed on 29.12.1996 holding
the action of the management in terminating the services
of the workman as legal and justified. The workman had
filed an application for review of the award, but the said
application was rejected by order dated 13.02.2001. The
workman challenged the award dated 29.12.1995, before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur in writ petition No. 3619 of 2001 and the
Hon'ble High Court by order dated 25.09.2012 was pleased
to quash and set aside the award and to remand the case
for fresh decision in accordance with law.
5. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention
that as per orders dated 07.03.2013, the departmental
enquiry conducted against the workman was held to be
legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of
natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that there are various
discrepancies in the charges framed against the workman
and in the evidence of witnesses examined by the
management and the enquiry officer has relief upon the
evidence of the witness, P.W. 4-Manohar Janba to hold the
charges to have been proved against the workman, but the
said witness had never told that the rollers were stolen by
the workman and the workman was on duty in the second
shift till 12.45 hrs in the night, where after, he handed over
the charge to security guard, Shri Vinod and at 12.15 hrs.
when the witness, Manohar Janba checked the belt, he
found the alleged theft of motors was already taken place,
so the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse, illegal
and also bad in law and contrary to the evidence on record.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5471
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the workman that there was no police report or complaint
against the workman in regard to the alleged theft dated
30.01.1990 and the workman was falsely implicated and
in absence of any police complaint, spot panchnama and
seizure, the enquiry officer ought to have concluded that
there was actually no theft on 30.01.1990 and hence, the
conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer regarding the
involvement of the workman in the alleged theft is perverse
and illegal.
The leanred advocate for the workman during the
course of argument, drew the attention of the Tribunal to
the different discrepancies in the evidence of the six
witnesses examined by Party No. 1 in the departmental
enquiry and to the fact that the star witness, who was the
main complaint, Shri Ram Surendra was not examined by
the management and that the enquiry officer did not take
such important facts into consideration while holding the
workman guilty of the charges and as such, the findings of
the enquiry officer are perverse and erroneous and though
the management entirely failed to establish the charges,
the enquiry officer mechanically and arbitrarily gave the
finding that all the charges have been proved and the said
findings are perverse.
It was submitted by the learned advocate for the
workman that the management while imposing the
punishment did not consider the previous clean and
unblemished record of the workman and therefore, the
punishment of dismissal was unwarranted and the same is
shockingly disproportionate and the same is liable to be
quashed and set aside and the workman since the date of
his dismissal is unemployed and therefore, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with full back wages.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that in the statement of claim
there is no challenge to the findings recorded by the enquiry
officer, so there is no need to consider the submissions of
the workman on the point of the perversity of findings
recorded by the enquiry officer. It was also submitted by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that as per order
dated 07.03.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman has been held to be legal, proper and
in accordance with the principles of natural justice and in
the depatmental enquiry, eye witnesses, who had caught
the workman red handed while committing theft of the
rollers were examined and the said witnesses confirmed
the fact that the workman was caught red handed while
committing theft of the rollers and though the workman
tried to make out a case that he was asked by shri Telkar to
continue in third shift due to shortage of man power, he
failed to prove the same and the findings recorded by the
enquiry officer are not perverse. It was also submitted that
the workman was terminated from services on 03.07.1990
i.e. about 23 years back and it is not expected that the
workman was not gainfully employed and the workman
has neither pleaded not proved that he was not gainfully
employed during all these years and hence the question of
granting back wages does not arise and the reference is
liable to be answered in negative against the workman.
8. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think it
apropos to mention the charges levelled against the
workman and the allegations on the basis of which such
charges were levelled.
The English translation of the allegations as
mentioned in the charge sheet is as follows:—
“On 30.01.1990, in between 2.30 to 3.00 AM,
two persons came to C.H.P.-2 to commit theft of
roller and they were seen by the fitter, helper and
the operator working in the night shift and when
they went to catch hold of them, they found you
taking out the roller at the spot and the second
person to have run away. Previously, when the
belt had been checked, ten rollers had been found
missing, about which, Shri Ramsurendra
Rajmangal had submitted a report to Shri Telkar
after the end of the second shift.
Your duty was from 04.00 PM to 12.00 AM, but at
2.30 AM after entering in to the area your were
moving there in order to commit theft. It was clear
that you had committed theft of the ten rollers
which were missing and you were caught red
handed, while trying to take away more rollers.
Your hands were soiled with sand and coal dust
and you also made altercation with Shri Manohar
Janebji, operator and when Shri Kadu R.K. started
making enquiry, you picked up quarrel with him
and you bacame discourteous and started talking
"ulta sidha". You also threatened to assault the
belt fitter, helper and operator present there. It
was clear from you above behaviours that after
your duty hours were over, with the intention to
commit theft, you remained in the premises and
with the help of an associate continued to commit
theft of the rollers. After committing theft of ten
rollers easily, when you wer taking away the
rollers again, you were caught red handed.
Your above acts amount to commission of
misconducts under the different clauses of the
certified permanent standing order.”
The charges levelled against the workman are as
follows:—
17(i) (1) Theft, fraud or dishnoesty in connection with
the employer's business or property.
17(i) (3) willful in sub-ordination or disobedience,
whether along or in-conjunction with another
or others, of any lawful or reasonable order
of a superior.
5472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17. (i) (9) Causing willful damage to work in progress
or to the property of the employer.
17 (i) (17) Any breach of the Mines Act, 1952 or any
other Act or any rules, regulations or bye-laws
there under, or of any standing orders.
17 (i) (18) Threatening, Abusing or assaulting any
superior or co- worker.
17 (i) (20) Preaching of or inciting to violence.
17 (i) (32) Roaming without any reasonable cause and
or causing obstruction in the work of other
employees on work.
9. It is also necessary to mention here that it is well
settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions
that interference in the findings in a disciplinary
proceedings is permissible only when there is no material
for the said conclusion and that on the materials, the
conclusion cannout be that of a reasonable man.
So, keeping in view the settled principles as
mentioned above, now, the present case in hand is to be
considered.
10. On perusal of the allegations and charges levelled
against the workman in the charge sheet submitted against
him, it is found that the allegations prima facie do not
constitute any misconduct under clauses 17 (i) (3), 17 (i)
(9), 17 (i) (17), 17 (i) (20) and 17 (i) (32) of Standing
Order. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the Party
No. 1 in the departmental enquiry against the workman, it
is found that there is no iota evidence in support of the
charges under the above said clauses and so also in respect
of the charge under clause 17 (i) 19 of the Standing Order.
When there is no evidence at all on record of the
departmental enquiry in support of the charges under
clauses 17 (i) (3), 17 (i) (9), 17 (i) (17), 17 (i) (19), 17 (i)
(20) and 17 (i) (32) of the Standing Order, the findings of
the enquiry officer that charges under the said clauses have
been proved against the workman are perverse.
11. So far the charge under clause 17(i) (1) of the
Standing Order i.e. commission of theft of employer's
property is concerned, on perusal of the materials in the
record of the enquiry, it is found that the findings of the
enquiry officer in that respect is against the evidence on
record. There were two reports in regard to the theft, one
submitted by Shri A.V. Salankar, Fitter to the Engineer,
Inder colliery on 31.01.1990 and the other by Shri B.K.
Mishra to the Mines Manager, Inder colliery on 31.01. 1990,
which were the earliest version of the management about
the occurrence. According to the report submitted by Shri
A.V. Salankar, which has also been signed by
Shri Manohar Zanbeji and Pundilik Keshavrao (MWs 4
and 5 in the departmental enquiry) and others, chowkidar,
Ram surendra when checked the belt at 11.50 PM on
30.01.1990, found ten rollers missing from the belt. There is
nothing in the said report as to when and how the said
rollers were taken away from the belt and as to who had
taken away the same. The only allegation in the said report
was that the workman was found with another man at 2.
A.M. near the place of alleged occurrence. There is nothing
in the said report that the workman was caught red handed
while committing theft of the roller or while trying to
remove the roller from the belt.
Though six witnesses were examined by Party No. 1
in the departmental enquiry against the workman, there is
nothing in the evidence of the MWs 1, 2, 3 and 6 against
the workman. So far the evidence of MWs 4 and 5 is
concerned, the same is against the contents of the first
report submitted by MWs 4 and 5 alongwith Shri A.V.
Salankar and others. It is found from the materials on record
of the enquiry that Party No. 1 also failed to prove that the
workman committed theft of the rollers. As the findings of
the enquiry officer in regard to the charge under clause
17(i) (1) of the Standing Order is against the evidence on
record, the same is also held to be perverse.
12. As the findings of the enquiry officer are held to
be perverse, the punishment imposed against the workman
basing on such perverse findings cannot be sustained and
as such, the punishment of termination of the services of
the workman is set aside.
13. Now, the question remains for consideration is
as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. In view
of the findings as given above, the workan is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity. So far the back
wages is concerned, taking into view the facts and
circumstances of the case, I think that payment of 50% of
back wages from the date of termination will meet the ends
of justice in this case. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Kamptee Colliery
of WCL, in terminating the services of Shri Bhutan
Ramakant w.e.f. 03.07.1990 is illegal and unjustified. The
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity. The workman is entitled to get 50% of the back
wages from the date of his termination till the date of his
reinstatement. The Party No. 1 is directed to comply with
the award within 30 days of the publication of the award in
the official gazette.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2056.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5473
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40@2002½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@345@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2056.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award Ref. 40/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Western Coalfields
Ltd., Nagpur Area, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/345/2000-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/40/2002
Date: 01.04.2013
Party No. 1
:
The General Manager,
Western Coalfields, Ltd.,
Nagpur Area, Jaripatka,
Nagpur.
V/s
Party No. 2
:
The Zonal Secretary,
Coalmines Engineering
Workers Association, Ward
No. 10, PO. Palacharai,
Chhindwara.
AWARD
(Dated: 1st April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Rajesh
Kumar Babhut, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/
345/2000-IR (CM-II) dated 18.04.2002, with the following
schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL
through its General Manager, Nagpur Area,
Jaripatka, Nagpur in dismissing Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Babhut 'Loader' w.e.f. 20.07.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Rajesh
Babhut, ("the workman" in short) through his union, "Coal
Mines Engineering Workers Association", ("the union" in
short) filed the statement of claim and the management of
WCL, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented by the union
in the statement of claim is that it (union) is a registered
trade union, under the Trade unions Act, 1926 and the Party
No. 1 is a government coal company and a "state" under
article 12 of the Constitution of India and the workman
was initially appointed as a loader on 08.06.1989 and his
employment was as a dependent in terms of NCWA and
the workman belongs to village Amabara of Chhindwara
District in the State of Madhya Pradesh and he was
employed at Silewara colliery of Nagpur area, situated
about 150 kilometers away from his native village and he
was not provided with any accommodation and soon after
his joining duty, thieves entered into his house at Ambara
and while the workman tried to defend himself, he was
stabbed with knife by the thieves and sustained grievous
injuries below left shoulder and he was treated at
Government Hospital, Junnardeo (M.P.) and the incident
affected him mentally and he suffered from fear psychosis
and was not able to remain alone. The further case as
presented by the union is that a charge sheet dated
17.06.1995 was issued against the workman by the Mines
Superintendent/Manager, Silewara colliery and through the
workman was ill and was under treatment, he submitted
his reply vide his letter dated 26.06.1995, which was sent
by registered post with A.D. and such reply was received
in the office of the Manager on 30.06.1995 and in his reply,
the workman had categorically informed that he was ill and
under treatment and he had been informing the management
from time to time about his illness and that he would resume
duty as soon as he would be fit for the same and the Party
No. 1 neither acknowledged the receipt of the letter nor
gave any reply to the workman and remained silent from
17.06.1995 to 07.01.1999 and on 08.01.1999, the competent
authority issued a letter appointing Shri U.S. Saha as the
enquiry officer and Shri H.N. Chinchkhede as the
management representative to conduct the enquiry against
the workman and the workman apprehended that he would
be pressurised in the enquiry, so he vide his letter dated
12.03.1998 intimated the manager, Silewara colliery that he
had been intimating time to time about his sickness and
also requested to allow him to resume his duties and a
camera enquiry was held in a haste and the enquiry officer
completed the enquiry in only one day i.e. 06.02.1999 and
the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry in a fair and
proper manner and the principles of natural justice were
violated and on the basis of such unfair enquiry and biased
and prejudiced report of the enquiry officer, the workman
was dismissed from services vide order dated 20.07.1999
5474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and the said order is illegal and suffers from several
infirmities.
The further case as projected by the union on behalf
of the workman is that the charge sheet submitted against
the workman suffers from several serious infirmities and
the details regarding the alleged absence without sufficient
cause was not mentioned and the list of documents and
witnesses were not supplied and the case was based on
only records, therefore documents should have been
supplied to the workman prior to the initiation of the enquiry
and the enquiry report is not based on the evidence and the
same is contradictory to the facts on record and is therefore
is perverse and the same is outcome of bias and the enquiry
officer did not explain the charges and reply given to the
same and so also the procedure of the enquiry to the
workman during the enquiry and the evidence and
documents submitted by the workman were not considered
in appropriate manner and the enquiry officer recorded the
proceedings in his own way as he liked and the management
representative was examined as a witness in the enquiry,
which is not permissible and as such, the enquiry
proceeding is bad in law and during the enquiry, the
workman had categorically explained that he was not being
allowed on duty at times by the overmen/incharge and that
he was weak, feeble and met with accident during and in
course of employment and was treated at WCL hospital
for the period from 10.03.1993 to 26.04.1993 and therefore
his case should have been considered in a separate footing.
It is also pleaded by the union that no second show cause
notice was issued by the Party No. 1 to enable the workman
to explain his case before the punishment of dismissal was
imposed and the punishment imposed is illegal and malafide
and the charge sheet was submitted on 17.06.1995, whereas,
the enquiry was initiated on 08.01.1999 i.e. after a gap of
four years and as such, the enquiry is not maintainable and
the punishment is too harsh and disproportionate.
The union has prayed for the reinstatement of the
workman in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement, denying
the allegations made in the statement of claim have pleaded
inter-alia that the workman has made baseless allegations,
which are even false to his own knowledge and the workman
is a person, who was not having a clean record and he was
in habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent without their
being any reason and the statement of claim filed by him is
nothing but to gain sympathy of the court and the case of
the workman is a case of proven misconduct and the
workman has misquoted the facts and law, which appears
to have arisen due to misconception and misconstruction
of the facts and law involved in the case.
The further case of the Party No. 1 is that the
workman was appointed as a loader on 09.06.1989 and he
remained unauthorizedly absent from 01.04.1994, as such,
he was charge sheeted on 17.06.1995 and was dismissed
from services after following due process of law on
20.07.1999 and even though the charge sheet was issued
in 1995, during the continuance of the service, the workman
further remained unauthorisedly absent and hardly joined
the duties during the period of enquiry, which speaks of
the conduct of the workman and the workman vide his letter
dated 18.04.1997 had categorically admitted that he had
remained unauthorisedly absent and in such circumstances,
nothing survived in the matter and the reference needs to
be negativated in limine without further adjudication.
It is also pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the previous
record of the workman was also not in consonance with
the service regulations and in the year 1990, he was present
for one day, in 1991, he remained present for 3 days, in
1992, he did not join duty even for a single day and in
1993, his attendance was only for 43 days and the workman
had admitted that he was absent from 18.02.1995 to
26.12.1995, 02.01.1996 to 24.06.1996 and 27.06.1996 to
07.03.1998 on medical grounds and he also did not co-
operate in the enquiry and the enquiry was delayed due to
the conduct of the workman and the workman remained
absent from 1995 to 06.02.1999, i.e. the last date of sitting
of the enquiry and the workman submitted his reply to the
charge sheet refuting the claim on medical grounds, without
submitting any documentary evidence and as his reply was
found unsatisfactory, the enquiry was duly constituted vide
letter dated 22.07.1995 and the said fact was communicated
to the workman and the workman did not turn-up on the
fixed dates of the enquiry and due to the non-cooperation
of the workman, the enquiry could not be completed and
during such period, the enquiry officer, Mr. Prasadan was
transferred, as such, a new enquiry officer was appointed
on 08.01.1999 and the workman sought adjournment on
20.01.1999 on the ground of absence of his representative
and as such, the enquiry was adjourned to 28.01.1999 and
on that date, as the relative of the workman died, the enquiry
was once again adjourned to 06.02.1999 and on
06.02.1999, the enquiry was concluded and on 05.04.1999,
second show cause notice alongwith the report of the
enquiry officer was issued to the workman and in his
findings, the enquiry officer had categorically held the
charges to have been proved against the workman. The
further case of the Party No. 1 is that in the statement of
claim dated 11.09.2002, the only ground raised by the
workman was that the punishment is disproportionate and
he was deprived from appeal and the workman without
seeking the permission of the Tribunal and without filing
any application, field the amended statement of claim,
which cannot be looked into or considered for the purpose
of adjudicating the reference. It is also pleaded by the Party
No. 1 that the union has no locus what-so-ever to raise the
dispute, which is apparent from the name of the union,
which is meant for the engineering workers only and in this
case, the workman was a loader and he had no nexus with
the engineering job and the workman was not ill and he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5475
was not under medical treatment and he did not inform the
management about his sickness from time to time as alleged
and proper documents were not submitted by the workman
and the charge sheet submitted against the workman was
explicit and did not suffer from any defect and all the
documents were supplied to the workman and witnesses
were examined in presence of the workman and the enquiry
was just and fair and according to the principles of natural
justice and the workman was rightly dismissed from services
and he is not entitled to any relief.
4. The workman has filed his rejoinder denying the
allegations made by the Party No. 1 in their written
statement.
5. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman for
services after holding of a departmental enquiry, the fairness
or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up for
consideration as a preliminary issue and vide order dated
04.01.2013, it was held that the departmental enquiry
conducted against the workman to be legal, proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the time of argument (in the written notes of
argument), it was submitted by the learned advocate for
the workman that in view of the principles settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal while exercising the
power under section 11-A of the Act has to avert to all
points raised before it and the enquiry officer did not follow
the principles of natural justice, while conducting the
enquiry and he worked only as a "recorder" and not as
quasi Judicial Officer and as such, the report submitted by
the enquiry officer cannot be said to be fair and proper.
The leanred advocate for the workman also in the written
notes of argument has pointed out that there are number of
defects in conducting the departmental enquiry against the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the workman that on 12.03.1998, the workman had
applied to the Manager, Sillewara Colliery to allow him to
resume duty, but he was not allowed to resume duty and no
reply was also given to his application and the workman
was kept under forced idleness from 12.03.1998 to
19.07.1999 without payment and the same can be said to
be illegal victimization and against the principles of natural
justice and as such, the workman is entitled for his wages
from 12.03.1998 to 19.07.1999. It was further submitted
by the learned advocate for the workman that the approval
of the competent authority has not been obtained before
imposing of the punishment against the workman, even
though such approval is necessary, in view of clause 28.6
of the Certified Standing Order of Party No. 1 and second
show cause notice was not given to the workman before
imposition of the punishment and as such, the punishment
imposed against the workman is illegal and not sustainable.
In the alternative, it was submitted that the punishment is
disproportionate and therefore, the punishment is to be set
aside and the workman be taken on duty in any capacity.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 (in written notes of argument) that the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has
already been held to be legal, proper and in accordance
with the principles of natural justice and no case of
perversity has been demonstrated by the workman and no
specific instances has been cited to prove the perversity
of the findings and the report of the enquiry officer is based
on the evidence on record of the enquiry and he has given
a rational report and he has not relied on any extraneous
materials and his report is not contrary or opposed to the
evidence and the report is not such, which no reasonable
person could have arrived at and as such, the report of the
enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse and the
punishment is justified in view of the misconduct committed
by the workman and there is no ground to interfere with
the same and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
8. It is to be mentioned here that most of the
contentions raised by the learned advocate for the workman
had been raised and considered at the time of deciding the
issue of fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry
and as such, there is no scope of reconsidering the said
contentions again.
9. In this case, charge sheet was submitted on
17.06.1995 against the workman under clauses 26.24 and
26.30 of the certified standing order for remaining absent
from duty with effect from 01.04.1994 without sanctioned
leave or sufficient cause and habitual absence from duty
without sufficient cause and the workman in his show cause
dated 24.06.1995, admitted the fact of remaining absent,
but took the plea of remaining absent due to illness. In his
statement given before the enquiry officer also, the
workman has categorically admitted the facts of his
remaining absent from duty from 01.04.1994 to 12.02.1995
without any prior intimation to the authority. It is found
from the materials on record that though the workman took
the plea of illness, he failed to produce any document or
evidence about his illness during the relevant period.
On perusal of the materials on record, it is found
that this is not a case of no evidence or that the findings of
the enquiry officer are against the evidence on record. The
findings of the enquiry officer are based on the materials
on record and not on any extraneous materials. The findings
of the enquiry officer are also not as such, which cannot be
reached by a prudent man on the materials on record. The
materials on record show that the enquiry officer has
assessed the evidence produced in the departmental enquiry
in a rational manner and arrived at the findings. Hence, the
findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse.
10. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, grave misconduct of remaining absent from
duty without sanctioned leave or sufficient cause and
habitual absenteeism from duty without sufficient cause
have been proved against the workman in a properly
5476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conducted departmental enquiry. Hence, the punishment
of dismissal of the workman from services cannot be said
to be shockingly disproportionate to the serious charges
proved against the workman, calling for any intereference.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of WCL through its
General Manager, Nagpur Area, Jaripatka, Nagpur in
dismissing Sh. Rajesh Kumar Babhut 'Loader' w.e.f.
20.07.1999 is legal and justified. The workman is not
entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2057.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lsUVy
ekbfuax] Iykfuax ,.M fMtkfuax ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj
muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 41@2011&12½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@181@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2057.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 41/2011-
12) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Mine Planning &
Design Institute Ltd., CMPDI Exploration Camp,
Anandwan, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/181/2011-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2011-12
Date: 01.04.2013.
Party No. 1
:
The Regional Director,
Central Mine Planning & Design
Institute Ltd., (CMPDI), Jaripatka,
Nagpur-440014.
:
The Officer-in-Charge,
CMPDI Exploration Camp, Anandwan,
Post: Warora, Tah. Warora,
Chandrapur.
Versus
Part No. 2
:
The Secretary,
National Coal Organisation Employees
Association, (CMPDI),
CMPDI Exploration Camp,
Anandwan, Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 1st April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of CMPDI and their workman, Shri Laxman
Z. Uike, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/181/
2011-IR (CM-II) dated 27.01.2012, with the following
schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of
CMPDI RI-V, Nagpur in awarding punishment
of demotion from Cat. VI Driver-cum-Mechanic
to Cat. II Truck Khalasi/Driver Trainee for the rest
of approximately 13 years service period of Shri
Laxman Z. Uike is legal & justified as per
Company's Standing Orders? To what relief the
workman concerned is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Laxman Z.
Uike, (“the workman” in short), filed the statement of claim
through the Union, “National Coal Organisation Employees
Association (CMPDI)” (“the union” in short) and the
management of CMPDI, ("Party No. 1" in short) filed its
written statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the
statement of claim is that he was working as a Category-VI
driver-cum-mechanic in CMPDI exploration camp,
Anandwan, under the control of Regional Institute-IV,
CMPDI, Nagpur and he was demoted by order dated
04.01.1999 from category VI Driver-cum-Mechanic to
Category II Truck Khalasi for one year for the alleged
misconduct and the punishment awarded against him is
harsh and such punishment against the penalties provided
in sub-section (f) of section 27 of the Certified Standing
Order of Party No. 1, and as such, the punishment was
illegal and arbitrary and his punishment was further
extended by another year by order dated 27.03.2000 and
Party No. 1 continued him to work on the demoted post
of Category-II Truck Khalasi till his raising of the Industrial
dispute and the punishment awarded to an employee has
to be for a specific period and cannot be extended
arbitrarily.
The workman has prayed to answer the reference in
his favour and to grant relief as deem fit and proper.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5477
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the claim as made by the workman
is a stale claim and the same has been filed belatedly, after
the superannuation of the workman and on that ground,
the claim is liable to be rejected.
The further case of the Party No. 1 is that after
holding the departmental enquiry against the workman, for
the charge of consuming liquor during duty hours, the
punishment was imposed on him on 2/4.01.1999 and the
same was continued further vide order dated 23/27.03.2000
and the same was further confirmed vide order dated
27/28.02.2001 and the said orders of punishment were duly
accepted by the workman without any protest and challenge
and the workman has promoted on 11.02.2010 and
09.12.2011 and he was superannuated on 28.02.2012 and
the workman had accepted the demotion order for more
than ten years and thereafter, he also accepted the promotion
orders, without any protest and as such, he cannot be
permitted to challenge the same and by the initial order
dated 2/4.01.1999, he was demoted, with the condition that
the order of demotion would be withdrawn only, in case of
improvement in his conduct, but the workman failed to
improve his conduct and to give one more chance to the
workman to improve his conduct, by order dated
23/27.03.2000, the punishment was extended for a period
of one year, but still then, the workman failed to improve
his conduct, so they were compelled to demote the workman
by order dated 27/28.02.2001 and there is no provision
either in the Standing Order or in any law that the demotion
has to be for a limited period only and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
4. In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that the
punishment imposed against him is not in accordance with
the provisions of the Standing Order and the promotions
given to him were normal promotions made through the
departmental promotion committee and the promotions
have no connection with the dispute under reference and
the dispute was raised by the National Coal Organization
Employees Association on 13.10.2006 and subsequent to
the same.
5. It is necessary to mention here that as per orders
dated 20.12.2012, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman was held to be valied proper and in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman has
not challenged the legality of the departmental enquiry but
has challenged the action of Party No. 1 in awarding
punishment and the workman was demoted from Cat. VI
Driver-cum-Mechanic to Cat. II Truck Khalasi and such
punishment is in violation of the Certified Standing Order
of Party No. 1 and sub-section (f) of section 27 of the
Standing Order provides demotion to a lower stage or a
lower grade in a time scale and it is clear from the same
that punishment of demotion has to be awarded to a lower
stage or a lower grade in a time scale and therefore, the
workman should have demoted to Category V driver instead
of Category II Truck Khalasi and such punishment must
be for a specific period and therefore, the punishment
awarded against the workman is illegal and the subsequent
promotions given to the workman were normal promotions
and the same have no connection with the dispute under
reference and the workman through the union, "National
Coal Organization Employees Assoication" raised the
dispute on several occasions and as such, the workman is
entitled to the difference of wages between category V and
category II from January, 1999 with all consequential
benefits.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was in habit
of attending his duties under the influence of liquor and he
had caused several accidents, while performing his duties
and instead of imposing the harsh punishment of
terminating his services, Party No. 1 gave several chances
to the workman to improve his conduct, but the workman
failed to do so, so Party No. 1 was constrained to initiate
the departmental enquiry against the workman and the
departmental enquiry was conducted observing all the
principles of natural justice and the punishment was
imposed in accordance with the Standing Order appliable
to the workman and as the workman has not challenged
the fairness of the departmental enquiry, in view of the
settled preposition of law as laid down in the decision
reported in (2008) I SCC-115 (UP State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar), the Tribunal is precluded
from deciding as to whether the charge is proved or not
and for this reason, it cannot be decided as to whether the
punishment imposed was proper or not and as the
documents filed by the workman have not been proved in
accordance with law, the same cannot be taken into
consideration to decide the case on merits. It was further
submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that
the claim is a stale claim as admittedly, the punishment
was imposed upon the workman on 2/4.01.1999 and as the
workman failed to improve his conduct, the punishment
was continued vide order dated 23/27/03/2000 and due to
the failure of the workman to improve his conduct, the
punishment was confirmed by order dated 27/28.02.2001
and the workman accepted the punishment without any
protest and joined his duties on the post to which he was
demoted and continued to work in the demoted post and
even if, the documents filed by the workman are considered,
still then, it can be found that the workman raised protest
against the punishment for the first time in 2006 i.e. after a
period of almost more than 7 years and the workman chose
to remain silent till he was superannuated from service and
as the workman accepted the order of promotion twice
and the retirement benefits, he is estopped from challenging
the same and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
5478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In support of such contentions, the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decision reported
in (2005) 5 SCC-91 (Haryana State Corporation Land
Development Bank Vs. Neelam).
8. In this case all most all the facts are admitted by
the parties. It is not disputed that the workman was working
as a category VI Driver-Cum-Mechanic with the Party No. 1
and a departmental enquiry was conducted against him as
per rules, for the charge of consuming liquor during duty
hours and he was found guilty of the charges levelled
against him in the enquiry and punishment of demotion to
the post of category-II Truck Khalasi for one year was
imposed against him by order dated 2/4.01.1999 and the
said punishment was extended for one year more by order
dated 23/27.03.2000 and again the punishment was
extended for indefinite period by order dated 27/28.02.2001
and the workman was promoted to Driver (T) Cat. II and
than to Driver Cat. V by order dated 09.12.2011. It is also
not disputed that the workman raised the dispute through
the union on 13.10.2006 and thereafter and the dispute was
taken for consideration by Party No. 1 in the meeting held
with the union on 21.11.2009 and Party No. 1 decided to
examine the case of the workman. It is also not disputed
that parties are bound by the provisions of the Certified
Standing Order of Party No. 1.
9. First of all, I will take up the contention raised by
the learned advocate for the workman that the punishment
of demotion of the workman from category VI Driver-Cum-
Mechanic to Category II Truck Khalasi was against the
provisions of the Certified Standing Order and therefore
the same is illegal and unjustified.
Before delving into the merits of contention raised
above, I think it apropos to mention about the principles
enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision
reported in (2008) I SCC-115 (Supra), in view of the
submission made by the learned advocate for Party No. 1
that as the validity of the departmental enquiry has not been
challenged by the workman, there is no scope to consider
about the quantum of the punishment. It is held by the
Hon'ble Apex court in the above said decision that, "Labour
Law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S11-A-Interference by
Tribunals and Courts-Scope-Where the workman removed
from service and challenged only the conclusion reached
by the enquiry officer and the quantum of punishment but
not the legality or the fairness of the enquiry proceedings,
held, Labour Court could not examine the findings of the
enquiry officer and held that the charge was not proved."
In this case, admittedly workman has not challenged
the legality or the fairness of the departmental enquiry. It is
also found that the workman has not challenged the findings
of the enquiry officer and he has challenged the quantum
of punishment. So there is no question to examine about
the findings of the enquiry officer.
It is the admitted case of the parties that section 27
of the Certified Standing Order provides penalties for
misconduct and sub-section (f) of section 27 provides
the penalty of demotion. According to sub-section (f) of
section 27 of the Certified Standing Order, demotion of an
employee can by made either to a lower stage or a lower
grade in a time scale. On perusal of the cadre scheme for
drivers of Party No. 1, it is found that the lower stages of
category VI driver-cum-mechanic are category-V driver
and then category-II Driver (Trainee), where as the lower
grade of category VI driver-cum-mechanic is category-II
Lorry helper/cleaner. As sub-section (f) of section 27 of
the Standing Order provides for demotion to lower grade
also, it is found that the order of punishment of demotion
of the workman as Truck Khalasi-Cat.II (Lorry helper -
Category-II) for one year imposed against the workman as
per order dated 2/4.01.1999 cannot be said to be in violation
of the Standing Order or that the same is illegal and unfair.
10. On perusal of the materials on record and taking
into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the
reference, it is found that the claim raised by the workman
cannot be said to be a stale claim or that the claim of the
workman was hit by the principles of estoppels, waiver
and acquiesunce of the doctorine of sub-silentio. It is well
settled that the aim and object of the Act is to impart social
justice to workman. As the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the case referred in the decision reported
in (2005) 5 SCC-91 (Supra), with respect, I am of the view
that the said decision has no clear application to the present
case in hand.
11. It is not disputed that the Party No. 1 by order
dated 23/27.03.2000 extended the punishment imposed
upon the workman by order dated 2/4.1.1999 for one year
more. Such order was passed without giving any
opportunity to show cause to the workman. Such order was
also passed beyond the period of one year of the punishment
imposed initially w.e.f. 04.01.1999. There is no provision
in the Standing Order for extension of the punishment by
the Party No. 1 against a delinquent employee. Likewise,
the order dated 27/28.02.2001 passed by Party No. 1
extending the punishment against the workman for
indefinite period is also found to be without any power,
jurisdiction or provision. The said order was also passed
without giving any opportunity to the workman to show
cause or to have his say. From the materials on record, it is
found that the orders passed by Party No. 1 on 23/28.03.2000
and 27/28.02.2001 are without jurisdiction and in violation
of the provision of the Standing Order. Therefore, the said
orders cannot be sustained.
12. Now, the question remains for considertion is as
to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled to. During
the course of argument, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that in case it is found that the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5479
punishment imposed against the workman was not in
accordance with the Certified Standing Order, then the
matter be remitted back to the disciplinary authority to
reconsider what other punishment should be imposed. In
support of such contentions, the learned advocate for the
Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decision reported in 2007
(2) Mh. L.J-674 (Press Trust of Employees Union Vs. Press
Trust of India Ltd.).
Admittedly, the workman has alrady been retired from
services of Party No. 1 on 28.02.2012 on superannuation.
He had already undergone the punishment imposed against
him. So, there is no question of remitting back the matter to
the disciplinary authority to reconsider as to what other
punishment should be imposed. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the case referred in the
decision cited by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decision has no
application to the case. In view of the facts mentioned
above, it is found that the workman is entitled to monetary
benefits. As it is found that the orders passed by Party No.
1 dated 23/28.03.2000 and 27/28.02.2001 are illegal, the
workman is entitled to be treated as a category-VI, Driver-
Cum-Mechanic w.e.f. 04.01.2000 notionally and he is also
entitled for the consequential reliefs including further
promotions till the date of his retirement i.e. 28.02.2012.
The workman is entitled to get the difference of wages
between category VI and Category II from 04.01.2000 and
the difference of wages he is entitled for the consequential
relief thereafter. Hence, it is ordered:
ORDER
The action of the management of CMPDI RI-V,
Nagpur in awarding punishment of demotion from Cat. VI
Driver-Cum-Mechanic to Cat.II Truck Khalasi/Driver
Trainee for the rest of approximately 13 years service
period of Shri Laxman Z. Uike is illegal & unjustified as
per Company's Standing Orders. As the workman has
already been retired from services of Party No. 1 on
28.02.2012 on superannuation, he is entitled for monetary
benefits. As it is found that the orders passed by Party
No. 1 dated 23/28.03.2000 and 27/28.02.2001 are illegal,
the workman is entitled to be treated as a category VI
Driver-Cum-Mechanic w.e.f. 04.01.2000 notionally and he
is also entitled for the consequential reliefs including
further promotion till the date of retirement, i.e. 28.02.2012.
The workman is entitled to get the difference of wages
between Category VI-Driver-cum-Mechanic and Category
II-Truck helper w.e.f. 04.01.2000 and difference of wages
he is entitled for the consequential reliefs thereafter. The
Party No. 1 is directed to carry out the award within one
month of the date of publication of the award in the Official
Gazette.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2058.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@115@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2058.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2005)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Majri Area Kuchana of
Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/115/2004-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/46/2005
Date: 01.04.2013
Party No.1
:
The Chief General Manager,
Majri Area Kuchana of WCL,
Post-Shembul,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS).
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The President,
Lal Zanda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union,
(CITU), PO: Majri Area,
Regional Office: Main Road,
Majri Colliery, Post: Shivajinagar,
Tah-Bhadrawati, Distt. Chandrapur.
AWARD
(Dated: 1st April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workmen, Shri Bhaiyaram
Samunder, Ramji Prasad, Atmaram Chironji and Harhangi
5480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Badri for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/115/2004-
IR (CM-II) dated 17.05.2005, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management in relation
to Majri Area of Western Coalfields Limited in
reducing the wages of S/Shri Bhaiyaram
Samunder, Ramji Prasad, Atmaram Chironji and
Harhangi Badri by fixing their pay at mid point
of Cat. V in pursuance of Office Order No. WCL/
MA/SM/TOCP-SA/PER/2000/360(A) dated
27.05.2000 is legal & justified? If not, to what
relief the workmen are entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the union, "Lal Zanda Coal
Mines Mazdoor Union (CITU)", ("the union" is short) filed
the statement of claim on behalf of the above four workmen
and the management of WCL, ("Party No.1" in short) filed
its written statement.
The case of four workmen as presented by the union
in the statement of claim is that all the four workmen were
piece rated workmen and they were transferred from Pench
Area and Kanhan Area to Majri Area as Dumper operator
on administrative grounds and workmen, namely,
Shri Bhaiyaram Samunder, Shri Ramji Prasad and
Shri Harhangi Badri were transferred from Ambla Colliery
of Kanhan Area and posted at Telwasa open cast mine of
Majri Area w.e.f. 29.06.1998, 23.06.1998 and 30.06.1998
respectively as Dumper operator and workman, Shri
Atmaram Chironji was transferred from Dumua colliery
of Kanhan Area and posted in Telwasa open cast mine of
Majri Area w.e.f. 23.08.1998 and all the four workman
responded to an offer made by Party No.1 through notice
board to the effect that workmen, possessing Heavy Motor
Driving Licence may apply for the post of Dumper operator,
but there was however, no mention in the said notice that
those accepting the offer shall not be given pay protection
of piece rated workman and all the four workmen were
initially granted pay protection as per LPC and they were
given basic pay @ Rs. 246.37 till 1.12.1999, but suddenly
by a notification dated 25.07.2000, their pay came to be
fixed @ Rs. 175.90, as a result of which, there was a net loss
of Rs. 60.67 to their pay packet and no conceivable nexus
or sound reasoning was advanced by the Party No.1, for
fixing the basic wages of the four workmen in the lower
stage, without notice and the impugned action was taken
arbitrarily and in colourable exercise of employee's right
and without due application of mind. The further case of
the workmen as presented by the union is that Shri Bhaiyalal
Bhikhari, who was identically transferred to Pipalgaon Sub
Area of North Wani Area has been granted pay protection
of his erstwhile piece rated job and such fact is clearly
eflected in his pay slips and thus, it can be found that Party
No.1 has adopted discriminatory and pick and choose
tactics in the matter to granting pay protection of the
workmen and other wise also, the impugned action of
reducing the basic pay of the workmen consequent to their
transfer is wholly illegal and unjustified and they are entitled
to get protection of their erstwhile basic pay, which they
were receiving till 01.12.1999 with arrears of back wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the workmen have challenged the
office order dated 27.05.2000 by raising the present dispute
and as such, the reference is highly belated and is not
maintainable and the workmen are not the members of the
union and therefore, the union has no locus standi to raise
the dispute and the dispute has been raised by the union
without any authority and the dispute was initially raised
by the General Secretary, RKKMS (INTUC), Nagpur and
a reply was given by them to the General Secretary,
RKKMS and having satisfied with the contention of the
management, the RKKMS union dropped the dispute and
the present union has raised the dispute without any rhyme
and reason. The further case of the Party No.1 is that the
terms and conditions of employment for the employees
working in coal industry and governed by various
settlements, generally known as NCWAs and cadre schemes
have been formulated under the provisions of NCWA giving
promotion channel for all cadres and in the cadre of
excavation personnel, the designation, the scale of pay,
minimum qualification (education/technical) eligibility for
promotion and mode of promotion/selection/aptitude etc.
are given and there is no cadre scheme for carrier growth
of the employees working in general mazdoor category/
piece rated employees and therefore, as and when vacancies
arise in different cadres, opportunity is being given to the
eligible employees who are deployed in general mazdoor/
piece rated category for the same and they had displayed a
notice informing the workers working as loaders that the
employees possessing heavy motor driving licence and are
interested to work in wardha vally Mines, North Wani,
Chandrapur, Wani, Majri and Ballarpur can apply upto
25.12.1997 and the four workmen applied for the same
and on the basis of their applications, they were transferred
to Majri Area and were appointed as Dumper opeator
trainee in cat. V and their wages were fixed at mid point of
cat. V and there was discussion between the management
and the recognized union in regard to pay fixation/pay
protection in case of conversion/selection from the post of
piece rated to time rated and as per the record note of
discussion dated 31.10.1995, "All such piece rated workers
who have given or may give option for time rated/monthly
rated jobs or in case of their selection through international
notification for any time rated/monthly rated jobs, will be
fixed of the commensurate category for which they opt in
time rated only and no personal pay will be allowed w.e.f.
01.11.1995. (2) In case of monthly rated and excavation,
where rates are higher than piece rated the mid point fixation
will not be applicable. (3) Hence forth the piece rated jobs
will be paid as per the nature of work performed by them."
And the said record note of discussion was circulated by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5481
letter dated 17.11.1995 and as instances of adopting of
different formula by different units regarding fixation of
basic pay in respect of Tub loader, who were put to the job
of Dumper operator came to their notice, the Area Manager
issued office memo dated 07.02.1999 in regard to fixation
of pay in such cases and as per the provisions of NCWA,
when the employees working on daily rated or piece rated
basis opt to seek direct recruitment to a post carrying the
pay scale, they cannot have any pay protection and their
pay will be fixed in the pay scale prescribed for the aforesaid
post. It is further pleaded by the Party No.1 that the
workmen were not transferred on administrative grounds
and the workmen themselves opted for selection to a post
where there is carrier growth and as such, there was no
question of granting them protection of pay and the
workmen were given the pay, which they were drawing till
their pay was finally fixed, as per the settlement dated
31.10.1995 and there was no discrimination in fixation of
pay of their employees and the pay of the workmen was
fixed in accordance with the settlement arrived with the
recognized union and the workmen are not entitled to any
relief.
4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,
both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their
respective claims. Shri K.P. Bansod, the President of the
Union was examined as a witness on behalf of the workmen.
From the side of Party No.1, Shri Sudhakar Pandurang
Wandhe, a Deputy Manager (Personnel) was examined as
a witness.
In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit,
the witness, Kailesh P. Bansod has reiterated the facts
mentioned in the statement of claim. In his cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that all the four
workmen were working as piece rated worker in Pench
Area and no cadre scheme has been formulated for piece
rated workers.
The witness examined on behalf of Party No.1 has
also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination-in-chief, which is on
affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has
stated that the list of the members of the union in question
has not been filed.
5. In this case, it is not disputed by both the parties
that all the four workmen were working as piece rated
workers and they made application for the post of Dumper
operator in response to the notice given by Party No.1 dated
20.12.1997 and Party No.1 considered their applications
and selected them for the posts of dumper operator and
posted them as dumper operators in Majri area, where such
posts were available and they were granted pay protection
till 01.02.1999, but by notification dated 25.07.2000, such
protection was withdrawn.
In view of such admitted facts and the documentary
evidence placed in record by the parties, the oral evidence
adduced by the parties is of no help to decide the dispute
in question.
6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the wokmen that the selection and
posting of the four workmen as dumper operators was on
administrative ground and in the notice given by Party No.1
dated 20.12.1997 (Ext. M-2), nothing was mentioned about
not giving protection of pay to those workers, who would
accept the offer and had there been such a condition, the
workmen should not have accepted the offer and the
four workmen were given protection of their basic pay
@ Rs. 246.37 till 01.12.1999, but suddenly, by letter dated
25.07.2000, pay of the workmen came to be fixed
@ Rs. 175.90, as a result of which, there was a net loss of
Rs. 70.60 to their pay packets and such a reduction of pay
without affording any opportunity of hearing is totally
illegal and unsustainable in law and as the settlement in
question has no application, as the transfer of the workmen
was administrative transfer on exigency of work and Party
No.1 in the case of Shri Bhaiyalal Bhikhari, who was
identically transferred to Pipalgaon sub area of North Wani
area has granted pay protection and Party No.1 has adopted
discriminatory and pick and choose tactics in the matter of
granting pay protection to the workmen and the workmen
are entitled to pay protection.
7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workmen were not
transferred on administrative grounds, but the workmen
submitted applications in response the notice, M-2, for their
appointment to the post of dumper operators and there was
no compulsion for them to apply for the same and the
workmen, opted for their selection to a post, where there
was carrier growth and as such, there was no question of
granting them pay protection and there was no service
condition, guide lines or policy to give pay protection to
piece rated workers in case of their opting for selection to
different cadre and the four workmen were given the pay,
which was being drawn by them, till their pay had been
finally fixed, as per the settlement dated 31.10.1995
(M-7) and there was no discrimination by Party No.1 and
the pay of the workmen was rightly fixed in accordance
with the settlement arrived at with the recognized union
and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.
8. In view of the admitted facts as already mentioned
above, now, it is only to be considered as to whether the
workmen are not entitled for protection of their basic pay
of piece rated loader in view of the settlement dated
31.10.1995 (M-7).
On perusal of the so called settlement, M-7, it is found
that the same is not a settlement at all, but the same is a
record note of discussion held between the management
of WCL and RKKMS union on 31.10.1995 at Nagpur.
Moreover, judicial notice is necessary to be taken that there
are five major unions including RKKMS in the coal
5482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
industry including WCL, with whom, negotiations and
settlement are being made by the coal industry. So, any
settlement arrived at by the management of WCL with only
the RKKMS union cannot bind all the employees of WCL.
As the so called settlement dated 31.10.1995 in fact is not
a settlement in the true sence, it is held that the same is not
binding on the workmen. Moreover, there is also provision
in clause 5 of the said settlement about protection of pay
of piece rated workers. Clause 5 of the said settlement reads
as follows:—
“Such piece rated workmen who may be put in
time rated/monthly rated in future by managerial
decisions i.e. without, seeking option for time
rated/monthly rated or without going through the
selection process against internal notification for
time rated/monthly rated, will continue to get
protection of piece rated wages. Such piece rated
workmen who come 77 to TR as per option given
by them will not get this benefit.”
On examination of the case of the workmen with the
provisions of the aforesaid clause 5, it is found that the
appointment of the workmen as dumper operators from
piece rated workers was after going the process of selection
against internal notification. The case of the workman is
also not a case of giving option of their conversion from
piece rated to time rated workers. Hence, the putting of the
four workmen in time rated is held to be by way of
managerial decision. Therefore, all the four workmen are
entitled for protection of their basic pay of piece rated
loader. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management in relation to Majri
Area of Western Coalfields Limited in reducing the wages
of S/Shri Bhaiyaram Samunder, Ramji Prasad, Atmaram
Chironji and Harhangi Badri by fixing their pay at mid
point of Cat. V in pursuance of Office Order No. WCL/MA/
SM/TOCP-SA/PER/2000/360(A) dated 27.5.2000 is illegal
& unjustified. The four workmen are entitled for protection
of their basic pay of piece rated loaders with full back wages
and consequential benefits.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2059.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2000½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@86@1998&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2059.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 76/2000 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Western Coalfields Ltd., Nagpur Area,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/86/1998-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P .CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT /NGP /76/2000
Date: 17.04.2013.
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
WCL, New Majri Underground
Sub Area
of WCL, PO: Shivajinagar,
Distt. Chandrapur(MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
:
Koyla Khadan K. Sangh,
President, K.K.K.S., Chandrapur,
Jatpur Ward No.4, Chandrapur (MS)
AWARD
(Dated: 17th April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government had referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Mangru
Ragho, to CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. 2 for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/86/98-IR (CM-II)
dated 27.01.1999, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of WCL,
New Majri underground Sub Area, in terminating
the services of Shri Mangru Ragho is legal &
justified? If not, what relief is the workman
concerned entitled?”
Subsequently, the case was transferred to this
Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mangru
Ragho, (“the workman" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL, ("Party No.1" in short)
filed its written statement.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5483
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was working as an underground
loader in Majri Mine No.3 and while performing duties in
the underground, he met with accident twice, within a span
of five years and he was hospitalized for about nine months
and due to the accidents, he was not in a position to perform
the duties of a loader in the underground and after getting
cured, he met the Manager of the Mine and requested for
light job and he was provided with light job for few days
and in this way, Party No. 1 provided him light job from
time to time, up to the year, 1996 and he had submitted the
medical certificate to the Party No. 1, in which the doctor
had recommended to provide him light job alongwith his
application for providing light job, but light job was not
provided to him continuously and he was harassed by Party
No. 1 and as light job was not provided to him, he
approached the ALC (Central), Chandrapur, but Party No. 1
instead of providing him light job, terminated his services
on 30.03.1997, without giving him any notice of the enquiry
and as the termination is illegal, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service with full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the workman, who was working as
a Tub-loader was in habit of remaining absent from duty
without intimation or permission or sanctioned leave and
they were always taking a lenient view in the matter and
instead at availing such opportunities to improve himself,
the workman took the same as a matter of right and as the
workman remained absent from duty from 01.03.1996,
without intimation, grant of leave or satisfactory cause,
charge sheet dated 11.08. 1996 was issued against him and
the workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet on
27.12.1996 and as his reply was unsatisfactory, the
competent authority decided to conduct a departmental
enquiry on the charge sheet dated 11.08.1996 and
accordingly by order dated 23.02.1997, Shri A.N. Naik
was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry
and inspite of the notice issued by the enquiry officer by
registered post with acknowledgement due dated
02.03.1997 to the workman in his permanent address and
display of a copy of such notice in the notice board, the
workman did not attend the enquiry, so the enquiry
proceeded against him exparte and on completion of the
enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report on
21.03. 1997, holding the charges to have been proved
against the workman and the competent authority taking
into account the seriousness of the misconduct committed
by the workman, vide order dated 30.03.1997 imposed the
punishment of termination of his services and their action
in terminating the services of the workman is legal and
proper and the punishment is proportionate to the
misconduct committed by him.
It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the
workman did not suffer any disablement nor there was any
recommendation of the medical board to provide him light
job and as such, light job could not be granted to the
workman and the workman without any rhyme or reason
was requesting for light job and he was given an opportunity
of being heard on his application and he could not satisfy
them for his demand to provide him light job, so his request
was rejected and the same cannot be taken as a reason for
remaining absent from duty by the workman, without
permission and sanctioned leave for unlimited period and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. As this is a case of imposition of punishment
against the workman after holding of a departmental
enquiry, the validity or otherwise of the enquiry was
considered as a preliminary issue and vide order dated
02.04.2007, it was held that the enquiry was conducted
against the principles of natural justice and the enquiry
was vitiated and Party No. 1 was allowed to prove the
charges before the Tribunal.
5. To prove the charge against the workman, Party
No. 1 examined four witnesses, namely, Shri Ram
Awadhsingh, Shri A.N. Naik, Shri Fauzdar Singh and
Shri D.C. Gupta.
In rebuttal, the workman has examined himself as
the only witness.
So, from the evidence on record, now, it is to be
considered as to whether the Party No. 1 has been able to
prove the charges against the workman.
6. The allegation made against the workman is that
he remained absent from his duty without any grant of leave
or intimation to the competent authority,from 01.03.1996
and his such act constituted misconduct under clause 26.30
of the Standing Order, clause 26.30 of the Standing Order
reads as follows:—
“Absence from duty without sanctioned leave or
sufficient cause or overstaying beyond ten days
after sanctioned leave.”
It is also necessary to mention here that the charge
sheet was submitted on 11.08.1996.
7. The first witness for the Party No. 1 has stated
that he was working as the wage clerk in Majri colliery
Mine No.3 and was maintaining the Form 'G' register and
bonus for the year 1996 was not paid to the workman, as
he remained absent from 01.03.1996 to 29.03.1997. In his
cross-examination, this witness has stated that he cannot
say the reason as to why the workman remained absent
and the workman met with an accident on 02.05. 1988,while
working in the mine.
The 2nd witness, Shri A.N. Naik was the enquiry
officer in the enquiry held against the workman. In his
examination -inchief, this witness has stated about holding
of the enquiry against the workman and submission of his
enquiry report holding the workman guilty of the charges.
It is to be mentioned here that as the departmental enquiry
5484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
has already been held to be illegal, the evidence of this
witness is of no avail to prove the charge against the
workman.
Shri Fauzdar Singh, the witness No.3 for the Party
No. 1 has stated that he was the attendance clerk of Majri
Mine No.3 and his duty was to mark the attendance of the
underground worker in "Form C register" and the workman
was absent from duty from 01.03.1996 to 29.03.1997 and
during the period of absence, the workman neither
submitted any application for leave nor any leave was
sanctioned to him and the workman also did not give any
information about his absence. In his cross-examination,
this witness has stated that the attendance register,
Ext. M-I is the register relating the workman working
underground and the same is not the attendance register of
the workers working on surface.
The evidence of the witness Shri D.C. Gupta is in
the line of the facts mentioned in the written statement. In
his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that in his
show cause to the charge sheet, the workman had mentioned
that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he was
unable to work underground and he was provided with light
job for the said reason and whenever, management was
not providing him light job, he was bound to sit idle in his
house. Demolishing the allegation made in the charge sheet
that the workman remained absent from 01.03.1996, this
witness in his cross-examination has stated that the
workman remained absent from 27.03.1996.
8. The workman in his evidence on affidavit has
stated that due to the injuries sustained by him in the
accidents, he was not fit to work in the underground and
he was granted light work on surface from time to time in
between the period from 1988 to 30.05.1996 and
management stopped to give him light work and marked
him absent from duty, even though he was regularly going
to work.
9. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is found
that in the charge sheet, though it has been mentioned that
the workman remained absent from duty from 01.03.1996,
nothing has been mentioned as to up to what date he
remained such absent. From the evidence on record
including the documents, it is clear that Party No. 1
considering the physical condition of the workman and
taking into consideration his inability to work underground,
provided him light work from time to time beginning from
the year 1989 to 23.05.1996. Though according to the
allegations in the charge sheet, the workman remained
absent without any intimation or sanctioned leave, it is
clear from the evidence on record that the workman was
provided light work on surface from 15.05.1996 to 22.05.1996
and 23.05.1996 to 30.05.1996 and the workman worked for
those days on surface. It is clear from the evidence on
record that the charges levelled against the workman are
prima facie not correct. It is also found that Party No. 1 has
failed to prove the charge against the workman. Hence, the
workman cannot be held guilty of commission of the
misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism. In view of the
facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned above,
with respect, I am of the view that the decisions cited by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 have no clear
application to the present case.
10. Now, the question remains for consideration is as
to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. As the Party
No. 1 has failed to prove the charges against the workman,
the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and consequential benefits. So far the back wages
is concerned,in my considered view, payment of 25% of the
back wages will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence,
the workman is entitled for 25% back wages from the date
of termination of his services till the date of his reinstatement
in service. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of WCL, New Majri
underground Sub Area, in terminating the services of Shri
Mangru Ragho is illegal & unjustified. The workman is
entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity and all
consequential reliefs. The workman is entitled for 25% back
wages from the date of termination of his services till the
date of his reinstatement in services. Party No.1 is directed
to carry out the award within 30 days of publication of the
award in the official gazette.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2060.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn ds dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 250@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@152@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2060.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 250/
2003) of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-labour court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/152/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5485
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/250/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) :
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Sanjay Bhimrao Gajre, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-22012/152/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 09.11.2003,
with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Sanjay Bhimrao Gajre, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sanjay Bimrao
Gajre, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim
and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 02.09.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more then
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
5486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
02.09.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief
from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No.1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No.1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the worman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and they
did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC
from time to time and the said amount was recovered from
the contract's bill and they only used to check the attendance
of the security guards to find out as to whether the contractor
had made arrangement of the requisite number of security
guards, as per their requirement and they did not have the
power to terminate any employee appointed by the contractor
and they did not provide any article, such as torchi, Lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that he was sent by Singh Security Services to
the FCI and the contractor has not been made a party to the
proceeding and FCI had not issued any appointment order
and they were told that there was a contractor and the
contractor would engage them under his contractorship and
they had not applied to the FCI. The workman has further
admitted that he has not filed any document showing that
he had worked in the year 1993 and he has also not filed
any document to show that he worked for 240 days in a
year and he has not filed any document showing that the
management paid the amount to them and though the
contractors were changed after every two years, they were
given regular duty. The workman has further admitted that
in his affidavit it is correctly mentioned that the contract
was discontinued w.e.f. 23.03.1999 and they were
terminated w.e.f. 14.03.1999 and they were appointed on
02.09.1993 by Singh Security, Nagpur.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5487
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 02.09.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt.Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has
also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continously in FCI from 02.09.1993 till
14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of
security guards was given to M/s. Industrial security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions from the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 02.09.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employees of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1
to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesmam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri
Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
5488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never
appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-
H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303—6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs.
Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State
Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hob'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others
Vs. National Union Water front Workers and
Others (reported in 2001 (7) SCC1, the relief
sought by the petitioners cannot be granted since
the petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be
adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly,
the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case,
the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5489
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labourers, in the decision reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The Workman of the Food Corporation
of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB
IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
when he is hired in or in connection with such
work by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer, Section
2(1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person
who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work, fixation of wages and other
essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
5490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20
provides that if any amenity required to be
provided under section 16, section 17, section 18,
or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour
employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed
and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the
contractor either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or as
a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says
that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by
him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract
labour, it requires every principal employer to
nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages
in the presence of the authorized representative
of the principal employer. Because of sub-section
(4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make
payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contact labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should not
be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving
that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principle
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become
the employees of the principal employer. This
court in the case of Gammon India limited V.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the
object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure
payment of wages and provisions of essential
amenities. This is why the Act provides for
regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165=(1985) 1
SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has
not abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh
V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court
pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5491
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to
provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be established
by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It
need not to be pointed out that in all such cases,
the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors. As such at what point of time
a direct link is established between the contract
labourers and the principal employer, eliminating
the contractor from the scene, is a matter which
has to be established on material produced before
the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such
disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary
evidence produced before them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with
the manner of handling work done by the
contractor, the labour force employed by him,
payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation,
there was no privity of contract of employer and
workmen between the corporation and the
workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting
the words not necessary) in the Industrial
Disputes Act to mean (any person including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to
do................". “The expression” employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is
used in the sense of a relationship brought about
by express or implied contract of service in which
the employee renders service for which he is
engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to
pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them
or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a
relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should
be employed to do the work in that industry and
that there should be, in other words, an employment
of his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee
or master and servant unless a person is thus
employed there can be no question of his being a
"workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the Union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principal that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the
Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
5492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorpition of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit there under. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the
principal employer intends to employ regular
workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile
contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and,
if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to
maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and
also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of
1999 D/- 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if
1996, D/- 9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345—354 of
1997m, D/- 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999,
D/- 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/
- 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the
action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and
the forms made there under.”
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No.1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5493
Party No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and cirmustances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2061.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 251@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02-09-2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@153@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2061.—In pursunace of section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 251/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/153/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/251/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a):The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015.
5494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Party No. 1(b):The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt, Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Bhawrao Shanker Rao Sabale, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/153/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in
terminating the services of Shri Bhawrao Shanker
Rao Sabale, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri
Bhawrao Shanker Rao Sabale, ("the workman" in short),
filed the statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security Guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5495
and the workman was not in their service uniterruptedly till
14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No.1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also admitted
the suggestions given to him in his cross-examination that
contract for supply of security guards was given to Singh
Security Services for two years and subsequently the same
was extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of
security guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence
5496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to
Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to
31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya Industrial Security and
Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May,
1992, to M/s. Security Services Intelligence Bureau, Thane
from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s. Industrial Security
and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI.
This witness has also admitted that in spite of change of
the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI
from 01.08.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract
of supply of security guards was given to M/s. Industrial
Security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness
has further admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I.
were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and
other security guards and the contractors engaged by the
FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed
by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March,1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No.1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No.1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to
him, from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1
to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the party
no.1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri
Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No.1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No.1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No.1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs.
D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No.1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and. has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5497
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No.1 and the
workman and the Party No.1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No.1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. lt was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'bIe High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'bIe High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-
H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal
(Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd.
Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.7.2002
in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main
prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
5498
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
when he is hired in or in connection with such
work by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer. Section
2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person
who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishmnet," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work, fixation of wages and other
essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20
privides that if any amenity required to be
provided under section 16, section 17, section 18,
or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour
employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5499
and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the
contractor "either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or
as a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21
says that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by
him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract
labour, it requires every principal employer to
nominate a respresentative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contrator to ensure the disbursement of wages in
the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section
(4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make
payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to be contact labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should not
be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving
that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principal
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
in discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the Central
Government or the State Government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to
become the employees of the principal employer.
This court in the case of Gammon India Limited V.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the
object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to
ensure payment of wages and provisions of
essential amenities. This is why the Act provides
for regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165= (1985) I
SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has
not abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refunery Mazdoor Sangh
V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this
court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and
(ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
5500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the Central Government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis
of the requisite material. It is not possible for High
Court or this court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to
decide such questions only on the basis of the
affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed
and engaged by the contractors. As such at what
point of time a direct link is established between
the contract labourers and the principal employer,
eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a
matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour
Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora
to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the
oral and documentary evidence produced before
them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'bIe Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with
the manner of handling work done by the
contractor, the labour force employed by him,
payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation,
there was no privity of contract of employer and
workmen between the corporation and the
workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting
the words not necessary) in the Industrial
Disputes Act to mean (any person' including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do........".
'The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in
that industry and that there should be, in other
words, an employment of his by the employer and
that there should be a relationship between the
employer and employee or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his being a "workman" within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the
Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5501
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an, interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1), of the CLRA Act prohibiting
employment of contract labour or otherwise, in
an industrial dispute brought before it by any
contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the
question whether the contractor has been
interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance of various beneficial legislations so
as to, deprive, the workers of the benefit there
under. If the contract is found to be not genuine
but a mere camouflage, the so called contract
labour will have to be treated as employees of the
principal employer who shall be directed to
regularize the services of the contract labour in
the concerned establishment. If the contract is
found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if, necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to, maximum 'age
appropriately taking into consideration the, age
of. the workers at the time of their initial
employment by the contractor and also relaxing
the 'condition as to academic qualifications other,
than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -
9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -
17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-
2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-
12.1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship
be implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be
found to exist from the rules and the forms made
there under.”
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand quite different from the
facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No.1. or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
5502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No.1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No. 1. to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No.1. had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularization in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No.1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No.1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No.1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2062.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 252@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@154@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2062.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 252/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/154/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No.CGIT/NGP/252/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No.1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5503
Party No. 1(b) :
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Vilas Tryambak Tale, for adjudication, as
per letter No.L-22012/154/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003,
with the following schedule:
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in
terminating the services of Shri Vilas Tryambak
Tale, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vilas
Tryambak Tale, ('the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No.1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 04.03.1994 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home
guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract
the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision
of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was
performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a
perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and
unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages. The further case of the
workman is that in 1994, he was engaged by the Party No.1
through the contractor for a period of two years, but the
contract was made only on papers and after every two years,
the Party No.1 changed the contractor on papers only and
the engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace
the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from
his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by
the contractors, but actually, he was working under the
direct control and supervision of the Party No.1 and the
contractor had no role to play in the same and the work
performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No.1
and he was a regular employee of Party No.1 and Party
No.1 was his real employer and not the contractor as alleged
and the engagement and change of contractors by Party
No.1 from time to time was sham and only a camouflage
to deny his legitimate claim and the contract between Party
No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and not genuine and
therefore, his oral termination from services was against
the mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No.1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the
Party No. 1 and Party No.1 also supplied the articles,
such as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and
in view of the long spell of work being carried out by
him, he is entitled to be reinstated in service with
continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
5504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 04.03.1994
to14.03.1999 without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home Guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as Torch, Lathi, Whistle and uniform etc. to
the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 04.03.1994. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given
to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5505
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune
from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya Industrial
Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January
1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security Services Intelligence
Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01;03.1993 and
M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996
to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted
that inspite of change of the contractors, the workman
worked continuously in FCI from 04.03.1994 till 4.03.1999
and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards
was given to M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services,
Bombay by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the
concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary
directions to the petitioner and other security guards and
the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying wages to
the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 04.03.1994 at
Akola Depot as a security guard and the worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March,
1999 and his services were terminated orally by the Party
No.1, without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's
wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation
was given to the workman, as required under section 25- F
of the Act and after termination of the services of the
workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to
extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the
provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of
security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination
of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to engaged
by the management and therefore, the management of FCI
was bound to abolish the contract labour system and to
give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03-05-2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party
No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No.1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No.1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 1 CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer. and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31-12-1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contractor, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act.. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and. has not been able to prove their
claim that the-workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. l that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
5506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No.1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No.1 and the workman and the
Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour systems.
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party
No.1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon'bIe High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of
1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'bIe
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'bIe High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'bIe Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocte for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim'' had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularization on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others
Vs. National Union water front workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly the main
prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, thus petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
appropriate authority for redressal of their
grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman, that, he was directly appointed or engaged by
the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning
of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5507
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No.1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which is reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2(1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been
employed as contract labour in or in connection
with the work of an establishment when he is hired
in or in connection with such work by or through
a contractor, with or without the knowledge of
the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes
to produce a given result for the establishment,
other than a mere supply of goods or articles of
manufacture to such establishment, through
contract labour or who supplies contract labour
for any work of the establishment and includes a
sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or
department of the Government or a local authority,
the head of that office or department or such other
officer as the government or the local authority,
as the case may be may specify in this behalf and
(ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the
factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate
Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board,
prohibit, by notification in the Official Gazette,
employment of contract labour "in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment,"
Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before
issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall
have regard to the conditions of work and benefits
provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of
the relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by
the contract labourers is of perennial nature.
Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom
this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute
any work through contract labour except under
and in accordance with a license issued in that
behalf by the licensing authority. The license so
issued may contain conditions in respect of hours
of work, fixation of wages and other essential
amenities in respect of contract labour as the
appropriate Government may deem fit to impose
in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under
section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19
for the benefit of the contract labour employed in
an establishment, is not provided by the contractor
within the time prescribed by the contractor within
5508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall
be provided by the principal employer within such
time as may be prescribed and all expensed
incurred by the principal employer in providing
the amenity may be recovered by the principal
employer from the contractor "either by deduction
from any amount payable to the contractor under
any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of
such contract labour, it requires every principal
employer to nominate a representative duly
authorized by him to be present at the time of
disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall
be the duty of the contractor to ensure the
disbursement of wages in the presence of the
authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section
21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal
employer shall be liable to make payment of wages
in full to the contact labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from
the contractor. Any contravention of the
provisions aforesaid has been made penal for
which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should not
be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving
that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principal
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become
the employees of the principal employer. This
court in the case of Gammon India limited Vs.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the
object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure
payment of wages and provisions of essential
amenities. This is why the Act provides for
regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1
SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has
not abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh
Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this
court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and
(ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5509
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the central government or by
any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be established
by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It
need not to be pointed out that in all such cases,
the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors. As such at what point of time
a direct link is established between the contract
labourers and the principal employer, eliminating
the contractor from the scene, is a matter which
has to be established on material produced before
the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such
disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary
evidence produced before them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the
manner of handling work done by the contractor,
the labour force employed by him, payments made
by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no
privity of contract of employer and workmen
between the corporation and the workmen.
"Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words
not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to
mean (any person including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do ……..". 'The
expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in
that industry and that there should be, in other
words, an employment of his by the employer and
that there should be a relationship between the
employer and employee or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his being a "workman" within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Hon'bIe Apex Court have held that:
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
5510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit there under. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the
principal employer intends to employ regular
workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile
contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and,
if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to
maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and
also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case. 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of
1999, D/ -12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if
1996, D/ -9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of
1997m D/ -17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of
1999, D/ -2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of
1999, D/-23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the
action issuing notification under Section 10(1) of
the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and
the forms made there under.”
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No.1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No.1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No.1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-production
of the documents by Party No.1, there is no need to draw
any adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of
the case in hand are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the
Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the
union representative, with respect, I am of the view that
the said decisions have no clear application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, contention cannot be entertained. Moreover, it
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5511
is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11 /89 /LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned
or occupied by the establishments of Food Corporation of
India and some other departments was lifted by the Central
Government. So, the engagement of contract labour by the
Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is also found from
the materials on record that the appointment of labour
contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was
genuine and the same was not only on papers as claimed by
the workman. The workman has failed to prove such claim
by adducing cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement
of labour contractor by Party No.1 was not a mere ruse or
camouflage to evade compliance of the various beneficial
legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits
there under. The workman has not been able to produce any
document to show that at any point of time, Party No.1 paid
his wages as their employee. It is clear from the evidence
that Party No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the
workman in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the
contractor did not pay the same. As it is clear from the
evidence on record that the workman was engaged as a
contract labour with Party No.1, by the contractor and as
such, it can be held that there was no relationship of master
and servant between the Party No.1 and the workman.
Hence, there was no question of termination of the services
by the Party No.1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections
25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2063.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 253@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@155@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2063.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 253/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/155/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/253/2003
Date: 02.04.2013
Party No. 1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) :
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai -400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar ,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
5512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Dinesh Surajpal Singh Thakur, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/155/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in
terminating the services of Shri Dinesh Surajpal
Singh Thakur, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Dinesh
Surajpal Singh Thakur ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as, required,
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of Home
guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract
the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision
of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was
performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a
perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and
unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No.1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him
was being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a
regular employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his
real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No.1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No.1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so-called contractors engaged by the Party No.1 and
Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5513
were not the employer of the workman and the, services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
01.08.1993 to14.03.1999, without any break in service and
the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a year
as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the Security
Contractor, there was no relationship of master and servant
between them and the workman at any point of time and
under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation
and Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
Security Guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and
the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and
when their go-downs are filled with foodgrains, then only,
services of the Security Guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police Personnel as Security
Guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of Security Guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the
year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the
year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of Security Guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No.1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through Contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also admitted
the suggestions given to him in his cross-examination that
supply of Security Guards was given to Singh Security
Services for two years and subsequently the same was
extended till 15.12.1996 and the contract for supply of
Security Guards was also given to Bombay Intelligence
Security India Pvt. Ltd. from 01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to
Commando Security Force, Pune from 01.04.1991 to
31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya Industrial Security and
Investigation Services, Amravati from January 1992 to May,
1992, to M/s Security services Intelligence Bureau, Thane
from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s. Industrial Security
and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI.
This witness has also admitted that in spite of change of
5514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the contractors, the workman worked continuously in FCI
from 01.08.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract
of supply of security guards was given to M/s. Industrial
security and Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness
has further admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I.
were issuing necessary directions to the petitioner and
other security guards and the contractors engaged by the
FCI were paying wages to the Security Guards deployed
by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a Security Guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March,1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No.1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25- H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No.1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so-called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No.1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007 an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No.1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No.1 to produce
the documents, but in spite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No.1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I- CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No.1 nor the so-called contractors
engaged by the Party No.1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and in fact the so-called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No.1
engaged the workman and some others as Security Guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No.1 and the Party
No.1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the Party No.1 and the workman and
the so-called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without ahy contractor, the workman continued the work
with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid
the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No.1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and, has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
Security Guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further by the learned advocate for the
Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged by the
contractor and as the contract of the contractor came to an
end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no
question of Party No.1 complying with the due procedure
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5515
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No.1 and the workman and the
Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of Security Guards and due to the notification
of the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home Guards and Police Personnel were appointed as
Security Guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No.1
that the workman and some others had approached the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble High
Court while depositing of the said petition have held that
the termination of the workman by the contractor was a
valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No.1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002)
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil)
6303—6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S.
Mani), Appeal (Civil) 6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639 of 2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi)
and Appeal (Civil) 2969 of 2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India, and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'bIe High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1], the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the
petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be
adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly,
the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
appropriate authority for redressal of their
grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'bIe High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No.I.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a Security Guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
5516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on 1.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a Security Guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific that he was engaged by the contractor, it is clear
that the workman was engaged by the contractor. The
workman has not produced any evidence to show that he
was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'bIe Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The Workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and Others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'bIe Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
when he is hired in or in connection with such
work by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer. Section
2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person
who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work, fixation of wages and other
essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20
provides that if any amenity required to be
provided under section 16, section 17, section 18,
or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour
employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed
and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the
contractor "either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or as
a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says
that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5517
him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract
labour, it requires every principal employer to
nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages
in the presence of the authorized representative
of the principal employer. Because of sub-section
(4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make
payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contract labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should not
be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving
that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principle
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract, labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the Central
Government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become
the employees of the principal employer. This
court in the case of Gammon India Limited V. Union
of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure
payment of wages and provisions of essential
amenities. This is why the Act provides for
regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1
SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has
not abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh
V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this
court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii)
to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the Central Government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
5518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be established
by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It
need not to be pointed out that in all such cases,
the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors. As such at what point of time
a direct link is established between the contract
labourers and the principal employer, eliminating
the contractor from the scene, is a matter which
has to be established on material produced before
the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such
disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary
evidence produced before them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the
manner of handling work done by the contractor,
the labour force employed by him, payments made
by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no
privity of contract of employer and workmen
between the corporation and the workmen.
"Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words
not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to
mean (any person including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do .........". 'The
expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in
that industry and that there should be, in other
words, an employment of his by the employer and
that there should be a relationship between the
employer and employee or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his being a "workman" within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I -LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the
Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5519
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any
given result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit there under. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he
shall give preference to the erstwhile contract
labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if
necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the
age of the workers at the time of their initial
employment by the contractor and also relaxing
the condition as to academic qualifications other
than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of
1999, D/ -12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if
1996, D/ -9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of
1997m D/ -17-4-l998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999,
D/ -2-8-2000 (Born) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/
-23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship
be implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be
found to exist from the rules and the forms made
there under.”
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No.l, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the Parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
5520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning. dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No.1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2064.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 254@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@156@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2064.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 254/2003 of
the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government
on 02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/156/2003 - IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/254/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) :
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management Food Corporation of India and their workman,
Shri Vijay Shridhar Borkar, for adjudication, as per letter
No.L-22012/ 156/2003- IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with
the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5521
the services of Shri Vijay Shridhar Borkar, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vijay Shridhar
Borkar, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of Food Corporation of India
("Party No.1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 02.09.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the, appointment of
contract labour as contemplated under Section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and
issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish
the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No.1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was, no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 02.09.1993
to14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
5522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the dcision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990
put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted
from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and the
said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and therefore,
the security contact given to the contractor was terminated
and hence, the services of the workman were terminated by
the security contractor and they did not pay the salary to
the workman and it was the contractor, who was paying the
same to the workman and when the contractor failed to pay
the salary to the workman, they paid the amount as per the
directions given by the ALC from time to time and the said
amount was recovered from the contract's bill and they only
used to check the attendance of the security guards to find
out as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of
the requisite number of security guards, as per their
requirement and they did not have the power to terminate
any employee appointed by the contractor and they did not
provide any article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform
etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his cross-examination, in chief, which is on
affidavit. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted
that the workman was appointed on 02.09.1993. He has
also admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years, and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given
to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune
from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya Industrial
Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January
1992 to May, 1992 to M/s Security Services Intelligence
Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s
Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to
15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that
inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked
continuously in FCI from 02.09.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on
14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was
given to M/s Industrial security and Fire Services, Bombay
by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned
officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions to the
petitioner and other security guards and the contractors
engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security
Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 02.09.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No.1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5523
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No.1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No.1 to produce
the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No.l.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I- CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal)
Corporation,
Faridabad
and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with party no. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it though Party No. 1
unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not
accept the same and without any contractor, the workman
continued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the
Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No.l, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and. has not been able to prove
their claim that the workman was a contract labour, by
producing cogent evidence in support of the same and as
such, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No.1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and .there was no relationship of master and
servant between' the Party No.1 and the workman and the
Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of Contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police Personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No.1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party
No.1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon 'bIe
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No.1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
5524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25- F or 25- H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No.1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'bIe High Court, Nagpur Bench in
W. P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon 'bIe
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'bIe High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1), the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the
petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be
adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly,
the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
appropriate authority 'for redressal of their
grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 'to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No.1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'bIe Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5525
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. 'Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in the
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
when he is hired in or in connection with such
work by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer. Section
2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person
who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub- contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
State Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be
taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work fixation of wages and other essential
amenities in respect of contract labour as the
appropriate Government may deem fit to impose
in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under
section 16, section 17, section 18, or section 19
for the benefit of the contract labour employed in
an establishment, is not provided by the contractor
within the time prescribed by the contractor within
the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall
be provided by the principal employer within such
time as may be prescribed and all expensed
incurred by the principal employer in providing
the amenity may be recovered by the principal
employer from the contractor "either by deduction
from any amount payable to the contractor under
any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor", Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of
such contract labour, it requires every principal
employer to nominate a representative duly
authorized by him to be present at the time of
disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall
be the duty of the contractor to ensure the
disbursement of wages in the presence of the
authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section
21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal
employer shall be liable to make payment of wages
in full to the contact labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from
the contractor. Any contravention of the
provisions aforesaid has been made penal for
which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should
not be any exploitation of the contract labourers
by the contractor or the establishment. For
achieving that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principal
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of conttact labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
5526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to
become the employees of the principal employer.
This court in the case of Gammon India Limited V.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the
object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
can not be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to
ensure payment of wages and provisions of
essential amenities. This is why the Act provides
for regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act.
Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor
Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR
684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court
pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to
provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated, that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the central government or by
any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the'
new contractor retains the old employees. Infact
such a condition is incorporated in the contract
itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer
in course of time and on whether the engagement
and employment of labourers through a contractor
is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has
been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to
be established by the contract labourers on the
basis of the requisite material. It is not possible
for High Court or this court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to
decide such questions only on the basis of the
affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed
and engaged by the contractors. As such at what
point of time a direct link is established between
the contract labourers and the principal employer,
eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a
matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour
Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora
to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the
oral and documentary evidence produced before
them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with
the manner of handling work done by the
contractor, the labour force employed by him,
payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation,
there was no privity of contract of employer and
workmen between the Corporation and the
workmen. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting
the words not necessary) in the Industrial
Disputes Act to mean (any person including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do.... ".
'The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5527
of a relationship brought about by expres. or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a
person being a workman within the terms of the
definition is that he should be employed to do the
work in that industry and that there should be, in
other words, an emplyment of his by the employer
and that there should be a relationship between
the employer and employee' or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his being a "workman" within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Hon 'bIe Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the
Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any
given result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he
shall give preference to the erstwhile contract
labour. It otherwise found suitable, and, if
necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the
age of the workers at the time of their initial
employment by the contractor and also relaxing
the condition as to academic qualifications other
than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ -12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -
9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/ -
17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-
2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-12-
1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establispment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
5528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal employer
and the contract labour nor can such relationship
be implied from the provisions of the action issuing
notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be
found to exist from the rules and the forms made
there under.”
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No.l, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstnces of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor anything has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92 Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No.1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits thereunder. The workman has not been able
to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5529
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2065.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 255@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@157@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2065.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 255/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/157/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/255/2003
Dated: 02.04.2013
Party No. 1(a):
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur
Nagpur-440015.
Party No.1(b):
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan,
Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No.2:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,
Hind Nagar ,Ward No. 2,
Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha,
Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Vikas Mahadev Kharat, for adjudication, as
per letter No.L-22012/157/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003,
with the following schedule:-
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the
services of Shri Vikas Mahadev Kharat, Security Guard
w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Vikas
Mahadev Kharat ('the workman' in short), filed the statement
of claim and the management of Food Corporation of India
("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after very two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
5530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and mangement of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at
FCI Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and
in absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly till
14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no quesiton of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to
14.3.1999, without any break in service and the workman did
not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and as the
workman was engaged by the Security Contractor, there
was no relationship of master and servant between them
and the workman at any point of time and under section 10
of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act,
they were exempted by the Central Government, so the
allegations made by the workman against them are not true
and there was no quesiton of violation of the provisions of
25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and
the work of providing secutiry guards was given to other
Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home Guards
and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief
from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notificaiton issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police Personnel as security
guards.
The further case of party no. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointement of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of party No 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employement of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the secutiry contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the direcitons given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5531
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
applicaiton and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary silp and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May 1992, to M/s Security Services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/s Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has
also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993
till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply
of security guards was given to M/s Industrial Security and
Fire Services, Bombay by F.C.I. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the party No.1
to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the party No.1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the party No.1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the party No.1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the party No.1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
5532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the party No.1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the party No.1 and the party
No.1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the party No.1 and the workman and
the so called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though party No.1 unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without any contractor, the workman continued the work
with party No.1 till 14.03.1999 and the party No.1 paid
the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of party No.1 and it was party No.1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s.
Bharat Heavy Electrials Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128)
FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that party No.1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was never
appointed by party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workmakan
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the party No.1 and the
workman and the party No.1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and party No.1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the relief sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
resjudicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by party
No.1 as per the Rules of apointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with party No.1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the party No.1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court 29.07.2002
in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5533
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main
prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
appropriate authority for redressal of their
grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the party No.1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the
statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman
that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India
Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor.
In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has
mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the
Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period
of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case
of the workman is that after every two years, the party No.1
on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was
not disturbed from services and he worked continuously
without any break till 14.3.1999 and as he worked as a
security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed
that as the Central Government issued notification on
01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and party No.1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initialy engaged in Food Corporation
of India as a security guard through a contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No.1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment when
he is hired in or in connection with such work by
or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2
(1) (c) defines "Contractor" mean a person who
undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor, "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
5534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department
or such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
state Board, prohibit, by notification in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of
perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no
contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract
labour except under and in accordance with a
license issued in that behalf by the licensing
authority. The license so issued may contain
condiions in respect of hours of work, fixation of
wages and other essential amenities in respect of
contract labour as the appropriate Government
may deem fit to impose in accordance with rules.
Section 20 provides that if any amenity required
to be provided under section 16, section 17,
section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is
not provided by the contractor within the time
prescribed by the contractor within the time
prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be
provided by the principal employer within such
time as may be prescribed and all expensed
incurred by the principal employer in providing
the amenity may be recovered by the principal
employer from the contractor "either by deduction
from any amount payable to the contractor under
any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but
at the same time in order to protect the interest of
such contract labour, it requires every principal
employer to nominate a respresentative duly
authorized by him to be present at the time of
disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall
be the duty of the contractor to ensure the
disbursement of wages in the presence of the
authorized representative of the principal
employer. Because of sub-section (4) of section
21, if the contractor fails to make payment of
wages within the prescribed period, then the
principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contract labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should
not be any exploitation of the contract labourers
by the contractor or the establishment. For
achieving that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principal
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
Government or the state Government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to
become the employees of the principal employer.
This court in the case of Gammon India limited V.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the
object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for
regulation and abolition of contract labour. The
underline policy of the Act is to abolish contract
labour, wherever possible and practicable and
where it cannot be abolished to altogether, the
policy of the Act is that the working conditions of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5535
the contract labour should be so regulated as to
ensure payment of wages and provisions of
essential amenities. This is why the Act provides
for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165= (1985) 1
SCC 630 it was pointed out that Parliament has
not abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh
V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this
court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii)
to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogehter, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a
right to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis
of the requisite material. It is not possible for High
Court or this court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to
decide such questions only on the basis of the
affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed
and engaged by the contractors. As such at what
point of time a direct link is established between
the contract labourers and the principal employer,
eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a
matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour
Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora
to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the
oral and documentary evidence produced before
them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with
the manner of handling work done by the
contractor, the labour force employed by him,
payments made by him etc. In such a fact situation,
there was not privity of contract of employer and
workmen between the corporation and the
workman. "Workmen" has been defined (omitting
the words not necessary) in the Industrial
Disputes Act to mean (any person including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to
do................". 'The expression' employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is
used in the sense of a relationship brought about
by express or implied contract of service in which
the employee renders service for which he is
engaged by the employer and the latter agrees to
pay him in cash or kind as agreed between them
or statutorily prescribed. It discloses a
relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a persons being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should
be employed to do the work in that industry and
that there should be, in other words, an employment
of his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee
5536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
or master and servant unless a person is thus
employed there can be no question of his being a
"workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477)., Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workmen of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prihibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in
regard to conditions of service, the industrial
adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either
on the ground of having undertaken to produce
any given result for the establishment or for
supply of contract labour for work of the
establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive
the workers of the benefit there under. If the
contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so called contract labour will have
to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the
services of the contract labour in the concerned
establishment. If the contract is found to be
genuine and the principal employer intends to
employ regular workmen he shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found
suitable, and if necessary, by relaxing the
condition as to maximum age appropriately taking
into consideration the age of the workers at the
time of their initial employment by the contractor
and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of
1999, D/-12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545 (W) if
1996, D/ -9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of
1997m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999,
D/-2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-
23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the conctractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "Contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrepective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5537
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the
action issuing notification under Sectiuon 10(1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and
the froms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No.1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by Tribunal on the application of workman is
concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the
workman that he was engaged through the contractor in
FCI and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for
the party no.1 to direct him to perform different duties as a
security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were
done properly. Moreover, the Party No.1 has produced
number of documents to show that the workman was a
contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by
the contractors. Hence, for non-production of the
documents by party no. 1, there is no need to draw any
adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the
Hon'ble Courts,on which reliance has been placed by the
union representative, with respect, I am of the view that
the said decisions have no clear application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the party
no.1 or the constractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention can not be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the party no. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by party no.1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the party no.1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Lobour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1976, then
the persons responsible for such violation are liable for
criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions
of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the
workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Lobour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of security Guards was genunie and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The Workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and such, it can be held
that there was no relationship of master and servant between
the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no
question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1
or compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F or 25-H
of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunicated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
5538
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2066.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 264@2003½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@176@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2066.—n pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 264/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Indistrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/176/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/264/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.).
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Sheetal Prasad Kamal Prasad Dwivedi, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/176/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in
terminating the services of Shri Sheetal Prasad
Kamal Prasad Dwivedi, Security Guard w.e.f.
14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sheetal
Prasad Kamal Prasad Dwivedi ("the workman" in short),
filed the statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5539
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
01.08.1993 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has to right to claim any relief from
them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of party no. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of party no. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendence of the the security guards to find out
as to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
5540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman is support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross examination, this witness has admitted that the
workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/S Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to May, 1992, to M/S Security services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/S Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has
also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993
till14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply
of security guards was given to M/S Industrial security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchement compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the party
no. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representive that
neither the party no. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and
the admission of the witness examined on behalf of the
Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5541
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the party no. 1 and the party
no. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the party no. 1 and the workman and
the so called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and thought party no. 1 unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without any contractor, the workman continued the work
with party no. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the party no. 1 paid the
wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and
such facts also prove that the workman was the employee
of party no. 1 and it though party no. 1 unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without any contractor, the workman continued the work
with party no. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1 paid the
wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and
such facts also prove that the workman was the employee
of party no. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the
services of the workman without compliance of the
mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In support
of the submission, the union representative placed reliance
on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda
Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99
(Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division,
Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that party no. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in
W.P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
5542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the
petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be
adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly,
the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
appropriate authority for redressal of their
grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor for a period of a 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously with any break till 14.03.1999 and as
he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment
when he is hired in or in connection with such
work by or through a contractor, with or without
the knowledge of the principal employer. Section
2 (1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person
who undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5543
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relaion to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf, and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the facotry. In view of Section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
State Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour
"in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work, fixtation of wages and other
essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20
provides that if any emenity required to be
provided under section 16, section 17, section 18,
or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour
employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed
and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the
contractor "either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or as
a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says
that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by
him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract
labour, it requires every principal employer to
nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages
in the presence of the authorized representative
of the principal employer. Because of sub-section
(4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make
payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contact labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has been
made penal for which punsihment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should not
be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving
that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principal
employer he is entitled to duduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate Government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Artile 12 of the constitution, although
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to become
the employees of the principal employer. This
court in the case of Gammon India Limited V. Union
of India (1974) SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
5544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to ensure
payment of wages and provisions of essential
amenities. This is why the Act provides for
regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Associtation V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under
Section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to
enquire into the question and to decide whether
the employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh
V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684,
this court refused to direct the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. to absorb the contract labourers
in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct
connection with the refinery. In other words, there
was no relationship of employer and employee
between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath
V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this
court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer, and (ii)
to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation
or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate Government, under Section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the central government or by
any appropriate government provide that upon
abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is ture that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard that interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such
a condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right
to regularization in the employment of the
principal employer. Whether the contract
labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on
whether the engagement and employment of
labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged
in this case, is a question of fact is to be established
by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It
need not to be pointed out that in all such cases,
the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors. As such at what point of time
a direct link is established between the contract
labourers and the principal employer, eliminating
the contractor from the scene, is a matter which
has to be established on material produced before
the court. Normally, the Labour Court and the
Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such
disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary
evidence produced before them.”
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ- 4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“'Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the
manner of handling work done by the contractor,
the labour force employed by him, payments made
by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no
privity of contract of employer and workmen
between the corporation and the workmen.
''Workmen'' has been defined (omitting the words
not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to
mean (any person including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do .....''.'The
expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relatioinship brought about by express or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship or command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in
that industry and that there should be, in other
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5545
words, an employment of his by the employer
and that there should be a relationship between
the employer and employee or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
question of his being a ''workman'' within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more before the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10 (1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the
Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10 (1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit there under. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the
principal employer intends to employ regular
workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile
contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and,
if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to
maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and
also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430
Overruled prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and
1705 of 1999, D/ - 12-8-1999 (Call): C.O. No.
6545(W) if 1996, D/- 9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos.
345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/- 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No.
2616 of 1999, D/- 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC
2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of
engagement of contract labour by the contractor
in any work of or in connection with the work of
an establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the difinition of the terms ''Contract Labour'',
''Establishment'' and ''Workman'' does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word ''Workman'' is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is ture that combined reading of the terms
''Establishment'' and ''Workman'' shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is ture
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
5546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the
action issuing notification under Section 10 (1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and
the forms made there under.”
So keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the party No. 1 to direct him to perfrom
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the party
no. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enuncated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5547
ubZ fnYyh] 2 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2067.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 265@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@177@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 2nd September, 2013
S.O. 2067.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 265/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
02/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/177/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/265/2003
Date: 02.04.2013.
Party No. 1(a) :
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2 :
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Devidas Mohan Ramteke, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/177/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
“Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in
terminating the services of Shri Devidas Mohan
Ramteke, Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
concerned workman is entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri
Devidas Mohan Ramteke ("the workman" in short), filed
the statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security Guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was regular employee
of Party No. 1 and Party No.1 was his real employer and
not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and
change of contractors by Party No. 1 from time to time
was sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate
5548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and the
contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his
oral termination from services was against the mandatory
provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided
to abolish the appointment of contract labour as
contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification
on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour
system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of
the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all
places and management of FCI implemented the notification
only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security
Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, the contract labour
system was continued by the management, with an intention
to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home Guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services
of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home Guards and
Police Personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abortion) Act, 1970 and
the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990
put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted
from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and
the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and
therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was
terminated and hence, the services of the workman were
terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay
the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who
was paying the same to the workman and when the
contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman, they
paid the amount as per the directions given by the ALC
from time to time and the said amount was recovered from
the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5549
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and
they were brought by Singh Security Services and they
were handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip
and he does not know the name of the contractor through
whom they were appointed and he has not filed any
document to show that he worked for 240 days every
year and the muster rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster
roll of Singh Security Services and his name has been
mentioned in the said rolls and he received the salary
from Singh Security Services as per acquaintance roll for
the month of September, 1995 as per Ext. M-6 and the
same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
the workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given
to Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force, Pune
from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya Industrial
Security and Investigation Services, Amravati from January
1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security Services Intelligence
Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993 and M/s.
Industrial Security and Fire Services from 16.12.1996 to
15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also admitted that
inspite of change of the contractors, the workman worked
continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993 till 14.03.1999 and on
14.03.1999, the contract of supply of security guards was
given to M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
by FCI. This witness has further admitted that the concerned
officers of F.C.I. were issuing necessary directions tom the
petitioner and other security guards and the contractors
engaged by the FCI were paying wages to the Security
Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one months' notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were enaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act the work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence
the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he never a contract labour and such action of the party
No. 1 was sham and only a comouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, form
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party
No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I- CLR-254 (Stateman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even through there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
5550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from o1.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decision reported in
1994 II CLR-420 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never
appointed by Party No. 1 and the he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to and end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in
W.P. 1389 of 1999 for there reliefs sought in this reference
and the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said
petition have held that the termination of the workman by
the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was
legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question
again and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates
as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a ''State''
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Contitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as scuh,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-
H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2669/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, ''Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena Saptahit
Jaibhim'' had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,
Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble High Court
did not grant such relief. On perusal of the order passed by
the Hon'ble Court on 29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it
is found that the workman and others dclaimed
regularisation on the ground that they were employed by
the contractor for doing regular work of the Food
Corporation of India and in view of the same, they have
become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since the
work on which they were employed is of perennial nature.
However, it is found from the judgment that the Hon'ble
High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the
following order:
“In view of the judgement of the Constitution
Bench in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5551
Vs. National Union water frond workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the
petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be
adjudicated by appropriate authority. Accordingly,
the main prayer to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise.
In case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the
approrpriate authority for redressal of their
grievances.''
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata,
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
adocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that. "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No . 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishment being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the
employer including Central and State
Governments started entrusting many of the jobs
to contractors. Contractors in their turn employed
a worker, who has no direct relationship with the
establishment in which they were employed.
Many contractors exploited the labourers engaged
by them in various manners including the payment
of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in
certain establishment and to provide for its
abolition in certain circumstances and for matters
connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has
been employed as contract labour in or in
connection with the work of an establishment when
he is hired in or in connection with such work by
or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principlal employer. Section 2
(1) (c) defines "Contractor" to mean a person who
undertakes to produce a given result for the
establishment, other than a mere supply of goods
or articles of manufacture to such establishment,
through contract labour or who supplies contract
labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer"
has been defined to mean (i) in relation to any
office or department of the Government or a local
authority, the head of that office or department or
such other officer as the government or the local
5552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
authority, as the case may be, may specify in this
behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier
of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation
with the Central Board or, as the case may be, a
state Board, prohibit, by notificaiton in the Official
Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification,
in relation to an establishments, the appropriate
Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract
labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, whcih is to
be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial
nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or
execute any work through contract labour except
under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license
so issued may contain conditions in respect of
hours of work, fixation of wages and other
esstntial amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20
provides that if any amenity required to be
provided under section 16, section 17, section 18,
or section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour
employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore,
such emenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed
and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the
contractor "either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or as
a debt payable by the contractor". Section 21 says
that a contractor shall be responsible for the
payment of wages to each worker employed by
him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect that interest of such contract
labour, it requires every principal employer to
nominate a representative duly authorized by him
to be present at the time of disbursement of wages
by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages
in the presence of the authorized representative
of the principal employer. Because of sub-section
(4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to make
payment of wages within the prescribed period,
then the principal employer shall be liable to make
payment of wages in full to the contract labour
employed by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any
contravention of the provisions aforesaid has
been made penal for which punishment can be
imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed
and recognized contract labour and they have
never purported to abolish it in its entirety. The
primary object appears to be that there should
not be any exploitation of the contract labourers
by the contractor or the establishment. For
achieving that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the
contractor as well as on the principal employer.
Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers
or towards the payment of wages by the principle
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from
the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification
in official gazette, employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances
of employment of contract labour in such process,
operaton or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers
is discernible that after having work for some
years, they make a claim that they should be
absorbed by the principal employer and be treated
as employees of the principal employer especially
when the principal employer is the central
government or the state government or an
authority which can be held to be state within the
meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, allthough
no right flows from the provisions of the act for
the contract labourers to be absorbed or to
become the employees of the principal employer.
This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out
the object and scope of the act as follows:—
“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation
of contract labour and also to introduce better
condition of work. The Act provides for regulation
and abolition of contract labour. The underline
policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,
wherever possible and practicable and where it
cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of
the Act is that the working conditions of the
contract labour should be so regulated as to
ensure payment of wages and provisions of
essential amenities. This is why the Act provides
for regulated conditions of work and contemplates
progressive abolition to the extent contemplated
by Section 10 of the Act.”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5553
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) I SCC
630 it was pointed out that Parliament has not
abolished the contract labour as such but has
provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section
10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the
employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be
decided by the government after considering the
relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the
Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery
Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.,
1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the
contract labourers have not been found to have
direct connection with the refinery. In other words,
there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
and the contract labourers concerned. Again in
Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR
1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act
has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the
conditions of service of the worker employed by
the contractor who is engaged by a principal
employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of
contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated
that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the
Central Government or by any appropriate
government provide that upon abolition of
contract labour, the labourers would be directly
absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and pursely
with a view to safeguard the interests of workers,
many principal employers while renewing the
contracts have been insisting that the contractor
or the new contractor retains the old employees.
Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the
contract which is benevolently inserted in the
contract to protect the continuance of the sourse
of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by
itself give rise to a right to regularization in the
employement of the principal employer. Whether
the contract labourers have become the
employees of the principal employer in course of
time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is
a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has
been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to
be established by the contract labourers on the
basis of the requisite material. It is not possible
for High Court or this court, while exercising writ
jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to
decide such questions only on the basis of the
affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such case, the labourers are initially employed
and engaged by the conbtractors. As such at what
point of time a direct link is established between
the contract labourers and the principal employer,
eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a
matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour
Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora
to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the
oral and documentary evidence produced before
them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri
Depot, the corporation had nothing to do with the
manner of handling work done by the contractor,
the labour force employed by him, payments made
by him etc. In such a fact situation, there was no
privity of contract of employer and workmen
between the corporation and the workmen.
"Workmen" has been defined (omitting the words
not necessary) in the Industrial Disputes Act to
mean (any person including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do...........". "The
expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or
implied contract of service in which the employee
renders service for which he is engaged by the
employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash
or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition
is that he should be employed to do the work in
that industry and that there should be, in other
words, an employment of his by the employer and
that there shouild be a relationship between the
employer and employee or master and servant
unless a person is thus employed there can be no
quesiton of his being a "workman" within the
definition of the term as contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work
5554
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
which he contracted with a third person to
accomplish on the definition as it stands, the
workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third
person. Therefore, when the workmen employed
by the contractor were certainly not the workmen
of the corporation and no claim to that effect has
been made by the union.”
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs
to be constructed liberally in favour of the class
for whose benefit it is intended, does not extend
to reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy
or benefits for that provided by the legislature.
The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour
and to authorize in Section 10 (1) prohibition of
contract labour system by the appropriate
Government on consideration of factors
enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act among other relevant factors. But, the
presence of some or all those factors, provide no
ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and
the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and
12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in
Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for
the High Courts or the Supreme Court to read in
some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or
substitute for penal consequences specified in
Sections 23 and 25 a different sequel be it
absorption of contract labour in the establishment
of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the
provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope
of interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of
contract labour for work of the establishment
under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/
camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers
of the benefit there under. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so
called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall
be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment.
If the contract is found to be genuine and the
principal employer intends to employ regular
workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile
contract labour. It otherwise found suitable, and,
if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to
maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and
also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1740 and 1705 of
1999, D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545 (W)
if 1996, D/ - 9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354
of 1997 m D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050
of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616
of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC
2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of
or in connection with the work of an
establishment, the relationship of master and
servant is created between the principal employer
and the contract labour. Even a combined reading
of the definition of the terms "contract labour",
"Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person
employed in any industry and the owner of the
industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The
word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a
generic term of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would
have direct relationship with the principal
employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of
master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the
action issuing notification under Section 10 (1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and
the forms made there under.”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5555
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the party
no. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the party no. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by party no. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engagd the workman and others as
contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2068.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dj 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 668@2004½ dks
5556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds 22@5@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@283@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2068.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGITA No. 668/2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Indian Bank, and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 22.05.2013.
[No. L-12012/283/98-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, AHMEDABAD
Present ..................................
Binay Kumar Sinha,
Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd April, 2013
Reference: CGIT A No. 668/2004
Reference: (ITC) No. 14/1999 (Old)
The Managing Director,
Indian Bank,
31, Rajaji, Post Box No. 1384,
Chennai-600001.
........First Party
And
Their workmen,
Shri Jaysinhbhai S. Padhiar,
Near Ranchod Bhawan Wadi,
Rabawadi,
Fatehganj,
Vadodara-390002.
.....Second Party
For the First party:
Shri K.V. Gadia, Advocate
For the Second party:
Shri Jogen Pandya, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India/Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi, by its order no. L-12012/283/98/IR(B-II) dated
13/05/1999 in exercise of power conferred by the Clause (d)
of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of
Industrial Dispute Act,1947 referred the dispute existing
between the employer in relation to the management of
Indian Bank and their workmen, for adjudication by the
Tribunal under the terms of reference in the schedule as
follows:—
SCHEDULE
“Whether the workman has completed 240 days
of continuous service as required under section
25-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947”
“Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank, Fatehganj Branch, Vadodara through its
officers in terminating/discontinuing the services
of workman Shri Jaysighbhai Somabhai Padhiar
in the month of November, 1997 is legal, proper
and justified? If not, what relief the concerned
worman is entitle and from which date?”
“Whether the demand of the workman for the
reinstatement in the bank's service with full back
wages and continuity including fringe benefits at
par with the regular and permanent employee (sub
staff category) is proper and justified? If so, to
what relief the concerned workman is entitled to
and what other direction are necessary in the
matter.”
(2) Consequent upon notice to the parties, the 2nd
party (workman) submitted his statement of claim (Ext.-3).
His case is that he was working as "Badli"/Substitute staff
as peon in group D class since 1981 and was discharging
his duty sincerely, honestly and with devotion. There was
no adverse report against him. In spite of that, the Bank
Manager, Fatehganj Branch, Vadodara terminated his
services by oral order in the month of November, 1997.
Further case is that many person junior to him were
absorbed as regular class D Group workers where as his
case was not considered and more so he was senior to them.
He requested to the bank authority to absorb him as a
regular employee of the Bank but the bank did not pay any
heed. The 1st party failed to comply with the provision of
section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Whereas he
(2nd party) has completed more than 240 days of working
in calendar year and 1st party had adopted unfair labour
practice, he was being paid on vouchers and was not
allowed to sign on muster roll. Even though the 2nd party
all along completed 240 working days even then, he was
not given retrenchment notice or compensation as required.
The first party has illegally terminated his service. Prayer
is for reinstatement in the services of the 1st party with full
back wages and other fringe benefits and also for cost of
litigation.
(3) The 1st party (management of Bank) also
appeared and submitted written statement (Ext.-9) pleading
interalia that the reference is not maintainable since there
is no any industrial dispute between the Bank and the 2nd
party Jaysinghbhai Somabhai Padhiar as contemplated
under section 2(K) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The 1st party denied the allegation made in the statement
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5557
of claim. The case of 1st party is that the 2nd party
Jaysinghbhai Somabhai Padhiar had been given work
purely on casual basis for a particular work but he was not
working as a sub staff, he was not given/performing the
work of regular class D staff, the 2nd party never completed
240 days of work in any calendar year. He was not given
the work by the bank other than casual works basis, he was
engaged for particular work which concluded by the end
of the day. He was engaged intermittently during exigencies.
In this way, the 2nd party had worked only for 227 days
during the period from January, 1981 to October, 1997 as
per chart showing working period at Annexure-A. It has
been denied that the bank manager, Fatehganj, Vadodara
terminated the service of the 2nd party by any oral order.
There was no need for further casual work and so 2nd party
was not provided any casual work after Oct., 1997. The
first party has not violated provision of section 25(F) of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On these grounds prayer is
made to dismiss to reference.
(4) In view of the pleadings of party following issues
are taken for the determination in the case.
ISSUES
(i) Whether the reference is maintainable?
(ii) Has the second party valid cause of action in this
case?
(iii) Whether the 2nd party completed 240 days of
working in the calendar year preceding his oral
termination in the month of November, 1997?
(iv) Whether the action of the management of Indian
Bank, Fatehganj Branch through its officer in
discontinuing the services of workman Shri
Jaysinghbhai Somabhai Padhiar is legal, proper
and justified?
(v) Whether the 2nd party is entitle for reinstatement
in the Bank's services with back wages. Whether
alternatively the 2nd party workman is entitled
for compensation, if any, in this case?
(vi) What orders are to be passed?
(5) Issue No. III
Both parties have adduced oral and documentary
evidence in this case (The 2nd party) examined himself at
Ext. 55 in support of his stand taken in statement of claim.
He was cross-exmined by the 1st party lawyer. On the other
hand the Bank (1st party) examined Manubhai Gagandas
Aitsinghani working as manager in Indian Bank, Vadodara
for supporting the stand taken in written statement. The
1st party filed documents through list Ext. 12& Ext. 23 on
30.07.2000 and 27.01.2003. Documents with list (Ext. 23)
were given pakka Ext. 65, 66, 67 and 68 to 68/10 (series)
(vouchers). Ext. 65 is the letter of 1st party bank dated
23-03-1992 addressed to Regional Manager, Indian Bank,
Ahmedabad, mentioning details of work of the 2nd party,
J. S. Padhiar, the temporary sub staff of Fatehganj branch
of the Bank. From Ext. 65 it go to show that from January,
81 to August, 91, the total working days of the 2nd party
was 95 days. The said working days of the 2nd party also
finds support from his application dated 11-11-1992
submitted before the Bank for empanelling him in temporary
service in the Bank vide Ext. 67.
(6) 2nd party application Ext. 67 is regarding particular
of the temporary service in the Bank from January, 1981 to
August, 1991. Ext. 66 is the circular of the Indian Bank
dated 12-10-1992 on the subject—empanelment of person
engaged in the leave vacancies of sub staff who worked
for 90 days or more during the period 01-01-1982 to
31-12-1989. But as particularly Ext. 65, the 2nd party had
not completed minimum of 90 days of work from 01-01-1982
to 31-12-1989, rather he had worked for 12 days in July,
1982, 7 days in August, 1982, 6 days in September, 1982,
there after he did not work from 1983 to 1988. In the year
1989, he worked for 3 days in March, 1989. Thus, his period
of work from July 1982 to 1989 was only 29 days. So 2nd
party workman was not fulfilling the criteria as circular of
Indian Bank Ext. 66 and he never completed minimum of 90
days from January, 1982 to December, 1989. In filing
application for his empanelment vide Ext.-67 he mentioned
the period of work from January, 1981 to August, 1991 was
95 days of work, whereas it was meant for showing the
work from January, 1982 to December, 1989. Since 2nd party
was not fulfilling the criteria of minimum of 90 days of work
up to December, 1989 as per circular Ext. 66, so he was not
eligible for empanelment. Ext 68 series are 11 vouchers
regarding payments made to the (2nd party) in the year
1990.
(7) More so, the first party (Indian Bank) as produced
the documents/vouchers with a list Ext. 25 which ware given
pakka Ext. 28 to 54. From Annexure-A attached with W.S.
(Ext. 9), it is established that the 2nd party has worked only
for 227 days during his entire tenure of works January,
1981 to October, 1997. Ext. 67 itself establishes that he (2nd
party) worked less than 240 days during January, 1981 to
August, 1991. Ext. 67 also reflects that the date of birth of
the 2nd party is 13-09-1956 and at present he has already
completed 55 years of age. Vide Ext. 21 the 2nd party
demanded certain documents and the 1st party replying
by Ext. 24 and the Labour Court had passed order below
Ext. 21 directing the Bank to produce the demanded
documents. In response to order below Ext. 21, the first
party produced documents which were available and same
were mark Ext. 28 to 54 and for rest of the documents
demanded were not available in the Bank as not to be
retained more than 8 year old documents for which an
affidavit of Branch Manager was filed vide Ext. 26.
5558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(8) Now coming to the oral evidence of 2nd and also
of the 1st party. The workman (2nd party) deposed vide
Ext. 55 that he joined the Bank on 01-01-1981 as a peon and
he has been orally terminated in November-1997 and at the
time of alleged termination he was not given notice, notice
pay or retrenchment compensation. During the cross-
examination he admitted that he was being paid wages on
daily basis. He also admitted that he does not know what is
stated in the statement of claims? He also admitted that he
has not stated in the statement of claim that how many
days he had worked in the Bank? He also admitted that he
has no proof that he had work in Alkapuri Branch. He also
admitted that for appointment for peon names were called
from employment exchange. The 1st party witness
Manubhai vide Ext. 62 has stated in the examination in
chief that the 2nd party was provided work as and when
exigency arose, the 2nd party has not worked 240 days, in
a year, his engagement was on need basis and daily wages
basis, the 2nd party was not appointed as per the
recruitment rules, the 2nd party has worked 95 days from
1981 to 1991 and 132 days from 1993 to 1997. The Bank
witness was cross-examined at length but nothing could
have been gained by the 2nd party to discredit his
testimony. The 2nd party has failed to rebut the evidence
of the management witness.
(9) From examining oral and documentary evidence
discussed above, it is crystal clear that the 2nd party has
not completed 240 days in any year of service during the
span of his work from January-1981 to October-1997. As
per the documents produced by the 1st party, the 2nd party
worked in total 227 days in his along tenure of 17 years
from 1981 to 1997 and that he was a casual worker and
never appointed as per rules and regulations of the Bank.
Thus, this issue is decided against the 2nd party.
(10) Issue No.-IV:—In view of the findings to Issue
No-III in the forgoings since the 2nd party never completed
240 days to work in any calendar year and more so more
particularly in the calendar year preceding oral termination
in November-1997, it was not incumbent upon the 1st party
(Bank) to comply with the provision of section 25(F)
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. More so, the work performed
by the 2nd party was casual in nature in the case of exigency
and also was working intermittently and so the 2nd party
has not acquired any status of such workman completed
240 days of work in calendar year. So the 1st party was not
required to give notice or notice pay. Thus the action of
the management of the Indian Bank, Fatehganj branch
though its officer in discontinuing the service of the
workman Shri Jaysinghbhai Somabhai Padhiar is legal and
proper and justified. This issue is decided accordingly in
favour of the 1st party.
(11) Issue No. V:—As per findings arrived of at in
the foregoing paras to Issue No III and IV, I am of the
considered view that the 2nd party is not entitle for
reinstatement and back wages. The 2nd party is also not
found entitle for any compensation from the Bank instead
of reinstatement as he had no completed 240 days of works
as per findings to Issue No_III. This issue is also decided
against the 2nd party.
(12) Issue No. I, II & VI:—In view of findings to
Issue No.-III, IV, V in the foregoing paras, I further find and
hold that the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd
party has no cause of action to raise this Industrial Dispute.
Therefore, the reference is dismissed on contest. No. order
as to any cost.
This is my award.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2069.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñlhñlhñ,yñ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157 o"kZ 2001½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03&09&2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@51@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&I½]
,e- ds- flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2069.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 157/
2001) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhandbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Kustore Area of
M/s. BCCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 03-09-2013.
[No. L-20012/51/2001-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section
10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5559
REFERENCE NO. 157 OF 2001.
PARTIES :
General Secretary,
Coal Mines Workers Engineers Workers
Organisation, Bekar Bandh, Dhanbad.
Vs.
General, Manager, Kustore Area of
M/s BCCL, Dhanbad
On behalf of :
None
the workman
On behalf of the : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State :
JHARKHAND
Industry :
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the
1st Aug., 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10 (1)
(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947 has referred the following dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-
12012/51/2001 (C-I) dt. 22.5.2001
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of BCCL,
Kusote Area in reducing the rank of Shri Kanhai
Bhar to Cat. III and also in reducing his wages
from Rs. 39.04 to Rs. 31.80 is just, fair and legal? If
not to what relief is the workman concerned
entitled?
2. Neither Union Representative nor workmen Kanhai
Bhar appeared for hearing substitution petition of the
petitioner concerned despite ample opportunity for hearing
over the substitution petition pending for it since 3.5.2001,
Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./Management
is present.
The perusal of the record reveals that the case has
been pending for hearing on the substitution petition of
the petitioner concerned since 3.5.2011, but neither the
Union Representative nor the petitioner concerned
appeared to press it. The conducts of the Union
representative and the petitioner concerned, namely,
Panchanand Bhar show that they are not willing to proceed
with the case which is related to a issue over the reduction
of the rank of the workman Kanhai Bhar to Cat.III and of
his wages from Rs. 39.04 to Rs. 31.80.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it is useless to
proceed with the case for uncertainty. Hence it is closed as
non existence of the Industrial Dispute. Accordingly, it is
passed an order/Award of No Dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2070.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ lh ,y ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@17@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2070.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2007)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 3.09.2013.
[No. L-20012/17/2007 - IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 26 OF 2007.
Parties :
The Secretary,
Bihar Pradesh Colliery Mazdoor
Congress, Bishunpur, Dhanbad
Vs.
General Manager, Mugma Area of
M/s. BCCL, Dhanbad
On behalf of :
None
the workman
On behalf of the : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State :
JHARKHAND
Industry :
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 1st Aug., 2013
5560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
A W A R D
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/
17/2007-IR(CM-I) dt. 03.05.2007.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Hriajam Colliery of M/s. ECL in not referring Smt.
Kalo Manijhian, Loading Coolie to the Apex
Medical Board for assessment of her correct age
is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is the
concerned workman entitled.
2. Mr. U.P. Sinha, the learned Advocate for the Union/
the workman is present, but the workwoman Smt. Kalo
Manjhian, Loading Coolie is not present, nor any witness
produced for the evidence of the wokman Mr. D.K. Verma,
the Learned Counsel for the O.P./Management is present.
Mr. Sinha, the Learned Advocate for the Union submits
that the workwoman is not interested in pursuing her case
though he tried his best to contact her several times. The
record of the proceeding discloses its pendency for the
evidence of the workwoman since. 8.3.2013. The conduct
of the workwoman primefacie indicates that she is not
interested in proceeding with her case which is related to
an issue over not referring her to the Apex Medical Board
for the assessment of her correct age.
In result, the case is closed as no industrials dispute
existent; accordingly it is passed an order/award of No
Dispute.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2071.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
ch lh lh ,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
69@1999½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
03-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@184@1998&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2071.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/1999)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
03.09.2013.
[No. L-20012/184/1998- IR(CM-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial dispute under Section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 69 OF 1999.
Parties :
Bihar Janta Khan Mazdoor Sangh,
Dhanbad,
Vs. G.M., Katras Area of M/s BCCL,
Dhanbad.
Appearances :
On behalf of :
None
the workman
On behalf of the : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State :
JHARKHAND
Industry :
Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th July, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(1)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-12012/
184/1998-IR(C-I) dt. 27.01.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Angarpathra Colliery of M/s BCCL in not referring
Sh. Ch. Fagu Bhuiyan M/Loader to Apex Medical
Board as per I.I. No.76 of JBCCI for determination
of his correct date of birth, when two different
date of births were found recorded in service
excerpts of the concerned workman in spite of
representation made by him to the management is
justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman
entitled?.”
2. Neither Union Representative for Bihar Janta Khan
Mazdoor Sangh, Dhanbad, nor workman Sh. Ch. Fagu
Bhuiyan appeared. But Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for
the O.P./Management is present. No witness of the
management is present.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5561
Perused the case record, I find that despite more
than ample opportunities, not a single witness could be
produced for the evidence of the workman during the long
period of it since 3.12.2003 and at last at the declination of
Mr. T.P. Jha, the Ld. Adv. for the workman/Union to adduce
the evidence on his behalf, the case of the workman was
already closed as per Order no. 24 dt. 13.3.06 of the Tribunal.
In the present reference, which relates to an issue about
not referring the workman, M/Loader to Apex medical Board
for determination of his correct date of birth. It is cardinal
pinciple of the rule of law that the petitioner has firstly to
lead his evidence in support of his case. But in the present
reference, neither the Union representative nor the workman
could produce any witness for his claim. Under these
circumstances, there is no point for adducing any evidence
on behalf of the management, because the petitioner
himself has not discharged the onus of his proof.
In result, the case is closed as non-existent of
Industrial Dispute; accordingly it is passed an order of
No. I.D.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2072.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 42@1999½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@754@1997& vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2072.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/
1999) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
3.09.2013.
[No. L-20012/754/1997- IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2),
AT DHANBAD
PRESENT
Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under
Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO. 42 OF 1999.
Parties :
Addl. General Secretary,
The National Coal Workers.
Congress, Hirapur, Dhanbad Vs. General
Manager, Sijua Area of M/s BCCL,
Dhanbad
Appearances :
On behalf of :
Mr. B.B. Pandey, Ld. Advocate.
the workman/
Union
On behalf of the : Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
Management
State :
JHARKHAND
Industry :
Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 30th July, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec.
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following
dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order
No. L-20012/754/97-IR(C-I) dt. 18.1.1999.
SCHEDULE
“Whether the action of the management of
Kankanee Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing
Sh. Ishwar Das, M/Loader, w.e.f. 30.10.92 from
the services of the Company is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the workman concerned is
entitled.
2. The case of workman Ishwar Das as sponsored by
the National Coal Workers Congress, Hirapur, Dhanbad, is
that the workman was a permanent employee of Kankanee
Colliery, Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL. He served the Colliery
for a long time. But he suddenly began to suffer from
Rhuematism and Arthritis of affecting numbness in right
side of his body, particularly in right leg with severe pain in
the body. Due to sudden eruption of peculiar disease, he
used to absent off and on at three or four occasions during
1990 and 1991. He remained absent continuously for about
a month upto 15.3.1992 in the year and alleged to absent
after August, 1992 to 15.3.1992 as stated irregularly under
the compelling circumstances of the disease. After his
recovery, when he turned up with Medical Certificate of
fitness before the management, he was disallowed to resume
duty, though it was assured to do so in due course, and
accordingly, he persuaded and requested the management
to let him join his duty, but to great surprise, he got the
letter of dismissal from the management, communicating it
w.e.f. 30.12.1992 whereas prior to it, neither any chargesheet,
5562
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
letter of explanation nor any notice regarding his aforesaid
circumstantial absence was served on him. The
management dismissed him violative to the rules of the
Disciplinary proceeding and of principles of natural justice.
His dismissal is ab initio void and illegal, as it was without
departmental enquiry, supply of proper documents, and
second Show Cause. The action of the Management in his
dismissal is illegal and unjustified.
3. The Union in its rejoinder has specifically denied
all the allegations of the O.P./Management, and stated that
in lack of notice of the enquiry, the workman was not aware
of the enquiry ex parte, even thereafter, no copies of the
findings/report of the Enquiry Officer were supplied so as
to submit his show cause before the dismissal.
4. Whereas with categorical denials, the contra
pleaded case of the O.P./Management is that the workman
was a habitual absentee, as several charge-sheets were
issued to him since 1988 and accordingly he was several
times warned of his such misconducts, and once suspended
for five days by taking the actions of the management as
noted in Para 4 of its written statement. In spite of it, the
workman again absented from his duty w.e.f. 16.3.1992
without any information and permission/approval of the
Competent Authority. He was charge-sheeted on 28.8.1992
for his misconduct under clause 26.1.3 of the Certified
Standing Order of the Company, but he did not submit his
reply to it. Hence, the departmental Enquiry was fairly
conducted ex-parte by the Enquiry Officer, as the workman
had neither appeared nor responded to the Notices of the
Enquiry even at its publication in Daily News Paper—Awaz
dt. 21.9.92. The charges levelled against workman were
proved. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the workman
w.e.f 30.12.1992. The dismissal of the workman is legal and
justified. The Management also proposed the fairness of
the domestic enquiry to be decided as a preliminary issue,
and in case of its unfairness, for permission to prove the
charges by adducing afresh evidence.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder specifically
denied the allegations of the workman, and stated that the
workman never reported of his illness to the Medical Officer
of the Company. Though the management gave him ample
opportunity, he never informed the management of his
absence. He did not explain what prejudice caused to him.
FINDING WITH REASONS
6. In the reference, since Mr. B.B. Pandey, the learned
Counsel for the Union/workman as per his petition dt.
2.4.2013 has accepted the fairness of the domestic enquiry,
and accordingly the Tribunal has also held it quite fair,
proper and in according with the principle, of natural justice.
The case directly came up for hearing argument on merits.
Mr. Pandey, the Ld. Counsel for the Union submits
that the workman has suffered for twenty years, so he be
reinstated in his service without back wages. On the other
hand, Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned Counsel for the O.P./
Management has to contend that though the workman is a
habitual absentee yet it may be considered.
7. After going through all the materials of the O.P./
Management the Chargesheet dt. 28.8.92, the Enquiry
Proceeding (18 sheets), the previous Enquiry Report with
its present one dt. 28.8.92 and the Agents's Order dt.
30.10.92 for dismissal of the workman Ishwar Das (Ex.
M1 to 4 respectively), I find the facts as under:
(i) The instant enquiry against the workman relates
only to his present unauthorized absence for the
period from 16th March, 1992 up to date
(28th August, 1992, the Enquiry Report was
submitted), but it does not incorporate his
previous such misconducts; and
(ii) The O.P./Management has no proof of the second
Show Cause having been issued to the workman
prior to his dimissal from his service. It does not
stand to the test of legality, being violative of the
principles of natural justice even in the present
ex-parte enquiry.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is evident
that the dismissal of the present workman from his service
as his punishment for his misconduct of the unauthorized
absentism appears to be highly disproportionate to the
nature of his absentism. So it needs its annulment, as it
was quite legally invalid. The workman deserves his due
relief under Sec. 11A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
In result, it is hereby.
ORDERED
That the Award is and the same be passed that the
action of the Management of Kankanee Colliery of M/s
BCCLO in dismissing Shri Ishwar Das M/Loader w.e.f.,
30.10.92 from the services of the Company is quite illegal
and unjustified. So, he is entitled to his reinstatement in his
service without back wages. Let the copies—one soft and
one hard—of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour
& Employment, Government of India, New Delhi for
information and needful publication in the Gazette of the
India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2073.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj us'kuy bU'kksjsU'k
dEiuh fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5563
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 66@98 dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@10@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2073.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 66/98)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of National Insurance Co. Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2013.
[No. L-17012/10/97-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/66/98
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Smt. Muneer Bee,
W/o Shri Babu Bhai,
R/o Dongrighat Para,
Jagdalpur,
Distt. Bastar
......Workman
Versus
Asstt. Branch Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Near Central Bank,
Jagdalpur,
Distt. Bastar
......Management
AWARD
Passed on this 29th day of July 2013
As per letter dated 31-3-1998 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. 17012/
10/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jagdalpur Branch,
Jagdalpur in terminating the services of Smt.
Muneer Bee w.e.f. 2-4-96 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the said workman is entitled?”
2. Ist party workman is challenging her termination
w.e.f. 2-4-96 from management in the dispute under
reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union did not
participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed.
Ist party is proceeded exparte on 16-7-2007.
3. IInd party management also not filed Written
Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the
parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:—
“Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award.”
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2074.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 45@2005 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@114@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2074.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2005)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-41012/114/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/45/2005
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ganesh Prasad Pandey,
Vill. Nandana Post, Jaitwara,
Distt. Satna (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur
.....Management
5564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Passed on this 24th day of July, 2013
1. As per letter dated 22-6-2005 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-
41012/114/2001-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
“Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway, Jabalpur in not regularizing the services
of Shri Ganesh Prasad Pandey is justified? If not,
what relief the concerned applicant is entitled to?”
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party filed statement of claim at Page 5/1 to
5/2. The case of Ist party is that he was working as casual
labour in Railway department. That during the period
23-12-80 to 19-8-88, he worked as casual labour holding
Card No. 179242. Its details were submitted to the
concerned officers. His services were discontinued by IInd
party from 9-10-95. That he was repeatedly submitting
applications for regularization of his services. In 1981,
Railway Board had decided that casual employees working
after 1981 would be regularized by amendment. Ist party
submits that during the period 23-12-1980 to 15-3-81, he
was working under PWI Signal, Central Railway, Katni.
During period 24-4-81 to 16-5-81, he was working under
Inspector Construction, Central Railway Satna during
19-4-88 to 18-9-88, he was working under Railway
Electrification Project, Itarsi. During period 23-12-80 to
16-5-81, he was paid Rs. 150/- per month. During 19-4-88
to 18-9-88, he was paid Rs. 500/- per month.
3. The workman further submits that Central
Railways, Head Office at Mumbai had displayed list of
casual labours on 28-1-03. That he had repeatedly requested
the Railway authorities for regularizing his services but
without results. He had filed Writ Petition No. 967/2004
before Hon'ble High Court and ultimately the reference is
made. The Ist party workman prays for regularization of
his service, protection of his seniority and benefit and
allowances.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at denying the
relief prayed by workman. According to IInd party, the
workman was not continuously working. Ist party was
working as casual labour during the period 23-12-82 to
19-8-98. His name was not included in the list of casual
labours as he did not work for 120 or 180 days in an year.
That as per Railway Regulations Chapter-20 Para-2001
Sub Rule kh Sub clause (2), the casual employees working
for 120 or 180 days continuously are deemed regular. That
workman was not fulfilling those conditions so far as the
working of Ist party workman during the period 19-4-88
to 18-9-88 at Itarsi, the Railway Electrification project,
Head Office is at Allahabad. Railway is not joined as party.
It is denied that services of Ist party were terminated from
1-10-95. In order of termination was not issued by the IInd
party. That casual employees are engaged as exigencies
and needs. All other contentions of Ist party are denied. It
is denied that workman is entitled to regularization or any
of the relief prayed by him. In special pleading earlier
contentions are reiterated that the workman has not
completed 120 or 180 days service required as per Railway
Regulations Chapter-20 Para-2001 Sub Rule kh Sub
clause (2).
5. Considering pleading on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Central Railway,
Jabalpur in not regularizing the
services of Shri Ganesh Prasad
Pandey is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
6. Ist party workman is praying for regularization of
his services claiming that he was working as casual
employee during the period 1980 to 1988 given in detail
in above paras. IInd party denies that the Ist party was
working continuously. It is submitted that Ist party had not
completed 120/180 days continuous working. Therefore
he is not entitled to benefit of regularization as per Railway
Regulations Chapter-20 Para-2001 Sub Rule Kh Sub clause
(2). Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering most
of his contentions about working as casual labour from
23-12-80 to 23-8-88. He has produced Labour Card. That
he had repeatedly approached the authorities for
regularization of his services but his request did not
materialize. In para-10 of his affidavit, he has stated that
he has continuously worked for 180 days, his services are
illegally terminated without paying retrenchment
compensation. Said part of evidence is beyond term of
reference. The legality of termination of workman is not
referred by the Central Govt.
7. The workman in his re-examination says that he
received service card from Katni, he had signed on it, he
also put his thumb mark on it, the entries of working day
were taken on record. And marked as Exhibit W-1. He has
also produced certificate Exhibit W-2. The working days
of workman are not shown but the period of working is
shown 23-12-80 to 18-3-81, 21-4-81 to 16-5-81, working
days are 152. In Casual Labour Card Exhibit W-2, the
entries of working days are found for the month of May to
September 1988 as 147 days.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5565
8. The evidence of management's witness Nilesh
Kumar is on the point that the workman had not worked
continuously worked for 120 days during 1980-81, 88 as
per said witness Ist party workman has worked for 83+19
days in 1981 and 150 days in 1988 but he was not
continuously working for 7 years i.e. from 1981 to 1988.
In his cross-examination, management's witness says that
Ist party workman was working on casual labour card issued
to him while work at other place, fresh card used to be
issued. The witness claimed ignorance about issue of fresh
card, the documents are not available. Managements
witness admits that workman had worked in Railway
Jabalpur as casual labour, he has also worked at Satna,
Itarsi. The copy of the Government Circular dated
28-2-2001 relating to absorption of Railway in ex-casual
Railway is produced as Exhibit W-2. Para-2 of the said
circular provides for the benefit of regularization absorption
of casual labour is subject to upper age limit of 40 years in
case of general candidates and 45 years in case of SC/ST
candidates not being exceeded may also be granted case
of casual labour substitutes for recruitment against Group
C & D posts. The OBC candidates will also get age
relaxation upto the upper age limit of 43 years as has been
granted to the serving OBC Railway employees vide
Board's letter dated 1/6/99. The dispute is referred by
Central Govt. on 26-6-05. In his affidavit of evidence, the
workman has shown his age as 50 years in 2012. Thus at
the time of reference, age of Ist party workman must be
above 40 years. Therefore he is not entitled to the benefit
of regularization/absorption as per said circular of the
Government. Besides above, parties have not produced any
circular that on completion of 120/180 days, the casual
employees are entitled for regularization. The workman
has stated that list of casual employees were displayed at
Central Railway Office, Mumbai. Copy of said list is not
produced on record.
9. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Dharmesh
Chaturvedi relies on ratio held in case of
“State Bank of India versus Central Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and another
reported in 2013(3) M.P.H.T. 190. His Lordship
considering facts dealing with Section 25-F and
25-B of I.D. Act held The petitioner Bank
terminated the service of respondent No. 2, a
casual worker orally on 31-1-85. He had been
rendering service w.e.f. 24-12-83 The Bank
contented that the respondent No. 2 was paid
wages only on working days and no wages for
Sundays and other holidays. So counted,
respondent No. 2 had worked for only 217 days
before his termination. Held Sundays and other
holidays by contract or statute must be treated as
days on which the employees actually worked
under the employer-So calculated, respondent
No. 2 had worked for more than 240 days and
therefore, his discontinuance from employment
amounted to retrenchment and nothing else.”
In present case, the legality of termination of service
of workman is not referred therefore the ratio cannot be
applied to present case. Workman is claiming regularization.
10. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Sonane relies
on ratio held in AIR-2000-SC-2230, 2013-3-MPLJ-144 & IR-
2004-4681. The ratio in all those cases cannot be applied to
present case as the termination of services of Ist party is
not a term of reference.
11. Considering evidence on record and the circular
issued by Government, the Ist party workman is not entitled
for regularization. He is admittedly not in employment from
1988. The reference is made in 2005 after long lapse of time.
The Government circular was issued in 2001. The circular
do not have retrospective effect. For above reasons, I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative. In view of my
finding in Point No. 1, the workman is not entitled to
regularization. Accordingly Point No. 2 is answered.
12. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Central Railway,
Jabalpur in not regularizing the services of
Shri Ganesh Prasad Pandy is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2075.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 266@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@20013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y 22012@178@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2075.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 266/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/178/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
5566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/266/2003
Date: 02.04.2013
Party No. 1 (a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1 (b)
: The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 02nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Aziz Abdul Razak, for adjudication, as per
letter No. L-22012/178/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Aziz Abdul Razak, Security Guard
w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Aziz Abdul
Razak, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of claim
and the management of Food Corporation of India ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system,
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with the
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5567
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25(H) of the Act and the work
does not constantly exist and the work of providing security
guards was given to other Government Agencies like Police
Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the workman
has no right to claim any relief from them and the work of
security is not perennial in nature and as and when their
go-downs are filled with food grains, then only, services of
the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and
Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman has filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on 01.11.1990
put by the workman is not correct and they were exempted
from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year 1989 and
the said exemption was withdrawn in the year 1999 and
therefore, the security contact given to the contractor was
terminated and hence, the services of the workman were
terminated by the security contractor and they did not pay
the salary to the workman and it was the contractor, who
was paying the same to the workman and when the contractor
failed to pay the salary to the workman, they paid the amount
as per the directions given by the ALC from time to time
and the said amount was recovered from the contract's bill
and they only used to check the attendance of the security
guards to find out as to whether the contractor had made
arrangement of the requisite number of security guards, as
per their requirement and they did not have the power to
terminate any employee appointed by the contractor and they
did not provide any article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and
uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he has not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his crosss-examination, this witness has admitted that
5568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman was appointed on 01.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.3.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January, 1992 to May, 1992, to M/s. Security Services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has
also admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 01.08.1993
till 14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply
of security guards was given to M/s. Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Bomaby by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned officers of FCI were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the party No. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a comouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment ot the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party
No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the party no. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of
the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar
Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5569
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-
judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. Mani), Appeal
(Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs.
Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/2006 (Krishna
Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/
2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of
Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002
in the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularization on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and Others [reported in 2001
(7) SCC1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be
granted since the petition involves disputed question of
facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated
by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to
absorb them cannot be granted.
* *
* *
* *
* *
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise. In case,
the petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
5570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper". The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places
to deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principle enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 Lab IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.
and other Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and
others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners including
the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to
regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. the "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2(1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropirate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under an in accordance with a license issued in that
behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5571
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorised by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorised representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognised
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principal employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. This Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of the work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be dicided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers conceerned. Again in Dena Nath V.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed
out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. Howeve, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to portect the
continuance of the source of livelihood to the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employess of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
5572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do ..............". 'The expression' employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the later agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being a
"workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1975 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 19(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the ground
of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the estabishment under a genuine contract
or is a mere ruse/comouflage to evade compliance
of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract
is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5573
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of
the workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ - 12-8-1999 (CAl): C.O. No. 6545 (W) if 1996,
D/ - 9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m
D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -
2-8-1999 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -
23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
in connection with the work of any establishment,
the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract
labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of
the terms "Contract labour", "Establishment" and
"Workman" does not show that the legal relationship
between the person employed in any industry and
the owner of the industry is created irrespective of
the fact as to who has brought about such relationship.
The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is
a generic terms of which contract labour is a species.
It is true that combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a
workman engaged in any establishment would have
direct relationship with the principal employer as a
servant of master. But what is true of a workman
could not be correct of contract labour. When the
provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation
of direct relationship of master and servant between
the principal employer and the contract labour nor
can such relationship be implied from the provisions
of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and the
forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal of the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number or documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the party no. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he ws engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation are liable for
criminal prosecution, but such violation of the provisions
of the above said Act, does not confer any right on the
workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW dated
28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows that the
prohibition of employment of contract labour in sweeping,
cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied
by the establishments of Food Corporation of India and some
other departments was lifted by the Central Government. So,
the engagement of contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot
be said to be illegal. It is also found from the materials on
record that the appointment of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 for supply of Security Guards was genuine and the
same was not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The
workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent
or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by
Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The workman
has not been able to produce any document to show that at
any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee.
It is clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
5574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As it is
clear from the evidence on record that the workman was
engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the contractor
and as such, it can be held that there was no relationship of
master and srvant between the Party No. 1 and the workman.
Hence, there was no question of termination of the services
by the Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections
25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was engaged
by the contractor. So the contractor, who had engaged the
workman, is a necessary party in the reference. The said
contractor has not been added as a party in this reference. Due
to non-joinder of necessary party, the reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the dicussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The refernce is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2076.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 131@2002½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@125@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2076.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 131/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/125/2002-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/131/2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R. B. PATLE
Shri Anil Kumar Khare,
Gandhi Ward No. 2,
Tila Jamalpura,
Berasia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
The Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal office,
Region-I, Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 9-9-2002 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.
The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of
I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/125/2002-IR(B-
I). The dispute under referrence relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India in terminating
the services of Shri Anil Kumar Khare w.e.f. 12.2.2001
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his services from management in the dispute under
reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union did not
participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is filed.
Ist party is proceeded exparte on 9-1-2007.
3. IInd party management also not filed Written
Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the
parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:—
"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2077.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 330@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@277@99&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5575
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2077.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 330/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of State Bank of India and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/277/99-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/330/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Shivshankar Tiwari,
S/o Shri Sutanlal Tiwari,
Mahavir colony,
Old Panna Nakka,
Chhattarpur (MP)
.....Workman
Versus
Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India,
Divisional office,
Jayendraganj, Gwalior
The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Small Industry Branch,
Chhattarpur (MP)
.....Managements
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of July 2013
(1) As per letter dated 15-11-99 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/277/99/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Small Industry Branch, Chhattarpur (MP)
regarding termination of services of Shri Shivshankar
Tiwari S/o Shri Sutanlal, Temporary sub-staff (after
working from 1-11-95 to 15-4-97 w.e.f. 16-4-97 is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
(2) After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. !st party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was employed in IInd party No. 2 as waterman-cum-
messenger from 1-11-95. He performed duties with
devotion. He was informed that as per rules, he would be
paid 1/3rd of regular wages gradually wages would be
increased to half. On said assurance, he continued to work
in the Bank. Workman was under hope that he will be
confirmed in the post. His services would be regularised
on 17-10-96. He requested higher officers of the Bank to fix
his pay for post of waterman cum messenger. He has also
issued reminder dated 3-1-97, 22-3-97. On 16-4-97, his
services were orally terminated. IInd party had taken
negative action because of his applications. There was no
other reasons for terminating his services. When he
approached Labour Court, Jabalpur amount of Rs. 4000
was paid towards difference of wages on 29-7-98. On his
application to ALC, Jabalpur, the reference is made.
(3) Ist party workman submits that he was working
as waterman cum messenger continuously. His services
are illegally terminated without complying provisions of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. on such grounds, Ist party
workman prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
(4) IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/8. It is submitted IInd party that workman was engaged
purely temporary part time casual employee. He was
required to work only for 45 minutes per day. Workman
was paid consolidated wages as part time casual employee
for filling drinking water in the morning. Workman was not
engaged after 15-04-97. The workman was engaged only
for 45 minutes per day. He was free not to come on next day
and similarly the management was at liberty not to engage
him on the next day. Workman was paid wages Rs. 440 per
month. Discontinuation of service of workma is covered
under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act. That workman had
not completed 240 days continuous service preceding
discontinuation. Violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act is
denied by the IInd party. It is denied that Ist party workman
was working for whole day and he was assured increase of
wages 1/3rd, 1/2 etc. IInd party denied that the services of
workman are illegally terminated. On such contentions, IInd
party prayed for rejection of relief prayed by workman.
(5) Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his
contentions that he was continuously working in the Bank
and he was assured increase in wages. That his services
are illegally terminated violation the provisions of Section
25-F of I.D. Act.
(6) Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of State Bank
of India, Small Industry
Branch, Chhatarpur (MP)
regarding termination of
services of Shri Shivshankar
Tiwari S/o Shri Sutanlal,
Temporary sub-staff (after
working from 1-11-95 to
15-4-97 w.e.f. 16-4-97 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?
5576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
(7) Workman is challenging termination of his
services from 16-4-97 on the ground that provisions of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act are not complied. That he was
continuously working in the Bank from 1-12-95 to
16-4-97. He was working for whole day. He was
discontinued from 16-4-97. On his application to ALC, he
was paid difference of wages. That he was working on
vacant post of waterman/messenger. He was assured to
increase of wages. He was hopeful of regularization of his
service. In his cross-examination workman denies that he
was working as part time employee. That he was engaged
on daily wages for filling drinking water, he was distributing
letters. He denies that he was doing work of filling water
till there was water in the tap. He explained that there was
jet machine and only one minute time was required for
filling water. Thereafter he has distributed letters going
outside. He denied that he was working only for 45 minutes
on wages of Rs. 440 per month. He has not received
appointment letter. For regular appointment, selection
process is required to be followed. He claims ignorance
whether Branch Manager has power for regular
appointment. He claims ignorance whether his attendance
was recorded while he was working in the Bank. The
evidence of workman that he was continuously working
from 1-11-95 is not shattered. The evidence of
management's witness Keshav Kumar Gupta submitted his
affidavit. The management's witness has stated that in 1995,
Ist party workman was working for 25 days in 1996 for
295 days and in 1997 for 85 days. The workman was
engaged purely on casual daily wage basis. He was not
appointed against vacant post. That workman has not
continuously worked for 240 day. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says that he was working at
Chhattarpur from February 2009, he had not enaged the
workman. While the workman was working in the Bank,
the witness was not posted there. Workman was working
on contract basis. Management's witness has stated that
workman was working from 1995 to 1997 as per the record.
Workman was working for 45 days. He was paid @
Rs. 4480 per month. Witness has referred to document
Exhibit W:4 and admitted its contents. The management's
witness has no personal knowledge, his evidence is
produced on record. Relevant document Exhibit W-4 finds
that workman was working for 45 minutes per day and he
was requesting for increase in his pay. It is clear from Exhibit
W-4 that workman was part time employee. The part time
employee is also entitled for Section 25-F of I.D. Act, his
services cannot be terminated without notice. Document
Exhibit W-5 appears copy of peon book maintained in the
Bank. The evidence on record establish that workman was
working for 240 days preceding his discontinuation from
service. Document Exhibit M-4 is copy of settlement dated
30-7-96. Exhibit M-5 is minutes of discussion between the
representative of Union and the Bank. The terms of
reference doesnot include regularization of services of
workman. Terms of reference relates only to legality of
termination of service. Therefore those documents are not
vital for deciding legality of the termination of service of
workman. The evidence of witnesses of management does
not point out notice of termination of service was issued to
the workman. As such services of workman are teminated
without compliance of Section 25-F therefore I record my
finding in point No. 1 in Negative.
(8) Point No. 2—Question arises as to what relief
workman is entitled? Whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages as claimed by him. The
evidence in record shows that workman was working for
45 minutes per day as per exhibit W-4. As such workman
was working as a part time employee, his services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The
workman was not appointed following selection process.
He was not working against sanctioned post. Therefore
reinstatement of workman would not be appropriate. Rather
compensation of Rs. 25,000 would be appropriate in the
circumstances. Accordingly I record my finding on Point
No. 2.
(9) In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of India,
Small Industry Branch, Chhatarpur (MP)
regarding termination of services of
Shri Shivshankar Tiwari S/o Shri Sutanlal,
Temporary sub-staff (after working from 1-11-95
to 15-4-97 w.e.f. 16-4-97 is illegal.
(2) IInd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 25,000/- to the Ist party
workman Shri Shivshankar Tiwari.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2078.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV c®d
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 4@09@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@242@2002&vkbZvkj¼ch&I)]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2078.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 36/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal, Jabalpur as shown in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5577
the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of State Bank of India and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/242/2002-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/36/2003
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Mahesh Shinde,
S/o Shri Martand Rao,
Hazari Road,
Mandsour (MP)
....Workman
Versus
The Asstt. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Hamidia Road,
Bhopal (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 19th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 27-1-2003 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/
242/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhopal in not
granting appointment to Shri Mahesh Shinde S/o Shri
Murthund Shinde even after called for him for
interview on 13-2-97 is justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, Ist party workman
submitted his claim at Page 4/1 to 4/2. The case of Ist party
is that he was working as peon at SBI Mandsaur from from
1988 to 1992. He had completed 240 days continuous
service. He was performing different works in the Bank.
That he has achieved eligibility for regularization of
his services. On 13.2.97, he was called for interview.
However the results of interview has not declared. The
Branch Manager Mandsaur has issued certificate as his
services were not regularized. He had approached
Conciliation Officer, Bhopal. The reference is made by
Government of India. He is unemployed after
discontinuance of his services. Ist party workman prays
that he may be reinstated with consequential benefits.
3. Management filed Written Statement. It is
submitted that the workman was employed purely on leave
vacancy as casual labour for 56 days during the period for
19.4.88 to 23.6.88. That he was engaged as per exigency of
work. The wages were paid to him. That the workman was
engaged on contract basis from opening hours of Bank
and end with closing hours of Bank. His discontinuation
does not amount to retrenchment rather it is covered under
Section 2 (oo) (bb) of I.D. Act. That workman has not
completed 240 days continuous service as required under
Section 25B of I.D. Act.
4. That IInd party management has elaborate
selection procedure as per agreement entered in Staff
Federation of SBI Employees dated 17.11.87, 16.7.88 and
31.7.88. The casual employees are required to be observed
who had worked for 60 days after 1975. That the Ist party
workman had woked only for 56 days during 1988. He
had completed 240 days continuous service. Therefore the
workman is not entitled to regularization/reinstatement of
his service.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
REASONS
6. Ist party workman is claiming that the Bank had not
continued him in service inspite on his interview dated 13.2.97.
That he had continously worked as peon from 1988 to 1992.
He had completed 240 days continuous working during each
of the year. Management had denied above contentions of
the workman. It is submitted that workman was employed as
casual employee or daily wages. He had worked only for 56
days in 1988. Workman failed to adduce evidence. The case
was proceeded exparte against him on 28.2.2012. The
management has filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Gopikishan Sugandhi. The witness of the management has
stated on oath that the workman had worked for 60 days
during the period 16.4.88 to 25.6.88. That as per Bipartite
Settlement, he was called for interview. The select list was
kept alive till March 1997. As tenure of temporary service of
workman was less, was the last candidate appointed in that
category, Ist party workman was not appointed in the Bank.
The evidence of management remained unchallenged as Ist
party workman failed to cross-examine.
(i) Where the action of the
management of Asstt.
General Manager, State
Bank of India, Bhopal in
not granting appointment
to Shri Mahesh Shinde
even after called for him
for interview on 13.2.97 is
legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?
In Affirmative
Relief prayed by
workman
is
rejected.
5578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
7. Copies of Bipartite Settlement are produced. The
settlement M-1 provides that the casual employees
completed 30 days aggregate temporary service in any
calendar year after 1.7.75 or 70 days aggregate temporary
service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after
1.7.75 are to be given chance for permanent appointment. Ist
party workman has not worked for 70 days in 36 calendar
months. He has failed to adduce evidence. As per evidence
of management's witness, workman had worked only for 60
days during the period from 16.4.88 to 25.6.88. The workman
has failed to adduce evidence in support of his claim. The
action of the IInd party management cannot be said illegal.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(i) Action of the management in not granting
appointment to Shri Mahesh Shinde even after
called for him for interview on 13.2.97 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2079.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh vkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 267@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@179@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2079.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 267/2003 of
the Cent. Govt. Indis. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, Food
Corporation of India, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 04.09.2013
[No. L-22012/179/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/267/2003
Dated: 02.04.2013
Party No. 1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur- 440015.
Party No. 1(b)
: The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar,
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post : Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated : 2nd April, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Ashok Narayan Adagale, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/179/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Ashok Narayan Adagale, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ashok
Narayan Adagale, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 23.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Akola Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5579
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Akola Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 23.08.1993 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services
of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and
Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of party no. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P.
No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said
WP and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and
the decision of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata
and they floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder
was awarded the contract and the change of contractor in
every two years was not on papers only and they had no
say in the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointement
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of party no. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
5580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that FCI had not issued any advertisement calling
application and they had not applied to the FCI for service
and he was not interviewed by the FCI and they were
appointed through contractor by the management and they
were brought by Singh Security Services and they were
handed over to FCI and he has not filed salary slip and he
does not know the name of the contractor through whom
they were appointed and he was not filed any document to
show that he worked for 240 days every year and the muster
rolls Exts. M-4 & M-5 are the muster roll of Singh Security
Services and his name has been mentioned in the said rolls
and he received the salary from Singh Security Services as
per acquaintance roll for the month of September, 1995 as
per Ext. M-6 and the same bears his signature in English.
6. One Shri Meghraj Jairam Waghmare has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the party No. 1. This
witness has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written
statement, in his examination in chief, which is on affidavit.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that
the workman was appointed on 23.08.1993. He has also
admitted the suggestions given to him in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given to Singh Security Services for two years and
subsequently the same was extended till 15.12.1996 and
the contract for supply of security guards was also given to
Bombay Intelligence Security India Pvt. Ltd. from
01.03.1989 to 28.02.1991, to Commando Security Force,
Pune from 01.04.1991 to 31.03.1993, to M/s. Chaitanya
Industrial Security and Investigation Services, Amravati
from January 1992 to may, 1992, to M/s. Security Services
Intelligence Bureau, Thane from 01.06.1992 to 01.03.1993
and M/s. Industrial Security and Fire Services from
16.12.1996 to 15.12.1998 by the FCI. This witness has also
admitted that inspite of change of the contractors, the
workman worked continuously in FCI from 23.08.1993 till
14.03.1999 and on 14.03.1999, the contract of supply of
security guards was given to M/s. Industrial Security and
Fire Services, Bombay by FCI. This witness has further
admitted that the concerned offiers of F.C.I. were issuing
necessary directions to the petitioner and other security
guards and the contractors engaged by the FCI were paying
wages to the Security Guards deployed by them.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
Union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 23.08.1993 at
Akola depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his
services were terminated orally by the party no. 1, without
following the due procedure of law and the workman had
completed more than 240 days of work in each year and
before termination of the services of the workman, neither
one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice
nor retrenchment compensation was given to the workman,
as required under section 25-F of the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by party no. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the party no. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the party no. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
party no. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5581
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 03.05.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the party no. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the party no. 1
to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by
the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the party no. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd.&Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the party no. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the party no. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the party no. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the party no. 1 and the party
no. 1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the party no. 1 and the workman and
the so called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though party no. 1 unilaterally extended the
contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without
any contractor, the workman continued the work with party
no. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the party no. 1 paid the wages from
01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts
also prove that the workman was the employee of party no.
1 and it was party no. 1, who terminated the services of the
workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions
of section 25-F of the Act. In support of the submissions,
the union representative placed reliance on the decisions
reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority),
2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs.
State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that party no. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by party no. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of party no. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the party no. 1 and the workman
and the party no. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notificaiton of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and party no. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the party no. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party no. 1 that the party no. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
party no. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
5582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the
learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference
is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29-07-2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workman of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the
question of granting other prayer does not arise. In
case, the petitioners approach the appropriate
authority, the appropriate authority shall take
decision in the matter within a period of one year.
The applicants are free to approach the appropriate
authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly apppointed or engaged by
the Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning
of the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and the worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and party no. 1 implemented such direction at
Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Amravati and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through
a contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract laboures, in the decision reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation
of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB
IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5583
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners including
the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to
regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licnesing authority. The licnese so issued
my contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed
therefore, such amenity shall be provided by the principal
employer within such time as may be prescribed and all
expensed incurred by the principal employer in providing
the amenity may be recovered by the principal employer
from the contractor "either by deduction from any amount
payable to the contractor under any contract or as a debt
payable by the contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor
shall be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at the same
time in order to protect the interest of such contract labour,
it requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contact labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employers of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state Government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited V.
5584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and
scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amentities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165-(1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed
out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that
neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
government or by any appropriate government provide
that upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would
be directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interest of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and smoke screen, as has
been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do.........". 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5585
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957—I—LLJ—477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC—3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provision of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment
of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial
dispute brought before it by any contract in regard
to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator
will have to consider the question whether the
contractor has been interposed either on the ground
of having undertaken to produce any given result for
the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade
compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to
deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the
contract is found to be not genuine but a mere
camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to
be treated as employees of the principal employer who
shall be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall
give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing
the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking
into consideration the age of the workers at the time
of their initial employment by the contractor and also
relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications
other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/
- 9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -
17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-
2000 (Bom.) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-
12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between
the principal employer and the contract labour. Even
a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"Contract labour", "Establishment" and "Workman"
does not show that the legal relationship between the
person employed in any industry and the owner of
the industry is created irrespective of the fact as to
who has brought about such relationship. The word
"Workman" is defined in wide terms. It is a generic
term of which contract labour is a species. It is true
that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in
any establishment would have direct relationship with
the principal employer as a servant of master. But what
is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of master
and servant between the principal employer and the
contract labour nor can such relationship be implied
from the provisions of the action issuing notification
under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much
less can such a relationship be found to exist from the
rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No.1 for non-production of documents
5586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No.1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No.1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No.1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No.1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No.1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No.1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No.1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labouers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was
lifted by the Central Government. So, the engagement of
contract labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be
illegal. It is also found from the materials on record that
the appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for
supply of Security Guards was genuine and the same was
not only on papers as claimed by the workman. The
workman has failed to prove such claim by adducing
cogent or reliable evidence. The engagement of labour
contractor by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or
camouflage to evade complaince of the various beneficial
legislations, so as to deprive the workman of the benefits
thereunder. The workman has not been able to produce
any document to show that at any point of time, Party No.
1 paid his wages as their employee. It is clear from the
evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the last three
months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No.
1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or
compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of
the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is place by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2080.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj f'koiqjh xquk
{ks=h; xzkeh.k c®d izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 141@91½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@202@91&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5587
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2080.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/91)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Shivpuri Guna Kshetriya
Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 5/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/202/91 - IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/141/91
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Kamta Prasad Moyle,
Post Mukam, Athaikheda, Mungawali,
Distt. Guna (MP)
....Workman
Versus
President,
Shivpuri Guna Kshetriya Gramin Bank,
Regional Office, 136,
Arya Samaj Road,
Shivpuri
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of July, 2013
1. As per letter dated 31-1-91 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
recieved. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-12012/202/91-IR(B-III). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the
Shivpuri Guna Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating
the services of Shri Kamta Prasad Moyale w.e.f.
6-12-86 was justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notice issued to the
parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/2. Workman submits that he was working as
messenger in IInd party bank from 1-1-84. He was
continuously working till 5-12-86. Surprisingly he was
discontinued from service without notice or without paying
retrenchment compensation. He was not served with
chargesheet. His service record was satisfactory and his
services are illegally terminated. On such grounds, workman
prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. Management filed Written Statement at page 7/1
to 7/3. The claim of Ist party workman is denied. It is
submitted by IInd party that the workman was engaged on
daily wages during 1-1-86 to 5-12-86. There were complaints
against him. His services were on purely contractual on
daily wage basis. Notices were issued to him for certain
misconducts. That he has discussed confidential matters
of the Bank in public. Therefore contract of his service was
not continued. The non-engagement of Ist party workman
from 5-12-86 is covered under Section 2(oo) (bb) of I.D. Act
as his services are terminated because of non-renewal of
the contract. Other contentions of workman are denied. It
is denied that the services of workman were terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. It is denied that
workman was regularly working from 1-1-84 to 5-12-86. On
such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of
workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of the Shivpuri
Guna Kshetriya Gramin Bank
in terminating the services of
Shri Kamta Prasad Moyale
w.e.f. 6-12-86 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASON
5. The evidence of workman is recorded in the Case.
Workman has stated that he was working in Bank from
1-1-1984 to 5-12-1986. He was working continuously. His
service record was unblemished. He was working as
messenger. His services were terminated without notice,
without assigning any reason. In his cross-examination,
workman says that he was working on daily wages, he was
paid initially Rs. 7 per day and subsequently Rs. 8.70 per
day. That he known Mukesh Kumar Jain and Kishore but
their statements were not recorded in his presence. After
termination of his service, he had submitted representations
to Collector, Manager of the Bank. He claims ignorance
about reports about him. The evidence of workman that he
was continuously working from 1-1-84 to 5-12-86 is not
shattered in his cross-examination. The IInd Party has also
not disputed that the workman was working in Bank but
IInd party claims that workman was working on contractual
daily wage basis. Any such contract is not produced by
the management.
6. Management filed affidavit of evidence Shri R.K.
Dubey. Said witness was not made available for his cross-
examination. Affidavit of Shri V.D. Shrivastava is also field
but said witness was also not made available for his cross-
5588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
examination. Therefore evidence of witnesses of the
management cannot be accepted for deciding the matter in
dispute.
7. Workman was again filed affidavit of his evidence
but he was not cross-examined. It appears that parties
appear in the proceeding rarely. IInd party has not properly
participated in the proceeding. He witness of the
management are not made available for cross-examination.
The evidence discussed above shows that workman was
continuously working with IInd party management till
5-12-86. His services are terminated without notice in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I
record my findings in Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. As to Point No. 2, the question arises to what relief
the workman is entitled? Whether workman is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages. The evidence of workman
shows that he was working on daily wages. He had not
faced selection process. Workman had worked for about
3 years. He is not in employment from December, 1986
for almost 27 years. Therefore the reinstatement of Ist party
workman would not be justified. In my considered view
reasonable compensation amount would meet the ends of
justice. Amount of Rs. 50,000 as compensation would be
adequate. Accordingly I record my findings in Point No.
2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of the Shivpuri Guna
Kshetriya Gramin Bank in terminating the services
of Shri Kamta Prasad Moyale w.e.f. 6-12-86 is
illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 50,000 to Ist party workman, notice pay equal
to 30 days wages, retrenchment compensation
equal to 45 days wages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2081.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 212@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@201@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2081.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 212/99) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
04/09/2013.
[No. L-41012/201/98-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/212/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta,
C/o Puran Singh Thakur,
Qr. No. C-17,
Vijay Nagar, 90 Quarters,
State Bank Colony,
Jabalpur (MP)
....Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur (MP)
.....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 31st day of June 2013
1. As per letter dated 17-5-99 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
recieved. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification
No. L-41012/201/98-IR(B-1). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the Central
Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as casual labour from 5-5-1981. He was working
till 29-6-94. His services were arbitrarily retrenched without
issuing showcause notice, no retrenchment benefit was
given to him. That he had completed 930 days working
and gained temporary status. His services were governed
by disciplinary rules. That the instructions of Railway Board
for providing termporary status to him was not followed.
He had appeared for medical examination and passed in
Class B-1. His services are illegally terminated in violation
of Article 14 of the constitution.
3. IInd party filed reply to the statement of claim. It is
submitted by IInd party that Ist party was employed as casual
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5589
labour. He worked for 52 days in the year 1981, 86 days in
1984, 65 days in 1983, 86 days in 1984 and 103 days in 1988-
89. That the workman was engaged for providing drinking
water during summer days, his services were discontinued
after end of summer. He had worked on contract basis. He
had not acquired status of temporary employee. His services
were not required, therefore his services were discontinued.
His services end after end of contract.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of the
Central Railway,
Jabalpur in terminating
the services of
Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by are
workman is entitled by?
workman are rejected.
REASONS
5. The workman though challenged termination of his
service, he has also claimed that he had acquired status of
temporary employee. The workman failed to adduce any
evidence. His evidence was closed on 24-6-2010.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta. The witness of the management
has stated on oath that workman has not completed 240
days preceding 12 months from the date of his termination.
That workman had intermittently worked as casual labour
during Summer Season. He had worked for 289 days in the
first four years thereafter 103 days since 1988-89. His evidence
remained unchallenged as workman failed to cross-examine
the said witness. I donot find reason to disbelieve his
evidence. The evidence on record shows that workman has
not completed 240 days continuous service preceding his
date of termination therefore he is not covered as workman
under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act. He is not entitled to protection
under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons,
discontinuance of service of workman cannot be said illegal.
I therefore record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1. The action of the management of Central Railway,
Jabalpur in terminating the services of
Shri Ravindra Kumar Gupta is legal.
2. Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 2082.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj
eSllZ ih th lh ,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 26@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
02@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@3@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2082.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2002)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of PGCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 04/09/2013.
[No. L-42012/3/2000-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/26/2002
Date: 29.05.2013
Party No. 1
: The Executive Director,
Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.,
Samprati Nagar, Nari Ring Road,
Post: Uppalwadi, Nagpur-440026
: The Manager,
M/s. Nirmal Nursery, HO: Hanuman
Mandir, Dhanghar Pura, Tatya Tope
Nagar, Nagpur.
Party No. 2
: Shri Manohar Antuji Bawane,
C/o. Nagpur General Labour Union,
306-Shanichara, Subhash Road,
Back side of Khandoba Temple,
Nagpur-440018.
AWARD
(Dated: 29th May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and
their workman, Shri Manohar Bawane, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-42012/3/2000-IR (CM-II) dated 12.02.2001,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Power
Grid Corporation in terminating the services of
Sh. Manohar Antuji Bawane is legal and justified?
5590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manohar
Bawane, ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of Power Grid Corporation Ltd.,
("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he came to be appointed by Party
No. 1 as a permanent workman on 29.12.1996, to work in
the garden and he used to look after the plants and trees,
keep the garden clean, put new saplings and take care of
them and to keep the vicinity of the bungalow clean and
though he was appointed by the Party No. 1, no appointment
order was given to him and he was paid wages by the
Administrative Officer of Party No. 1 and as he was not
paid the minimum wages and was not given the attendance
card, pay slips and other legal benefits, he made a complaint
to the Government Labour Officer for redress and Party
No. 1 became furious when they came to know about this
lodging of the complaint and as such, on 16-07-1997, when
he came to attend his duties, the Administrative Officer
called him to his office and scolded him for making the
complaint and did not allow him to do the duty and
thereafter, he went daily for duty, but he was not taken on
duty and thus, he came to be terminated from services orally
w.e.f. 16.07.1997. The further case of the workman is that
he approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Government of Maharashtra for conciliation, but his
application was returned back due to want of jurisdiction
and thereafter, he approached the Regional Commissioner
(Central) for conciliation and on failure of the conciliation,
failure report was submitted to the Government and in order
to deny the legal benefits available to him, Party No. 1
took the stand that he was a contract employees and he
was under the employment of M/s. Nirmal Nursery, the
contractor, but he had neither any relationship with the
contractor nor he had received any instruction from the
said contract while in service and the work which was
allotted to him was of permanent nature and after his
termination, Party No. 1 carried out the work by a workman
engaged through a contractor, in violation of the provision
of law and he was terminated from service without any
opportunity of hearing and neither any charge sheet was
issued nor any enquiry was held against him before
termination of his services and as such, his termination is
illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural
justice and Party No. 1 neither maintained any senior list
nor followed the provisions of the Act.
The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in
service with full back wages and continuity.
3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has
pleaded inter-alia that the claim of the workman is not
maintainable, as the dispute has been raised by him after a
gap of four years and the claim is barred by law of limitation
and as the workman has not given any explanation for
such inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute, the
reference is liable to be answered in the negative. The
further case of Party No. 1 is that there was no relationship
of employer and employee between them and the workman
was neve appointed by them as a permanent employee and
the workman was a contract labour deployed by
M/s. Nirmal Nursey and as the workman was not appointed
by them, there was no question of giving of any
appointment order to the workman and wages were being
paid to the workman independently by M/s. Nirmal nursery
and the workman was accepting the same without any
grievance for protest what so ever and there was no privities
of contract between them and the workman, so question of
making payment of minimum wages or giving of attendance
card, pay slip and other legal benefits does not arise. The
specific plea of Party No. 1 is that they had invited tenders
for maintenance of the nursery and after following the
necessary formalities, the contract for the same was allotted
to M/s. Nirmal Nursery and M/s. Nirmal Nursery had got
itself registered as contractor under the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("Act
1970" in short) and the workman was engaged by the said
contractor and till date, the appropriate Government has
not issued any notification under the provisions of section
10 of the Act 1970, prohibiting them to engage contractor
for doing any nature of work and as there was no
relationship of employer and employee between them and
the workman, there was no question of giving any chance
of hearing to the workman, before the alleged termination
and by raising the industrial dispute on false allegations,
the workman is trying to get himself appointed with ulterior
motive, which is impermissible in law and the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. M/s. Nirmal Nursery though has been made a party
in this case, neither it appeared in the case nor filed any
written statement.
5. Both the parties have led oral evidence in support
of their respective claims. Besides the oral evidence, both
the parties have relied on documents to prove their
respective case.
6. The workman has examined himself as a witness to
prove his case. In his examination-in-chief, which is on
affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned
in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the
workman has stated that he has not filed any appointment
letter on record and he has also not filed any document to
show that Party No. 1 had paid him his wages. It is necessary
to mention here that the workman in his cross-examination
has denied the signatures appearing on the payment
vouchers regarding payment of wages to him by M/s. Nirmal
Nursery.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5591
7. Party No. 1 has examined two witnesses, out of
whom, the first witness is Shri Ulhas S. Athale, a handwriting
expert and the second witness is Shri K.G. Kulkarni, the
Chief Manager (HR).
Shri Athale has been examined to show that the
signatures, Exts. M-4 and M-5 on the vouchers, under which
payment of wages was made belong to the workman. This
witness has stated that the disputed signatures marked as
D-1, D-2 and D-3 had been made by the same person, who
had made the comparative signatures marked as S-1 to
S-8. This witness has proved his report as Ext. M-7. From
the cross-examination of the workman and the evidence of
Shri Athale, it is clear that the signatures, Exts. M-4 and
M-5 appearing on the vouchers, under which wages was
paid by M/s. Nirmal Nursery to the workman belong to
him.
8. The evidence of Shri Kulkarni is on affidavit. This
witness in his examination-in-chief has reiterated the facts
mentioned by Party No. 1 in the written statement. In his
cross-examination, this witness has stated that he knows
about the engagement of the workman in the power grid
corporation through a contractor and there was no question
of payment of wages directly by the power grid corporation
to the workman, as he was engaged by the contractor in
the power grid.
9. On persual of the materials on record including
the evidence, both oral and documentary, adduced by the
parties and taking into consideration the submissions made
by the learned advocates for the parties, it is found that the
claim of the workman that he was appointed by the Party
No. 1 as a permanent workman on 29.12.1996 is not true.
It is clear from the documents on record and especially
from Ext. W-4, the inspection report of the labour Officer
and Inspector under Minimum Wages Act, Nagpur, dated
28.07.1997, which has been filed and relied by the workman
himself that the workman was a contract labour and he
was deployed by M/s. Nirmal Nursery, the contractor, who
had been given the job of maintenance of the Nursery on
contract by the Party No. 1, to work with Party No. 1 and
wages was paid by the said contractor to the workman for
the same. Ext. W-4 clearly indicates that the workman,
whose name is found at serial no. 8 of list of the workers,
was working in power grid alongwith seven others, being
engaged by M/s. Nirmal Nursery, the contractor. The
workman in his cross-examination has stated that the
document Ext. W-4, the inspection report filed by him is
correct. From the evidence on record, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor M/s. Nirmal
Nursery to work with the Party No. 1 and there was no
employer and employee relationship between the Party
No. 1 and the workman and there was no violation of any
provision of the Act by Party No. 1. It is also found that
the workman has not made any allegation or grievance
against M/s. Nirmal Nursery of violating any provision of
the Act. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in negative and against
the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 2083.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 32@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 02@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@101@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2083.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Murpar Project of (Umrer Area)
of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 04/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/101/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/32/2006
Date: 03.05.2013
Party No. 1(a)
: The Sub Area Manager, WCL
Murpar Project of (Umrer Area) of WCL,
Post: Khadasanghi, Tah-Chimur,
Distt. Chandrapur (MS)
(b)
: M/s. Singh & Sons,
WCL Contractor, Singhnagar, Dahegaon,
Chhindwara Road, Distt. Nagpur (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
: The Maroti S/o Sh. Tukaram Todase,
R/o. Murpar, Post: Khadsangi,
Teh.-Chimur, Distt. Chandrapur
Maharashtra.
AWARD
(Dated: 3rd May, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
5592
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman Shri Maroti
Tukaram Todase, for adjudication, as per letter
No. L-22012/101/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 21.03.2006, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
and M/s. Singh & Sons Contractor of WCL in
terminating the services of Shri Maroti S/o Tukaram
Todase is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he
is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Maroti
Tukaram Todase, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of the WCL ("Party
No. 1" in short) filed its written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that there is a coal mine at Murpar,
which is known as "W.C. Ltd. Murpar Project" and the
same is under the control and supervision of Party No. 1(a)
i.e. Sub-Area Manager, Murpar Project and Party No. 1(a)
engaged M/s. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., Karnataka,
("B.G.M.L." in short) for the purpose of preparing
underground road up to the border of coal for the said coal
mine and the contract of the said work was from 1992 to
1996 and the Party No. 1(a) also engaged Party No. 1(b),
M/s. Singh & Sons in its work w.e.f. 05.01.1997 and till
Party No. 1(b) is working with Party No. 1(a) for the purpose
of preparing the underground roads for functioning of the
said coal mine and he was engaged by B.G.M.L. as a General
Mazdoor on 24.08.1993 and he continued to work till
02.07.1996 and thereafter, his services were utilized by Party
No. 1(b) w.e.f. 05.01.1997 continuously till 28.12.2001 and
Party No. 1(a) sent him for vocational training from time to
time and he had under gone the said training successfully
and as such, he is a workman/employee of Party No. 1(a)
and Party No. 1(a) is the principal employer and his
appointment by both the contractors was oral and the Party
No. 1(b) terminated his services orally w.e.f. 29.12.2001 and
he had worked for more than 240 days preceding to his
termination and while terminating his services, mandatory
provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied
with and neither one month's notice, nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment compensation was paid
to him by Parties No. 1(a) and (b) and as such, termination
of his services is illegal and though at the time of his
termination, more than 700 workers were working with
Parties No. 1(a) and (b), they did not prepare and publish
final seniority list of all the workers including himself, at
least seven days prior to the termination, as provided under
Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and
there was no compliance of section 25-G of the Act and the
termination of his services amounted to retrenchment and
at the time of his retrenchment, plenty of work was available
and now also, plenty of work is available with Parties No.
1(a) and 1(b), but they did not re-employ him in violation of
section 25-H of the Act. It is further pleaded by the workman
that he alongwith other workers had submitted charter of
various demand to the Parties No. 1(a) and 1(b), but they
did not fulfill the same and for that a dispute was pending
before the ALC (C) Chandrapur and for the said reason, his
services with many other workers were terminated and
wages for December 2001 was not paid to him and as Party
No. 1 was the principal employer and Party No. 1(b) was
the contractor of Party No. 1(a), for each and every act of
the Party No. 1(b), the Party No. 1(a) was responsible and
as such, the Party No. 1(a) is responsible for his illegal
termination. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1(a) resisted the claim by filing its
written statement. It is necessary to mention here that inspite
of notice, Party No. 1(b) neither appeared in the case nor
contested the claim.
In its written statement, the Party No. 1(a) has pleaded
inter-alia that it had entered into a contract with B.G.M.L.
for carrying out open excavation, for construction of a pair
of inclines and inclined shaft sinking in the coal mine of
Murpar Project and as per the terms of contract, the open
excavation work was to be completed within a period 3½
months and the incline shaft drivage within eight months
and it also awarded another contract to Party
No. 1(b) for construction of drivage of a pair of incline
shaft through sedimentary rocks like sand stone from seam
VII to seam V at Murpar project of which the date of
commencement and completion were 01.01.1997 and
28.02.1998 respectively and after a gap of 15 months,
another contract was given to Party No. 1(b) for
construction of drivage of incline shaft at Murpar project
and the dates of commencement and completion of the
said contract were 29.05.1999 and 01.12.2001 respectively
and it [Party No. 1(a)] was related to Party No. 1(b) only as
per the terms of contract and it was not at all responsible
for providing employees to the contractors and it was the
duty of the contractors to appoint the employees as per
their need. It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1(a) that as
per the provisions of the Mines Act, every person, whether
employed by the principal employer or the contractor,
whether in a casual capacity or in permanent capacity, to
work in an underground mine, is required to be imparted
vocational training by the principal employer and the cost
of the training is borne by the contractor concerned and
the engagement of the labourers was the job of the
contractor and it was no way involved in the matter and no
document has been produced by the workman to show
that he was appointed by it and the contractor had appointed
the workman till the completion of the contract and the
documents filed by the workman show that he was
appointed by Party No. 1(b) for contract works at Murpar
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5593
project, as a temporary contingent labour in the project
and in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi,
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti [2006
(2) SCALE 115] and many others, the workman is not
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service as he
was a temporary workman.
The further case of Party No. 1(a) is that it has been
entering into various contracts with various persons and
each and every contract is an independent contract, which
cannot be clubbed with each other and there was no nexus
between the contract given to B.G.M.L. and the contract
given to Party No. 1(b), as they were of having different
legal entities and if they had engaged the same workman
for doing separate works, the workman did not become
permanent or entitle for regularization and there was never
any relationship of employer and employee between it and
the workman and he was never in its employment and as
such, there was no question of compliance of the principles
of section 25-F, 25-G or H of the Act or payment of wages
by it to the workman and the workman is not entitled for
any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that even though
sufficient opportunity was given to the parties to adduce
evidence in support of their respective claims, they failed
to adduce any evidence. Both the parties remained absent
on 28.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 09.04.2013
and also did not make any argument. Hence the case was
closed for award.
5. It is well settled that if a party challenges the
legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove the
illegality of the order and if no evidence is produced, the
party invoking the jurisdiction of the court must fail. In
this case as the workman has not adduced any evidence to
prove the legality of the order, he is not entitled for any
relief.
6. Moreover, in this case, it is the admitted case of
the workman that he was engaged by M/s. B.G.M.L., who
was given contract for construction of roads in the
underground of Murpar Colliery by Party No. 1(a) and
BGML engaged him from 24.08.1993 to 02.07.1996 as a
General Mazdoor and he was again engaged by Party
No. 1(b), another contractor from 05.01.1997 to
28.12.2001. It is never the case of the workman that he
was engaged or appointed by Party No. 1(a). The only claim
of the workman is that Party No. 1(a) had sent him for
vocational training and he had under gone the training
successfully. It is necessary to mention here that it is
obligatory to undergo vocational training for any person,
who works underground in a coal mine in any capacity and
it is the statutory duty of the management of the coal mine
to arrange for such vocational training as per the Mines
Act and the workman cannot be deemed to be an employee
of Party No. 1(a), as because, he was sent for vocational
training by Party No. 1(a).
7. It is well settled that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, it cannot be
said that the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Even a combined reading of the definition of the terms
"contract labour", "establishment" and "workman" does
not show that a legal relationship between a person
employed in an industry and the owner of the industry is
created irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about
such relationship. The word "workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is a
species. It is true that a combined reading of the terms
"establishment" and workman shows that a workman
engaged in an establishment would have direct relationship
with the principal employer as a servant of master. But
that is true of a workman could not be correct of contract
labour. The provisions of contract labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 do not contemplate creation of direct
relationship of master and servant between the principal
employer and the contract labour. It is clear from the
pleadings of the workman in the statement of claim and so
also from his evidence on affidavit that he was never
employed by the Party No. 1(a) and he was employed by
the contractors and the Party No. 1(a) was not controlling
or supervising the work of the workman. It is the definite
stand taken by workman that he had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in my opinion not lie in his
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that he
was also the workman of the principal employer. To raise
such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in law
and such mutually destructive plea should not be allowed
to be raised even in an industrial adjudication. Hence it
cannot be said that the workman was the workman of the
principal employer.
8. So far the termination of the services of the
workman by the Party No. 1(b) is concerned, I think it
necessary to mention the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard, before embarking upon
the discussion of the merit of the case.
The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decision reported in
AIR 1966 SC-75 (Employees, Digawadih Colliery Vs.
Their workmen) have held that:—
"Though section 25-F speaks of continuous service
for not less than one year under the employer, if the
workman has actually worked for 240 days during a
period of 12 calendar months both the conditions
are fulfilled. The definition of "Continuous Service"
need not be read into section 25-B. The fiction
converts service of 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months into continuous service for one
complete year. The amended section 25-B only
consolidates the provisions of section 25(B) and
2(eee) in one place, adding some other matters. The
purport of the new provisions, however, is not
5594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
different. In fact, the amendment of section 25-F of
the principal Act by substituting in clause (b) the
words "for every completed year of continuous
service" has removed a discordance between the
unamended section 25-B and the unamended Cl. (b)
of section 25-F. No uninterrupted service is necessary
it the total service is 240 days in a period of twelve
calendar months either before the several changes
or after these. The only change in the Act is that this
service must be during a period of twelve calendar
months preceding the date with reference to which
calculation has to be made. The last amendment has
now removed a vagueness which existed in the
unamended section 25-B."
In the decision reported in AIR 1981 SC-1253
(Mehanlal Vs. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.) the Hon'ble
Apex Court have held that:—
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947). Section
25-B (1) and (2) - Continuous service-Scope of sub-
sections (1) and (2) is different, (words and phrases
- Continuous Service).
Before a workman can complain of retrenchment
being not in consonance with Section 25-F, he has to
show that he has been in continuous service for not
less than one year under that employer, who has
retrenched him from service. Section 25-B as the
dictionary clause for the expression "continuous".
Both in principle and are precedent it must be held
that section 25-B (2) comprehends a situation where
a workman to not in employment for a period of 12
calendar months, but has rendered for a period of
240 days within the period of 12 calendar months
commencing and counting backwards from the
relevant date, i.e. the date of retrenchment. If he has,
he would be deemed to be in continuous service for
period of one year for the purpose of section 25-B
and chapter V-A".
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in
AIR 2003 SC-38 (M/s. Essen Deinay Vs. Rajeev Kumar)
has held that:—
"Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947 - S. 25-F, 10-
Retrenchment compensation — Termination of
services without payment of — Dispute referred to
Tribunal-Case of workman/workman that he had
worked for 240 days in a year preceding his
termination — Claim denied by management —
Onus lies upon workman to show that he had in fact
worked for 240 days in a year — In absence of proof
of receipt of salary workman is not sufficient
evidence to prove that he had worked for 240 days in
a year preceding his termination."
9. So, it is clear from the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above that
for applicability of section 25-F of the Act, it is necessary
to prove that the workman worked for 240 days in preceding
12 calendar months commencing and counting backwards
from the relevant date and the burden of such proof is
upon the workman.
10. The present case at hand in now to be considered
with the touch stone the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court and it is to be found out if the workman
has been able to prove that he had infact worked at least
for 240 days in a year preceding his termination. According
to the workman, his services were orally terminated on
29.12.2001. So, it is necessary to prove that in the preceding
twelve calendar months of 29.12.2001, the workman had
worked for 240 days.
11. Except his oral evidence on affidavit, the
workman has not produced any other evidence in support
of his claim that he had actually worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months of 29.12.2001. Thus the workman
has failed to discharge the burden which was upon him.
As the workman has failed to satisfy the eligibility
qualification prescribed in section 25-F read with section
25-B of the Act, the provisions of section 25-F are not
applicable to his case and as such, he is not entitled for any
relief.
ORDER
The reference is answered against the workman. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2084.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,;jost ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 202 dk 2011½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 03@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&11012@61@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2084.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-
dustrial Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 202/
2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure,
in the industrial dispute between the management of M/s.
Jet Airways (India) Ltd., and their workmen, received by
the Central Government on 03/09/2013.
[No. L-11012/61/2001-IR(CM-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5595
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS
COMPLEX, DELHI.
I.D. No. 202/2011
Shri Naresh Kumar
R/o. Vill. & Post Tandahare,
Block-Bahadurgarh,
Distt. Rohtak,
Haryana-124507
...Workman
Versus
The General Manager (NR),
M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,
Jet Airways House, 13,
Community Centre,
New Delhi-110006
...Management
AWARD
A loader-cum-cleaner joined services with Jet
Airways (India) Ltd., (in short the Airways) on 23.03.1998.
He served the Airways till 22.08.1998. He was engaged
again on 02.11.1998. He claimed overtime allowance for
281 hours (187 hours for December 1999 and 94 hours for
January 2000), which overtime allowance was paid to him
in February 2000. He again claimed overtime allowance
for 162 hours for January 2000, by playing fraud. As fraud
came to light, he was made to leave by the Airways,
without initiating any domestic action. After sometime, he
raised a demand for reinstatement in service. When his
demand was not conceded to, he raised an industrial
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Before that forum,
the Airways took a plea that the loader-cum-cleaner
resigned from service vide letter dated 09.03.2000. Since
his claim was contested by the Airways, conciliation
proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of
failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the
appropriate Government referred the dispute to this
Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-11012/61/2001-
IR(C-1), New Delhi dated 27.09.2001 with following
terms:—
"Whether action of the management, General
Manager, Jet Airways India Ltd., 13, Community
Centre, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110006, in stopping
Shri Naresh Kumar, ex-loader-cum-cleaner from
service with effect from 10.02.2000 is just and
reasonable. If not, to what relief is the workman
entitled to?
2. Claim statament was filed by the loader-cum-
cleaner, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar pleading that he joined
services with the Airways on 23.03.1998. His salary as
Rs. 2675.00 per month. He worked to the entire satisfaction
of his superiors. He never gave any chance of complaint to
them. As per police of the Airways, notional break in his
service was given on 22.08.1998. He was engaged again
on 02.11.1998. He agitates that notional breaks were given
in his service by the Airways from time to time, with a view
to avoid his claim for regularization in service, which act
amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. Claimant presents that on10.02.2000, he was asked
by the Airways to contact them for job after a period of
one month. Neither charge sheet was served upon him nor
any written order was issued. He approached the Airways
for a job, but was not accommodated for reasons best
known to them. He served notice of demand on 10.07.2000,
which was received by the Airways on 13.07.2000. In spite
of serving of demand notice, he was not allowed to join
duties. Persons junior to him are still working with the
Airways. Provisions of section 25G and 25H of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) have been
violated. The Airways also violated provisions relating to
payment of retrenchment compensation, as enacted under
section 25F of the Act. Order terminating his service is
contrary to law. He was put on roads without any rhyme or
reason. He claims that order dated 10.02.2000 may be set
aside and he may be reinstated in service with continuity
and full back wages.
4. Claim was demurred by the Airways pleading that
the claimant presented wrong facts to the effect that he
was engaged on 23.03.1998 and was drawing a salary of
Rs. 2675.00 per month. The Airways never gave notional
break in his service. However it has not been disputed that
the claimant was engaged by the Airways as a loader-cum-
cleaner. It has been pleaded that he claimed overtime
allowance for 281 hours (187 hours for December 1999 and
94 hours for January 2000), which claim was disbursed in
his favour along with his salary for the month of February
2000. He again claimed overtime allowance for 162 hours
for January 2000 by way of presenting a forged voucher.
When his forgery came to light, he was confronted with
overtime alowance sheets. He admitted his mistake and
tendered an apology, in writing. He promised not to do
such mistake in future. Since gross misconduct was
committed by the claimant, the Airways decided to institute
disciplinary action against him. When he came to know
about the said action, he approached the Airways
voluntarily and tendered his resignation on 09.03.2000. His
resignation was accepted with immediate effect. Since he
himself has resigned from service of the Airways, he cannot
claim that provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the
Act were violated. The Airways had not committed any
illegality, not to talk of unfair labour practice. It has been
claimed that claim projected is devoid of merits and it may
be dismissed.
5. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi
dated 11.02.2008, the case was transferred to the Central
Government Industrial No. II, New Delhi, for adjudication
by the appropriate Government. It was re-transferred to
this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. Z-22019/6/
2007-IR(C-II), New Delhi dated 30.03.2011 by the appropriate
Government.
5596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. Claimant has examined himself in support of his
claim. Shri V.C. Mishra (MW1), Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav
(MW2) and Shri Surender Sharma (MW3) were examined
on behalf of the Airways.
7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri P.N. Dwivedi,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the claimant. Shri Anil Bhat, authorized representative,
raised submissions on behalf of the Airways. I have given
my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at
the bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings
on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:—
8. In his affidavit Ex. WW1/A, tendered as evidence,
the claimant swears that he joined the Airways on
23.03.1998 as loader-cum-cleaner. The Airways used to issue
appointment letters in his favour from time to time. On
12.03.1998, 02.07.1998, 14.12.1998, 31.03.1999 and 30.04.1999,
appointment letters were issued in his favour, copies of
which appointment letters are Ex. WW1/1 to Ex. WW1/5.
Pay advice slips were also issued in his favour, which are
Ex. WW1/7 to Ex. WW1/29. He worked with the Airways
with sincerity and honesty. He raised a demand for
regularization of his services, by to no avail. His services
were dispensed with on10.02.2000 without issuance of any
charge sheet or giving any reasons. Juniors to him are still
working with the Airways. Termination of his service
amounts to retrenchment. He raised a demand for
reinstatement vide letter dated 10.07.2000, copy of which is
Ex. WW1/30. During the course of his cross examination
he concedes that Ex. WW1/M2 and Ex. WW1/M3 bear his
signatures, which are overtime allowance sheets submitted
by him. He further admits that prior to 10.07.2000 he had
not made any representation against termination of his
service.
9. Shri V.C. Mishra, Handwriting Expert, entered the
witness box to prove his report Ex. MW1/7. He unfolds
that his report may be read alongwith photographs Ex.
MM1/1 to Ex. MW1/6. In report Ex. MW1/7 Shri Mishra
has opined that signatures on resignation letter were written
by the claimant.
10. Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav unfolds in his affidavit
Ex. MW2/1 that services of the claimant were not terminated
on 10.02.2000, as claimed. He projects that the claimant
claimed overtime allowance for 282 hours (187 hours for
December 1999 and 94 hours for January 2000), which claim
was reimbursed in his favour in February 2000. He again
claimed overtime allowance for 162 hours for January 2000
by forging signatures of Head of the Department on the
vouchers. When he was confronted with the overtime
allowance sheet, he admitted his guilt. He resigned from
services vide letter dated 09.03.2000, which was accepted
by the Airways on that very day. Claimant left services of
the Airways of his own and his demand for reinstatement
in service is uncalled for.
11. Shri Surender Sharma, unfolded that in the year
2000, claimant presented bogus claim relating to overtime
allowance. The Airways wanted to dispense with his
services on that account. The union intervened. The
claimant was seeking pardon but the Airways was not ready
to pardon him. The Airways suggested that the claimant
may tender his resignation and the claimant followed suit.
Ex.MW1/W1 was written by the claimant in his own hand.
He (witness) signed Ex.MW1/W1 at point A, while
Shri Nihal Singh signed it at point B.
12. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those
presented by Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav are appreciated,
it came to light that the claimant joined his services with
the Airways on 23.03.1998. He worked with the Airways
for a period of 6 months. He was again engaged on
02.11.1998 and appointment letter Ex.WW1/3 was issued
in his favour. Ex.WW1/3 spells that he was appointed as
trainee loader-cum-cleaner for a period of 6 months. This
appointment letter was followed by Ex.WW1/4, wherein
it has been mentioned that probation of the claimant was
extended for another term of 6 months. Ex.WW1/5 brings
it over the record that appointment as loader-cum-cleaner
was given to the claimant from 01.05.1999 by the Airways.
In this letter, it was mentioned that the claimant shall be on
probation for a period of three months. Thus, it is emerging
over the record that the Airways had issued various
appointment letters in favour of the claimant. At one point
of time, his probation was extended for a period of 6 months
with effect from 01.04.1999, but again fresh appointment
letter was issued on 01.05.1999, which appointment letter
again contained a stipulation to the effect that probation
period shall be of 3 months. Thus it is emerging over the
record that the Airways had given breaks in service of the
claimant with an intention to discontinue his services so
that he may not claim benefit of provisions of the Act.
Stipulation, relating to probation, was mentioned in his
appointment letters with a view to dispense with his services
at their whims and fancies, under probation clause. The
Airways had adopted unfair labour practice and breaks in
service of the claimant were given with a view to keep
sword of Democles hanging over his head in the form of
period of probation.
13. Question for consideration would be as to
whether claimant had rendered continuous service with the
Airways for a period of one year from the date of alleged
termination of his services. For an answer, it would be
ascertained as to what the term 'continuous service' means.
"Continuous Service" has been defined by section 25-B of
the Act. Under sub-section (1) of the said section,
"continuous service for a period" may comprise of two
period viz. (i) uninterrupted service, and (ii) interrupted
service on account of (a) sickness, (b) authorized leave, (c)
an accident, (d) a strike which is not legal, (e) a lock-out,
and (f) a cessation of work that is not due to any fault on
the part of the workman, shall be included in the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5597
"continuous service." Sub-section (2) of the said section
introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is
not in "continuous service" within the meaning of clause
(1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be
deemed to in continuous service for that period under an
employer if he has actually worked for the days specified
in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968
Lab. I.C. 1180) it was held that one year's period
contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of measure
and if during that unit of measure the period of service
actually rendered by the workman is 240 days, then he can
be considered to have rendered one year's continuous
service for the purpose of the section. The idea is that if
within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least
240 days of service, then he must get the benefit conferred
by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to
find out whether the workman actually worked for not less
than 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months
immediately preceding the retrenchment.
14. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex
Court announced that when a workman renders continuous
service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar months, he
is deemed to have completed one years' service in the
industry. It would be expedient to reproduce observations
made by the Apex Court in that regard, which are extracted
thus:
"Under Section 25-B a workman who during the
period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in
an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed
to have completed one year's service in the industry.
Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out
whether the workman had actually worked for not
less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar
months immediately preceding the retrenchment.
These provisions of law do not show that a workman
after satisfying the test under Section 25-B has further
to show that he has worked during all the period he
has been in the service of the employer for 240 days
in the year".
15. When the workman concerned fails to establish
that he worked for atleast 240 days in the year, he cannot
claim protection against termination of his services in order
to seek regulaization of his services on monthly salary with
benefits like pension, gratuity etc. Interruption of service
occurred during the course of job has to be included in
uninterrupted services. Fiction under section 25-B of the
Act will operate if wokmen has actually worked for 240
days in a calendar year. The explanation appended to
section 25-B of the Act specifically includes the days on
which workman was laid off under an agreement or he has
been on leave with full wages, or he has been absent due
to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out
of and in the course of his employment and in the case of a
female, maternity leave, under the expression 'actually
worked' used under sub-section (2) of section 25-B of the
Act. Question for consideration comes as to whether the
words 'actually worked' would not include holidays,
Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid. Apex
Court was comprehended with such a proposition in
American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2)
LLJ 539]. It was ruled therein that the expression 'actually
worked under the employer' cannot mean those days only
when me workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen,
but must necessarily comprehend all those days during
which he was in the employment of the employer and for
which he had been paid wages either under express or
implied contract of service or by compulsion of statute,
standing orders etc. Court ruled that Sundays and other
holidays, would be comprehended in the words 'actual
work' and its countenanced the contention of the employer
that only days which are mentioned in the explanation
should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating
the number of days on which the wokmen had actually
worked though he had not so worked and no other days.
The court observed that the explanation is only clarificatory,
as all explanations are, and cannot be used to limit the
expanse of the main provision. Precedent in Lalappa
Lingappa [1981 (1) LJ 308] was distinguished by the Apex
Court in the case referred above. The precedent was
followed in Standard Motor Products of India Ltd.
[1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is crystal clear from the law
laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be included in
computing continuous service under section 25-B of the
Act.
16. Now facts are to be scanned. As unfolded by Shri
Bharat Bhushan Yadav, claimant tendered his resignation
on 09.03.2000. Therefore, from these facts, it emerged over
the record that on 09.03.2000 claimant attended his duties.
Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav is silent on the proposition as
to whether the claimant was absent from his service for a
long spell in preceding 12 months from 09.03.2000. On this
point, claimant asserts that he rendered continuous service
with the Airways without any break. During the course of
his cross examination, it was not highlighted by the
Airways that there were breaks in his service in preceding
12 months from 09.03.2000. Through his unchallenged
testimony, coupled with documentary evidence in the form
of his appointment letters, refered above, the claimant could
establish that he had rendered continuous service of 240
days, in preceding 12 months from 9.3.2000. He has also
rendered continuous service of more than 240 days in
preceding 12 months from 09.03.1999. Resultantly, it is
crystal clear that he claimant has been in continuous service
for a period of one year, as contemplated by provisions of
section 25-B of the Act.
17. The Airways projects a claim that Shri Naresh
Kumar presented wrong claim for overtime allowance.
Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav details that the claimant
presented claim for overtime allowance of 281 days (187
days in December 1999 and 94 days in Januay 2000), which
5598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
claim was disbursed alongwith salary for February 2000.
Claimant again presented wrong claim for 162 days overtime
allowance for January 2000. Overtime voucher was
fabricated, since signatures of the Head of the Department
were forged. When he was confronted with the forged
overtime voucher, he tendered his apology and promised
not to commit such mistake in future. However, the Airways
decided to institute a domestic action. At that juncture, the
claimant approached the Airways and tendered his
resignation. As a special case, his request was acceded to
and he was allowed to resign from service. His resignation
was accepted, which letter is Ex. MW1/W2 (carbon copy
of this document was also proved as Ex. MW1/W1). Shri
Surender Sharma gives confirmation to the facts narrated
by Shri Yadav when he details that the claimant tendered
his resignation to the Airways, which is Ex. MW1/W1. He
tendered his resignation voluntarily. His (witness)
signatures appears as point 'A' on Ex. MW1/W1 while
signatures of Shri Nihal Singh, President of the union,
appears at point 'B', Shri V.C. Mishra, Handwriting Expert,
opines that on examination and comparison of disputed
signatures with the admitted ones, he was of the view that
the disputed signature, on resignation letter dated
09.03.2000, was written by the claimant. He detailed
reasons for his opinion in his report Ex. MW1/7.
18. With a view to ascertain veracity of facts unfolded
by these three witness, their depositions are construed on
the yardsticks of truthfulness and honesty. Shri Bharat
Bhushan Yadav presents that resignation of the claimant
was accepted on the even date and that fact was
communicated to him at the address furnished by him.
Ex. MW1/W2 is he alleged resignation letter, while
photocopy of this document was also proved as Ex. MW1/
W1. This document is written in Hindi while purported
signatures of the claimant, appearing at point 'A', are in
English. Signatures of Shri Surender Sharma appears on
this document, besides signatures of one Shri Nihal Singh,
who was President of the union at the relevant time. No
endorsement has been made either by the Shri Surender
Sharma or Shri Nihal Singh as to why they have appended
their signatures on the resignation letter. Neither the
resignation letter spells as to why they appended their
signatures on the document no any ocular facts are brought
on record in that regard. During the course of his cross-
examination, Shri Sharma has come out with a story that
the union intervened when the Airways wanted to initiate
domestic action against the claimant. As suggested by the
Airways, resignation letter was tendered by the claimant
and it was signed by them in taken to the fact that this
resignation letter was in fact tendered by the claimant.
When assessed on standards of ordinary human behaviour
these facts are found to be farther from truth, As claimed,
the union intervened to protect the claimant. In such a
situation, there would have been a communication from
the said of union. Absence of such a communication speaks
volume about veracity of above story. No letter, addressed
by the claimant to the union, has been filed to show that he
requested the union to intervene. Furthermore, when
alleged resignation was tendered, why dues of the claimant
were not got settled, Shri Sharma is silent. These aspects
make me to comment that Shri Sharma signed the
resignation letter with a view to grind his axe and not to
espouse the cause of the claimant.
19. Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav presents that the
resignation was accepted on the very date when it was
presented by the claimant. However, facts tell a different
story. Ex. MW 2/1 is a document on the strength of which
the Airways communicated acceptance of resignation letter
to the claimant. This document was alleged written on
09.03.2000 but was dispatched on 11.07.200. Through his
letter the claimant was called upon to submit his clearance
form alongwith original leave card and property of the
Airways in his possession, to his employer. He was further
advised to approach accounts department for settlement
of his dues. When resignation of the claimant was accepted
on 09.03.2000, as Ex. MW2/1 and Shri Yadav project, then
why it was not communicated to the claimant personally
on that very day, is proposition which was not answered
by the Airways, Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav presents a story
that since the union wanted to ascertain about the bungling
made by the claimant in overtime allowance claim, it
resulted in delay in transmitting this document to the
claimant. When Ex. MW1/W2 was signed by the General
Secretary and President of the union on 09.03.2000 itself,
there remained no necessity for the union to ascertain facts
relating to bogus claim of overtime allowance made by
the claimant. Therefore, theory projected by Shri Bharat
Bhushan Yadav, relating to delay in communication of
acceptance of resignation by the Airways in nothing but a
pigment of imagination, Above surrounding facts make me
to comment that Ex. MW2/1 was subsequently created by
the Airlines with a view to project a defence that the
resignation tendered by the claimant was accepted by it.
20. There is other face of the com. Ex. MW1/W2
was not even endorsed to the Airport Manager by any
official of the Airways. Competent authority opted not to
put its pen on this document, either with a view to accept it
or to put it in the process of acceptance. Procedure of
getting signautres of General Secretary and President of
the union on a resignation letter, tendered by an employee,
is foreign to the procedure of resignation and its acceptance
by the employer. All these aspects highlight that facts
unfolded by Shri Bharat Bhushan Yadav, in that regard, are
farther from truth.
21. Shri Surender Sharma, presents that resignation
letter was tendered by the claimant voluntarily. According
to him, authorities had not put any pressure on the claimant
to tender his resigation. He presents a story that when
Airlines wanted to initiate a domestic action against the
claimant, union intervened. According to Shri Sharma,
during the course of discussion, it emerged that resignation
of the claimant would be accepted by the Airways and as
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5599
such, he would avoid stigma of dismissal. Above facts
when construed in the light of surrounding circumstances
it came to light that at one point of time Shri Sharma presents
that resignation letter was not tendered by the claimant to
his employer in his presence. He highlights that
Ex. MW1/W1 was not written by the claimant. he feigned
ignorance as to who wrote it. He explains that the claimant
showed his inability to write his resignation letter in Hindi
and got it written from someone else. He asserts that
resignation letter was written by someone else in his
presence and the claimant signed it. When grilled
Shri Sharma gave a twist to facts and testified that the
resignation letter Ex. MW1/W2 was written by the claimant
in his presence. Thus, facts unfolded by Shri Sharma are
discrepant on the issue as to who wrote Ex. MW`/W2.
Different versions, presented by Shri Sharma in this regard,
are conclusive of a fact that Shri Sharma is a procured
witness.
22. One other aspect also needs consideration.
Shri Sharma deposes that the resignation was accepted
orally by the authorities in his presence. However the admits
that no order was written to the effect that resignation of
the claimant has been accepted. As detailed above he could
not point out as to why dues of the claimant were not
settled when resignation was orally accepted there and
then by the authorities. No explanation was offered by Shri
Sharma as to why Ex. MW2/W1 was sent subsequently.
As these asepcts give support to the above conclusion
that Shri Sharma fabricated facts and detailed the same
with a view to help the Airways. Testimony of Shri Sharma
is found to be unworthy of credence and the same is,
accordingly, discarded.
23. Shri V.C. Mishra, Handwriting Expert, details
general characteristics of writing, in his report
Ex. MW1/7, which are detailed below:
"1. Movement—The movement is wrist-cum -forearm
in all 'D' and 'A' series signatures.
2. Line Quality—The line quality is smooth and
perfect in all 'D' and 'A' series signatures.
3. Speed—The speed of all 'b' and 'A' series
signatures is medium to rapid.
4. Skill—The skill of all 'D' and 'A' series signatures
is medium.
5. Slant—The slant is slightly forward in 'D' and 'A'
series signatures.
6. Alignment—The alignment is slightly ascending
in 'D' and 'A' series signatures.
7. Co-ordination of writing muscles—There is
perfect and rhythmic co-ordination of writintg
muscles in 'D' and 'A' series signatures.
8. Variation—All the 'D' and 'A' series signautre
show natural variations which is always found in
3-4 genuine signatures of each person because
hand is not a rubber stamp. Sometimes, because
of posture, supporting surface, thick and thin
ball point pen, there may be additional natural
variations.
9. Size and Proportion of letters—The ratio of
heights, size and proportions are similar in 'D' and
'A' series signatures.
10. Spacing between letters—The spacing pattern
between the letters is also similar, of course with
natural variations".
24. As far as individual characteristics of letters in
disputed and admitting writings are concerned, Shri Mishra
details that all letters 'N' 'a', 'r', 'e', 's', 'h', 'K', 'u', 'm', 'a', 'r'
show variations. He projects the author of the documents,
examined and compared by him, to be a versatile penman.
Detailing his reasons relating to individual characteristics,
Shri Sharma opined that the disputed signatures on the
resignation letter are of the claimant. However, when
admitted signatures of the claimant on the documents
examined by Shri Mishra are compared by the Tribunal
with the disputed signatures, it came to light that admitted
signatures show freedom, consistency and natural variation
despite long time gap in their execution. The questioned
signature marked Q1 show lack of freedom of execution
of strokes and also show sign of hesitations etc. On
comparison of questioned signature marked Q1 with the
admitted signatures marked A1 to A4, divergences are
observed in formation of characters and their minute and
inconspicuous details such as-formation of letter 'N', sharp
hooked commencement and curved nature of diagonal as
observed in questioned signature found different in
admitted signatures, formation of latter 'a', open nature of
oval body part and its size as observed in questioned
signature found different in admitted signautres, existence
of eyelet at horizontal part of letter 'r' as observed in
questioned signature nowhere observed in admitted
signautres, formation of letter 'e', existence of eyelet in
questioned signatures whereas it appears like letter 'i' in
admitted signautres, manner of joining of letters 's' and 'h',
angularity at body shoulder of letter 'h' is also found
different in both the sets of signautres, formation of letters
representing letters 'u' and 'm' in word 'Kumar' as observed
in admitted signautres found characteristically different in
questioned signautre, formation of terminal letter 'h',
manner of its joining with previous letter and extended
tapered terminal finish as observed in admitted signatures
found different in questioned signatures etc.
25. Bisdes above, divergences are also observed in
questioned signatures marked Q2 in word "Naresh" in
comparison with admitted signatures marked A1 to A4,
manner of formation of letter 'N' in multiple pen operations
as well as curved nature of diagonal body part as observed
in questioned signature found different in admitted
signatures; formation of letter 'a', existence of hiatus
5600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
between oval body part and curved terminal part as
observed in questioned signature nowhere observed in
admitted signatures' design of letter 'r' is also observed to
be characteristically different in both the sets, letter 'e' with
open eyelet observed in questioned signature while its
simplified form and appear as letter 'i' is observed in
admitted signatures, formation of letter 'h', manner of its
joining with pervious letter 's' and nature/angularity at its
body shoulder found entirely different in both the sets of
signatures etc. Both the sets of signature show divergences
in nature of commencing and terminating stroke as well as
relative size and proportion of characters etc. All the
aforesaid divergences indicate that the claimant who wrote
the admitted signatures, did not put his signature on the
resignation letter Ex. MW1/W2 and Ex. MW1/W8. In view
of these reasons it is announced that the report of
Shri Mishra, which is Ex. MW1/7 is not acceptable. The
said report is also discarded from consideration.
26. Net result of the above appreciation of facts is
that Ex. MW1/W2, which is the alleged resignation letter,
does not bear signature of the claimant.This document was
created by the Airways with a view to project a case that
the claimant tendered his resignation, which was witnessed
by Shri Surender Sharma and Nihal Singh, Ex. MW1/W8
was also fabricated with a view to project that the claimant
admitted his guilt, when he was confronted with false claim
of overtime allowance. Story of tendering resignation is
absolutely false. Consequently, it is announced that the
Airways has failed to establish that the claimant tendered
his resignation, which was accepted by them, there and
then.
27. Why services of the claimant were dispensed with
by the Airways? Answer to this proposition is available in
the facts brought over the record. Shri Bharat Bhushan
Yadav highlights that the claimant presented claim for
overtime allowance for 281 hours (187 hours for December
1999 and 94 hours for January 2000), which claim was
disbursed to him alongwith his salary for the month of
February 2000. These facts remained un-assailed.
Therefore, it is evident that overtime allowance claim,
presented by Shri Naresh Kumar for overtime work
performed by him in December 1999 and January 2000,
was granted by the Airways. Shri Bharat Bhushan takes a
step ahead and unfolds that the claimant again presented
claim for overtime allowance for 162 hours for January
2000. He fabricated signatures of Head of the Department
on the voucher. The said voucher has been produced as
Ex. WW1/1 and Ex. WW1/2 (Ex. WW1/1 and Ex. WW1/
2 relate to overtime for the month of January 2000. These
documents project that the claim for overtime allowance
for 162 hours for January 2000 was made by the claimant.
Claimant admits his signatures, put by him against the claim
for each day of the month, in these two documents.
Therefore, it is evident that the claimant presented bogus
claim for overtime allowance for 162 days in January 2000.
When this bogus claim was noted, the Airways made the
claimant to leave. It is emerging over the record that on this
misconduct, claimant was shunted out in haste. The Airway
had not conducted any enquiry against the claimant for
misconduct committee by him. When opportunity to
present his defence was not given to the claimant, action
of the Airways in making the claimant to leave his job cannot
be said to be in consonance of principles of natural justice.
28. Admittedly, it was a case of no enquiry. When
action of the employer cannot be sustained for want of
enquiry, employer has a right to prove misconduct of the
employee before the Tribunal. In Ram Swarth Sinha (1954
L.A.C. 697), the Labour Appellate Tribunal recognized right
of the employer to ask for permission to adduce evidence
for the first time before the Tribunal to justify its action in
a no enquiry case. Right of employer to defend the action
not only on the basis of domestic enquiry but also to justify
the punishment of discharge or dismissal on merits by
adducing relevant evidence before the Tribunal has been
recognized by the Apex Court in Motipur Sugar Factory
Pvt. Ltd. [1965 (2) LLJ 161] and Gujarat Steel Tube Ltd.
[1980 (1) LLJ 137].
29. In Delhi Cloth & General Mills Company Ltd.
[1972 (1) LLJ 180] on review of earlier dicta, the Apex Court
emphasizes that when no enquiry has been held by the
employer or when enquiry has been found to be defective,
employer has got a right to adduce evidence before the
Tribunal to justify its action. In Firestone Tyre & Rubber
Company [1973 (1) LLLJ 278] right of the employer to
adduce evidence in such a situation was recognized by the
Apex Court.
30. In State Bank of India [1971 (2) LLJ 599], the Apex
Court announced that when order of punishment by way
of dismissal or termination of service is effected by the
employer, issue that is referred is whether the management
was justified in discharge and termination of services of
the workman concerned and whether the workman is
entitled to any relief, in such a situation there may be case
where enquiry has been held preceding order of termination
or there can be no enquiry at all. But the dispute that will be
referred is not whether the domestic enquiry has been
conducted properly or not by the management, but the
larger question whether the order termnination of dismissal
or order imposing punishment on the workman concerned
is justified. In such a case, employer has a right to justify
action of dismissal before the Tribunal on the basis of
domestic enquiry and failing that by adducing independent
evidence. In Shankar Chakravarty [1979 (2) LLJ 192], the
Apex Court recognized right of the employer to adduce
evidence before the Tribunal to justify its action. Same
view was expressed in Shambhunath Goyal (1933 Lab. I.C.
697). Thus, it is evident that in case of no enquiry, employer
had a right to adduce evidence before a Tribunal to justify
its action of termination of services of his employee.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5601
31. Here is the case, evidence was adduced by the
Airways to the effect that overtime claim presented by the
claimant for the month of December 1999 and January 2000
was granted and payment was released in his favour
alongwith the salary for February 2000. He again presented
a claim for overtime allowance for 162 hours for January
2000, on which voucher he forged signatures of his Head
of Department, under whom he was working at that time.
During the course of cross examination, claimant admitted
his signatures on Ex.WW1/M1 and Ex. WW1/M2 (which
documents are photocopies of Ex. WW1/1 and
Ex.WW1/2). Signature on Ex. WW1/1 and Ex.WW1/2
(which documents were inadvertently so exhibited) were
admitted by the claimant during the course of admission
and denial made on 15.11.2010. When these documents
are considered it came to the light of the day that he
presented subsequent claim for overtime allowance for 162
hours in Jnauary 2000, despite the fact that his overtime
allowance claim for January 2000 was already granted.
Claim presented for the second time pertains to 01.01.2000
to 31.01.2000. Thus it cannot be said that the claim, earlier
granted in favour of the claimant, was in respect of a
different period than the claim which was presented by
him subsequently. These circumstances go to establish that
the claimant presented bogus claim for overtime allowance
for January 2000, on which documents he forged signatures
of his superior. All these aspects highlight that the Airways
has been successful in establishing that the claimant
committed offence of forgery and attempt to cheat his
employer, when he presented bogus claim towards overtime
for the month of January 2000.
32. When an employee attempts to cheat his
employer, the employer loses faith and confidence in him.
Offence of forgery committed by the employee further
projects that such an employee has no respect for law. He
may go to any extent and damage reputation of his
employer. Confidence and faith, which is the basic fabric
of employer-employee relationship, has been put to an end.
Such an employee does not have right to remain in service.
Taking into consideration all these aspects, I am of the
considered view that the claimant does not have a right to
remain in service. Punishment of termination of service
was rightly awarded to him for his misconduct, by his
employer.
33. Whether punishment of termination of service
would relate back to the date of order of termination
effected by the Airways? For an answer, it is expedient to
consider the precedents handed down by the Apex Court.
In Ranipur Colliery [(1959) Supp. (2) SCR 719] the employer
conducted a domestic enquiry though defective and
passed an order of dismissal and moved the Tribunal for
approval of that order. It was rules therein that if the enquiry
is not defective, the Tribunal has only to see whether there
was a prima facie case for dismissal and whether the
employer had come to the bonafide conclusion that the
employee was guilty of misconduct. Thereafter on coming
to that conclusion that the employer had bonafide come to
the conclusion that the employee was guilty, that is, there
was no unfair labour practice and no victimization, the
Tribunal would grant the approval which would relate back
to the date from which the employer had ordered the
dismissal. If the enquiry is defective for any reason, the
Tribunal would also have to consider for itself on the
evidence adduced before it whether the dismissal was
justified. However on coming to the conclusion on its own
appraisal of evidence adduced before it that the dismissal
was justified its approval of the order of dismissal made by
the employer on defective enquiry would still relate back
to the date when order was made.
34. In Phulbari Tea Estate [1960 (1) S.C.R. 32] the
domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the
order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross
violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the
Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to
justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely
producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded
during the domstic enquiry and the workman had no
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses before the
Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it, justifying
the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal
and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which
order was upheld by the Apex Court. In that case question
of relating back of the order of dismissal did not arise.
35. In P.H. Kalyani [1963 (1) LLJ 673] the employer
dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry
into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before
the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for "approval"
of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to
section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman made an
application under section 33-A of the Act. Apart from
relying on validity of domestic enquiry, the employer
adduced all the evidence before the Tribunal in support of
its action. On basis of evidence before it, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the facts of misconduct committed
by the workman were of serious nature involving danger
to human life and therefore dismissed the application under
section 33-A and accorded "approval" to the action of
dismissal taken by the employer. In this situation the Apex
Court held that if the enquiry is not defective and the action
of the employer is bonafide, the Tribunal will grant the
approval" and the dismissal would "relate back to the date
from which the employer had ordered dismissal". If the
enquiry is invalid for any reason, the Tribunal will have to
consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it,
whether the dismissal was justified. If it comes to the
conclusion on its own appraisal of such evidence that the
dismissal was justified, the dismissal would "still relate
back to the date when the order was made". Sasa Musa
Sugar Works case (supra) was distinguished saying that
observations made therein "apply only to a case where the
5602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come
to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made.
In that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect
from the date of the award and so until then the relation of
employer and employee will continue in law and in fact".
36. D.C. Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration
where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found
to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice
and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by
leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of
which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal
justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with
the observation that "the ratio of Kalyani's case (supra)
would therefore, govern the case and the judgment of the
Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the
order of dismisal was passed".
37. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. [1980 (1) LLJ 137]
inverted image of the D.C. Roy's case was presented by a
majority of three judge bench wherein it was held that
"where no enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and
the Tribunal for the first time upholds the punishment, this
court in D.C. Roy Vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has taken
the view that full wages be paid until the date of the award.
There cannot be any relation back of the date of dismissal
when the management passed the void order". Though
the court ruled that law laid in D.C. Roy is correct yet it
followed obiter instead of the decision. Observations of
the Apex Court in above decision, bearing on the relate
back rule, were faulted in R. Thiruvirkolam [1997 (1) SCC 9]
on the ground that they "are not in the line with the decision
in Kalyani which was binding or with D.C. Roy to which
learned Judge Krishan Iyer J. was a party. It also does not
match with the juristic principle discussed in Wade". The
view taken in R. Thiruvirkolam (supra) was affirmed in
Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. [1997 (2) LLJ
1041].
38. In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above,
it is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading
evidence before the Tribunal. This equally applies to cases
of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case
of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no
enquiry. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does
not justify the dismissal by the employer, the Tribunal can
order reinstatement or payment of compensation as it may
think fit. But if it finds on the evidence adduced before it
that the dismissal is justified, the doctrine of relate back is
pressed into service to bridge the time gap between the
rupture of the relationship of employer and employee and
the finding of the Tribunal.
39. If the workman is to be paid wages upto the date
of the award of the Tribunal, the Parliament has to enact
so, declares the Delhi High Court in Ranjit Singh Tomar
(ILR 1983 Delhi 802). Obviously the Act does not make any
provision for the situation. In view of the above law, it is
ordered that the order of termination of service will relate
back to the date when the Airways passed that order against
the claimant. Award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to
the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 01.07.2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2085.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izcaèra=
ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V
vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]tcyiqj ds
iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼129@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la[;k ,y&41012@60@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2085.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 129/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Central Railway and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 05.09.2013
[No. L-41012/60/2002-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/129/2003
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ramadhin,
S/o Shri Triloki,
H.No. 1041,
C/o Harishchand,
Nai Basti, Kanchghar,
Jabalpur
....Workman
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
....Management
Bhusawal (MP)
AWARD
Passed on this 7th day of August 2013
1. As per letter dated 25.7.2003 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5603
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
60/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway, Bhusawal in terminating the services of
Shri Ramadhin is legal and justified? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/3. It is case of Ist party workman that he had
worked in spells during 1985 to 1987 total 601 days in the
Railways. He was working as monthly rated labour under
PWI, Burhanpur. His services were abruptly discontinued
from 8.2.87 without issuing notice or assigning reason. He
claims that he was drawing monthly wages. He was holding
temporary Status. His servies were governed by the
Disciplinary and Appeal Rules as applicable to other
temporary staff. His services could not be terminated
without complying Article 311(2) of the Constitution. That
he was not given opportunity for defence, non payment of
retrenchment compensation are contrary to the rules,
principals of natural justice were not followed. The
termination of his service is illegal. That junior employees
are continued. Only he was signaled out for arbitrary
removal. It amounts to illegal retrenchment. On such ground,
workman prays for reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/5. IInd party denied that workman was working as daily
rated casual labour. That the reference is submitted after 14
years. That workman was issued notice dated 26.1.87, his
services were terminated after said notice initially Central
Govt. had refused to make reference. As per judgment in
Writ Petition No. 4609/02, the reference was made. The
reference is belated and not tenable.
4. IInd party admits that workman was monthly rated
labour but served in broken period. Rest of the contentions
of workman are denied. It is submitted that the order of
termination was issued on 15.6.87. The termination was
effective from 18.2.87. The notice dated 26.1.87 was not
replied by the workman. His services were terminated as he
had secured service on bogus card No. 163225. It is
submitted that the claim of Ist party workman is based on
false statement. On such grounds, IInd party prays for
rejection of the claim of workman.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideration and determination are as
under. My findings are recorded against each of them for
the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Central
Railway, Bhusawal in
terminating the services
of Shri Ramadhin is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
Reasons
6. In his statement of claim, Ist party workman has
pleased that the services are terminated without notice,
without assigning reason, without giving opportunity of
hearing in violation of Article 311(2) of Constitution. He
was not paid retrenchment compensation. Termination of
his service is illegal. In his affidavit of evidence, the
workman has re-affirmed that his services were abruptly
stopped from 18.2.87 without notice, without assigning
reason. He was not given opportunity for his defence. The
termination of his service is illegal for violation of Article
311(2) of the Constitution. His affidavit is silent about
completing 240 days service during preceding 12 months
of termination of his service. In his cross-examination, he
says that he did not see any advertisement for the post, he
had not submitted any application, no appointment letter
was received by him, he was not interviewed. He was
working on daily wages since 1982. His statement of claim
is silent that he was working on daily wages from 1982.
The workman was unable to explain any reasons for it.
That as per oral orders of PWI, he started working from
1985 to 1987 under PWI, North Burhanpur. In his further
cross-examination workman says that he has not written
dates of commencing service from 1985. He was unable to
explain delay of 14 years in submitting the dispute. Rather
he said that repeatedly assurance was given to him by PWI
from 1984 to 1986 therefore dispute was not filed. The
entire evidence of the workman does not show that he had
completed 240 days continuous service preceding his date
of termination. The casual wage card exhibit M-2 shows
working period 19.12.83 to 19.2.84. about 2 months,
19.2.84 to 19.3.84 about one months, 26.9.84 to 18.10.84
about 22 days, 25.10.84 to 18.11.84 about 23 days,
19.11.84 to 18.12.84 about 1 month, 19.12.84 to 18.1.95
about 1 month. The services of workman were terminated
from 18.2.87. The working days preceding 12 months
period are not shown in the document. The management
has produced document Exhibit M-3 relating to the casual
wage card. Though the management submits that the casual
wage card issued to the workman was found bogus, the
evidence on the point is not found satisfactory. However
the workman is challenging the termination of his service
alleging violation of the provisions of I.D. Act. The
evidence adduced by workman is not established that the
workman was continuously working for 240 days period
preceding 12 calendar months prior to termination of his
service. Thus there is no evidence to establish that the
workman is covered under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act.
Therefore he is not entitled to protection of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. The workman is therefore not entitled for one
months notice or payment of retrenchment compensation
as provided under Section 25-F(a) (b) of I.D. Act. Therefore
the termination of his service cannot be said illegal or
5604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The evidence on record
also doesnot show that Ist party workman had acquired
status of temporary employee of the IInd party. Therefore
he is not entitled to protection under Article 311(2) of the
constitution. For above reasons, the termination of services
of workman cannot be said illegal. Therefore I record my
finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Central Railway,
Bhusawal in terminating of the services of
Shri Ramadhin is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2086.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 119@2002½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@260@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2086.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 119/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Kamptee Sub Area of WCL, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/260/2001-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/119/2002
Date: 18.03.2013
Party No. 1
:
The Sub Area Manager,
Kamptee Sub Area of WCL,
PO: Kamptee Colliery,
Distt. Nagpur.
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The President,
Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor
Sangh (SKMS), Kamptee Sub
Area Branch, PO: Kamptee
Colliery, Distt. Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 18th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Gulchand
Maniram, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/260/
2001-IR (CM-II) dated 10.07.2002, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Kamptee
Sub Area of WCL, Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur in
dismissing Sh. Gulchand Maniram, General Mazdoor
from services w.e.f. 30.09.1999 is proper legal and
justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri
Gulchand Maniram, ("the workman" in short) through his
union, "Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (SKMS)", ("the
union" in short) filed the statement of claim and the
management of WCL ("party no. 1" in short) filed the
written statement.
The case of the workman as projected by the union
in the statement of claim is that the workman was working
as a General Mazdoor at Inder Colliery of Kamptee sub
area from 08.09.1981 and on 15.01.1985, while he was
working underground, the roof of the mine was collapsed
and fell upon the workers working there and number of
workers including the workman received serious injuries
in the said accident and the workman sustained injury on
his left leg (2nd, 3rd and 4th Metatarsus) and the workman
was admitted in the Medical College Hospital, Nagpur, as
an indoor patient for about seven days, whereafter, he was
discharged from the hospital with advise to take treatment
at home and after removal of the plaster and discharge from
the hospital, the workman was not declared fit for duty
and in the month of March, 1986, when the workman was
asked to join his duty, he went to join his duty, but noticed
that there was still pain in his left leg, so he again went to
the Medical College Hospital for treatment and x-rays for
the fractured bones were taken and he was also hospitalized
and according to the opinion of the doctor of the said
hospital, the injury caused to the workman was permanent
injury and the Medical Officer of Inder Colliery declared
the workman fit for light work on surface only and not for
underground work and the workman was directed to take
treatment in Walni hospital and though x-rays of the
workman were taken at Walni hospital, the same were not
produced before the Medical Board and in such
circumstances, the Medical Board issued a certificate
declaring him fit for underground work and on the basis of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5605
the certificate issued by the Medical Board, the Party No. 1
assigned heavy duty to the workman in the underground
and the workman was not able to work underground,
because of the regular pain in his left leg, due to sustaining
of fracture injury, whereby, certain bones were crushed to
small particles and small cavity was formed, which was
impossible to be repaired due to callus formation. The
further case of the union of behalf of the workman is that
the report of the Medical College Hospital along with x-
rays and application of the workman for light duty on
surface were submitted to Party No. 1 and inspite of
repeated request from the workman, Party No. 1 refused
to give him light duty on surface and as such, the workman
could not able to join duty and some of the other workers,
who had received injuries due to the accident along with
the workman were given surface duty and the rest workers,
who were not provided with surface duty, left the services
of Party No. 1. It is further pleaded by the union that charge
sheet dated 03.08.1991 was issued against the workman
and he was asked to submit his explanation as to why he
remained absent without any cause and the workman
submitted his explanation on 14.08.1991, denying the
charges and a departmental enquiry was held against him
and during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings, the
workman was transferred to Pipla Mines on 03.03.1999,
to work underground and due to fracture of 2nd, 3rd, and
4th Metatarsus, he was not able to work underground, hence
he could not join at Pipla Mines and thereafter, the union
intervened in the dispute and satisfied the Party No. 1 about
the inability of the workman to do heavy duty in
underground and as such, the transfer of the workman was
made from Pipla colliery to Inder colliery by order dated
01.06.1999 and the workman was asked to join at Inder
colliery, but he was not permitted to join duties there and
Party No. 1 called upon the workman to join at Inder
colliery vide order dated 17.09.1999, so the workman
joined his duties on 17.09.1999 and worked there till
28.09.1999 and the workman was dismissed from the
services of WCL on 29.09.1999, vide dismissal order dated
11.09.1999 and the order of dismissal is improper, illegal
and against the principles of natural justice, as because,
when a new order comes into force, the old order
automatically stands modified or set aside and in this case,
in view of the order passed on 17.09.1999, dismissal order
dated 11.09.1999 had no meaning and is non-existence and
the charges were not established in the enquiry and the
order of dismissal was not based on the principles of natural
justice and the findings of the enquiry and documents
relevant with the findings were not given to the workman
and the order of dismissal was passed eight years after
submission of the charge sheet, which was in violation of
clause 28 (3) of the Certified Standing Orders.
Prayer has been made to set aside the order of
dismissal dated 11.09.1999 and for the reinstatment of the
workman in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 has pleaded in its written statement
inter-alia that the workman was initially appointed as a casual
General Mazdoor on 08.09.1981 and during the course of
employment, on 15.01.1985, he sustained injury while working
underground and the formalities required to be done were
complied with and all necessary medical treatments were
provided to the workman and the workman was sent to the
screening committee of the Medical Board on 30.10.1985
and the Board found the workman fit for original duties
and it was also declared that the injuries sustained by the
workman were not permanent injuries and such fact was
intimated to the workman vide letter dated 01.08.1986 and
the verdict of the Medical Board was not challenged by
the workman at any point of time and the workman, for
unlawful gain, approached the Civil Court by filling S.C.S.
No. 500/1987, for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and the
said suit was decreed in part of 19.07.1996 and management
was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with costs
and such amount was deposited with the court on
13.06.1997 and the appeal preferred by it against the said
order is still pending and the learned Civil Court in its order
has mentioned that the workman failed to establish that
the injury caused to him is to be permanent injury and in
view of the said finding of the learned Civil Court, the
claim of the workman that he was unfit for underground
duty is not sustainable and the workman having
unauthorisedly absented from duties was rightly dismissed
from services by following the process of law and after the
report of the Medical Board, it was incumbent upon the
workman to report for duties, but he never reported for
duties and willfully and unauthorisedly remained absent
from duties from 06.02.1987 and considering his long
absence, charge sheet dated 03.08.1991 was submitted
against him and the departmental enquiry was constituted
on 05.03.1993 and the workman participated in the enquiry
and prolonged the enquiry on one or the other reasons and
raised flimsy grounds as regard to his attendance on various
dates of the enquiry and the enquiry officer submitted his
report on 01.07.1999 and basing on the findings, second
show cause notice was issued to the workman on 29/
30.07.1999 and finally the workman was dismissed on
27.09.1999.
It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that the
grounds raised in the statement of claim are nothing but
wild imaginations, more particularly to suit the needs to
the workman to raise the dispute and from its records, it
was found that the workman has never contributed to the
union nor he is a member of the union and as such, the
union has no locus standi to represent the workman and
the contentions of the claim petition are nothing but an
afterthought and the grounds raised are mischievous and
frivolus, having no merits and are riased for unlawful gains
and as such, the same need to be ignored and the reference
is to be answered in negative.
5606
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The further case of Party No. 1 is that principles
of natural justice were duly complied with by the enquiry
officer and there is no allegation of conducting the enquiry
improperly and the bare perusal of the charge sheet clearly
indicates that the workman knowing fully well the
repercussions did not act is good faith and full opportunity
was given to the workman to defend himself in the inquiry
and it has lost confidence in the workman, as he
continuously remained absent from duties, which was
detrimental to its interest and the workman worked only
upto 06.02.1989 and thereafter, he remained unauthorisedly
absent and taking advantage of the minor injury, the
workman came up with a novel idea of not to work, which
was willful and deliberate and it had considered few genuine
applications of the workers, who had sustained injuries in
the accident underground and there was absolutely no
discrimination and the workman being fit for undergound
duty was rightly called upon to perform the same, which
he refused to do and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity
of the departmental enquiry was taken as a preliminary
issue for consideration and by order dated 25.05.2012, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was
held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice.
5. At the time of argument, it was urged by the
learned advocate for the workman that the workman while
working in the underground mine, sustained permanent
injuries on his left leg due to an accident on 15.01.1985
and after treatment, he was declared fit to do light duty
only on surface by the doctor of Medical College Hospital,
Nagpur, but inspite of the same, Party No. 1 assigned him
heavy duty in the underground mine and the workman was
not able to perform heavy duty in the underground and
though the workman repeatedly applied for screening test
and to provide him light work on surface, Party No. 1
neither sent him for screening test nor provided him any
light duty on surfaced and as such, he could not be able to
join duty and as the workman was injured during the course
of employment, he was entitled for proper placement, but
he was through out of employment by arbitary action, which
is not at all proper. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the workman that the principles of law and
natural justice were over looked by the enquiry officer and
as such, the conclusion and findings of the enquiry officer
are not tenable and bad in law and the decision of Party
No. 1 to dismiss the workman is unwarranted and the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that in this reference, the
departmental enquiry conducted against the workman has
already been held to be proper and in accordance with the
principles of natural justice and the workman did not
challenge the legality or fairness of the enquiry
proceedings, so this Tribunal could not examine the
findings of the enquiry officer.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decision reported
in (2008) 1 SCC115 (UPSRTC Vs. Vinod Kumar)
It was further submitted by the learned advocate for
the party no. 1 that the findings of the enquiry officer are
based on the materials on record of the enquiry proceedings
and not on any extraneous material and such findings
cannot be said to be perverse and as serious misconduct
of unauthorized absenteeism has been proved against the
workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry,
the punishment of dismissal from services imposed against
him cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, so
as to interfere with the same and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
7. In the decision reported in (2008) 1 SCC-115
(Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have been pleased to hold
that:—
''A Labour Law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-S. 11-
A-Interference by Tribunals and courts - Scope -
Where the workman removed from service had
challenged only the conclusion reached by the
enquiry officer and the quantum of punishment but
not the legality or fairness of the enquiry
proceedings, held labour court could not examine
the findings of the enquiry officer and hold that the
charge was not proved.''
In this case, admittedly the workman has not
challenged the legality or fairness of the enquiry
proceedings, So, judging the present case in hand with the
touch stone of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court as mentioned above, the findings of the enquiry
officer cannot be examined.
Moreover, on perusal of the materials on record
including the documents of the enquiry proceedings,
it is found that this is not a case of no evidence or
that the findings of the enquiry officer are as such,
which could not have been reached by a prudent
man on the materials available on record. It is also
found that the findings of the enquiry officer are
based on the materials on record of the enquiry
proceedings. Admittedly, the workman remained
absent from duty unauthorisedly. The workman failed
to show that he sustained permanent injury and was
unable to perform duty in the underground. So, the
findings of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be
perverse.
8. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that serious misconduct of
unauthrized absence from duty has been proved against
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5607
the workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry.
Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from services
imposed againt the workman cannot be said to be
shockingly disproportionate, calling for any interference.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of Kamptee Sub Area
of WCL, Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing Sh.
Gulchand Maniram, General Mazdoor from services w.e.f.
30.09.1999 is proper legal and justified. The workman is
not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 2087.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 210@2000½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@557@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2087.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 210/2000 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribubal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of WCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 05/09/2013.
[No.L-22012/557/1999-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/210/2000
Date: 22.03.2013
Party No. 1
The Sub Area Manager,
PO: Sillewara, Tah: Saoner,
Distt: Nagpur. (MS)
Versus
Party No. 2
Shri Mathanu Kanojiya,
Chankapur, Qtr. No. 72/1
PO: Sillewara, Tah: Saoner,
Distt. Nagpur.
AWARD
(Dated: 22nd March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of and their workman, Shri Mathanu Zingan
Kanojiya, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/557/
1999-IR (CM-II) dated 27.07.2000, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of WCL
through Personnel Manager, Sillewara Sub Area, PO:
Sillewara, Tah: Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing
the services of Shri Mathanu Zingan Kanojiya w.e.f.
22.03.99 is justified, legal and proper? If not, to what
relief and benefit the workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement, in response to which, the workman,
Shri Mathanu Kanojiya, ("the workman" in short) filed the
statement of claim and the management of WCL, ("party
no. 1" in short) filed the written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that on 18.02.1974 he was appointed
as a loader with the Party No. 1 and worked continuously
without any break and completed 240 days of service in a
calendar year and attained the status of permanent employee
and during his entire service tenure, there was no adverse
remark against him and his service record was clean and
unblemished and due to continuous working as a loader, in
the year 1995, severe pain on his left side waist region
extending up to left foot developed and as such, from 1995,
whenever he was suffering from pain in his waist and leg,
he used to remain absent, with due permission from the
superiors and he never remained absent from duty
intentionally or deliberately and on account of severe pain
in his waist and joints of left leg, he was unable to attend
his duty regularly from 1995 to 1997 and Party No. 1,
during the period of his absence, neither issued any notice
nor sought any explanation from him, for absenteeism and
for the first time on 18.06.1998, the Party No. 1 submitted
a charge-sheet against him and sought explanation from
him for absenteeism and on 25.06.1998, he submitted his
explanation to the charge sheet, giving the details of his
sickness and he also requested to absorb his son in service,
as he was unable to perform the work of loader, due to
severe pain on his waist, but Party No. 1 did not pay any
heed to his request and forced him to work as a loader and
failed to provide him light work, though such light work
was available with Party No. 1.
The further case of the workman is that Party No. 1
levelled false charge of absenteeism against him and
initiated the departmental enquiry and in the inquiry, he
submitted the details of the period of sickness and produced
medical certificate issued by the WCL hospital, but the
enquiry officer did not mention about the defence raised
by him and the said fact shows that the enquiry officer was
not impartial in conducting the enquiry and therefore, the
5608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
enquiry was totally illegal and bad in law and the enquiry
was not fair and proper and was totally partial and one
sided and on the basis of the unfair and improper enquiry,
the enquiry officer came to the wrong conclusion that the
charges levelled against him were proved and the enquiry
report was made without application of mind and after
completion of the enquiry, Party No. 1 issued show cause
notice and he submitted his reply to the show cause notice,
on 18.03.1999 and he also made request to the Party No. 1
to grant him voluntary retirement on account of his sickness,
but Party No. 1 did not consider his request and directly
issued dismissal order dated 20.3.1999 and the order of
dismissal is a major punishment and therefore, the order
of dismissal dated 20.03.1999 is required to be quashed
and set aside and he is entitled to reinstatement in service
with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter-alia that the service record of the workman
was not clean and unblemished and the claim of the
workman that due to working continuously as a loader,
severe pain developed in his waist region and left leg is
without any basis and the workman did not submit any
document to substantiate the allegation and no medical
certificate had been filed by the workman along with the
application, in support of his claim of illness and absence
of the workman from duties is on the records and was an
admitted fact even during the enquiry proceedings and the
charge-sheet dated 18.06.1998 was submitted against the
workman, basing on his absence from duty for the years
1995, 1996 and 1997 and the workman remained absent for
184 days, 156 days and 139 days respectively in 1995, 1996
and 1997 respectively and the departmental enquiry has
held on 21.08.1998, 19.091998 and 19.01.1999 and the
workman participated in the enquiry and full opportunity
was given to the workman basing on the principles of
natural justice and the 2nd show cause notice was issued
on 17.03.1999 and the workman was dismissed vide
dismissal order dated 20.03.1999 and the workman was
trying to create a fabricated history about the medical
sickness, with a motive to declare himself medically unfit
for service and to secure employment for his son in his
place and there is no provision to provide light job to a
workman, unless and until it is supported by a medical
certificate of their Medical Officer and the workman in order
to cover up the absence, not supported by the treatment
undertaken in the company's dispensary, was in habit of
producing medical certificates from different private
doctors, without producing any prescription or cash memos
of medicines and the total period of leave was accepted
and was showed on records and there is no provision to
provide the work of attendant to the workman and in the
enquiry, the charges levelled against the workman was
proved and the conclusion of the enquiry officer was
accepted by the competent authority and the workman
was dismissed from service after following all legal
formalities and the reply given by the workman to the
second show cause notice was unsatisfactory and there
was no provision of VRS and the workman did not produce
any evidence before the enquiry officer regarding his
sustaining severe pain on waist and leg, as alleged and the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. It is necessary to mention here that in this case, on
11.09.2002, award had been passed holding the dismissal
of the workman to be valid and justified. Against the said
award, the workman had approached the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in
Writ petition No. 1669/2003 and the Hon'ble High Court
by order dated 11.12.2003 had been pleaded to quash and
set aside the said award and to remand the case for fresh
disposal according to law.
5. It is also necessary to mention here that while the
case was fixed for adducing evidence on behalf of the
workman regarding the fairness or otherwise of the
departmental enquiry, the workman expired, so the legal
heirs of the deceased workman, namely, Smt. Sharda,
Harkesh and Badri (the widow and two sons of deceased
workman respectively) were substituted in his place, on
their application, as per order dated 19.07.2011.
6. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from
service after conducting a departmental enquiry, the fairness
or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was taken up for
consideration as a preliminary issue and by order dated
04.03.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted against
the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance
with the principal of natural justice.
It is necessary to mention here that as the legal heirs
of the deceased workman did not take part in the reference,
order was passed to proceed exparte against them as per
orders dated 24.01.2013.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that in this case, by
order dated 04.03.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted
against the workman has already been held to be valid and
in accordance with the principles of natural justice and
commission of grave misconduct of unauthorized absence
has been proved against the workman in a properly
conducted departmental enquiry and the findings of the
enquiry officer are based on the materials of the
departmental enquiry and a such the findings cannot be
said to be perverse and there is no scope for the Tribunal
to interfere with the punishment imposed against the
workman, in view of the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases in that regard and
the workman is not entitled to any relief.
8. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention the
principles settled by the Hon'ble Apex court in a string of
decisions, regarding the jurisdiction and the power of the
Tribunal in regard to interference with the findings and
punishment in a departmental enquiry.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5609
It is well settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with the
disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be equated
with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal cannot
interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer or
competent authority where they are not arbitrary or
utterly perverse. The power to impose penalty on a
delinquent officer is conferred on the competent
authority either by an Act of legislature or rules made
under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the rules
and in accordance with principles of natural justice
what punishment would meet the ends of justice is a
matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
competent authority. If the penalty can lawfully be
imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct,
the Tribunal has no power to substitute its own
discretion for that of the authority. The adequacy of
penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter
for the Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the conclusion
of the enquiry officer or the competent authority is
based on evidence even if some of it is found to be
irrelevant or extraneous to the matter."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"A review of the above legal position would establish
that the disciplinary authority and on appeal, the
appellate authority, being fact finding authorities
have exclusive power to consider the evidence with
a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with
the discretion to impose appropriate punishment
keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the
misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while
exercising the power of judicial review, cannot
normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty
and impose some other penalty. If the punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/
Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief,
either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority
to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the
litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases,
impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons
in support thereof."
It is also settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:—
"The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts
and in case an appeal is presented to the appellate
authority, the appellate authority has also the power/
and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and
come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole
fact-finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based
on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High
Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere
with those factual findings unless it finds that the
recorded findings were based either on no evidence
or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or
legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of
the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before
the High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as
an appellate authority over the factual findings
recorded during departmental proceedings, while
exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court
cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own
conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent,
for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar
as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned,
unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the
disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority,
is either impermissible or such that it shocks the
conscience of the High Court, it should not normally
substitute its own opinion and impose some other
punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge
and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears,
ignored the well-settled principle that even though
judicial review of administrative action must remain
flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court,
in exercise of the power of judicial review, is not
concerned with the correctness of the findings of
fact on the basis of which the orders are made so
long as those findings are reasonably supported by
evidence and have been arrived at through
proceedings which cannot be faulted with for
procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate
the process by which the decision was arrived at.
Judicial review, it must be remembered, is directed
not against the decision, but is confined to the
examination of the decision-making process."
Now, the present case in hand is to be considered
with the touch stone of the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as mentioned above.
9. On perusal of the charge sheet dated 18.06.1998
submitted against the workman, it is found that specific
charges under clause 26.24 of the Certified Standing Order
was levelled against the workman for remaining habitually
absence from duty without sufficient cause.
On perusal of the materials on record including the
documents relating to the departmental enquiry held
against the workman, it is found that it is not a case of no
evidence. It is also found that the findings of enquiry
officer are based on the evidence on record of the enquiry
and not on any extraneous materials. The enquiry officer
has analyzed the evidence on record of the enquiry in a
rational manner to arrive at the findings. The findings of
the enquiry officer are not as such, which could not have
been reached by the prudent man on the said materials
and as such, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot to
be said to be perverse.
5610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. So far the proportionality of the punishment is
concerned, it is found that grave misconduct of
unauthorized absence has been proved against the
workman in a properly conducted departmental enquiry.
The punishment of discharge from services, therefore,
cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. So, there
is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed
against the workman. Hence, It is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management of WCL through
Personnel Manager, Sillewara Sub Area, PO: Sillewara,
Tah: Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in dismissing the services of
Shri Mathanu Zingan Kanojiya w.e.f. 22.03.99 is justified,
legal and proper. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2088.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 246@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@148@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2088.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 246/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
NAGPUR as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/148/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/246/2003
Date: 20.03.2013
Party No. 1 (a)
:
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1 (b)
:
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No. 2
:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In Exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Anil Shankarrao Uikey, for adjudication, as
per letter No. L-22012/148/2003-IR (CM-II) Dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Anil Shankarrao Uikey, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Anil
Shankarrao Uikey ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 18.05.1991 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as
a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of secton
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5611
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Gaurds
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the manadatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
18.05.1991 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not complete 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25(H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home Guards and
therefor, the workman has no right to claim any relief from
them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P.
No. 1389/99 and the Hon'ble Court, rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and the was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
5612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also provide some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In this cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that their initial appointment was through
contractor and they have not filed the appointment order
of the contractor and the contractor appointed them on
1.08.1993 and they have not filed any document showing
that the management had any contract with them, in respect
of the service and they had not applied to the FCI and there
was no advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his
examination in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement
by Party No. 1. In his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted the suggestions given to him that prior to
15.06.1993, the FCI had a contract with Bombay
Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. for supply of Security
Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows that there was
deduction of provident fund by FCI of the Security Guards
Supplied by Singh Security Services from the Bill of the
contractor and subsequently release of the same by FCI to
the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI shows that
Singh Security Services had requested for payment of
Rs. 54,350/- due to them towards payments of wages to
Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license issued
to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay was valid
up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that the contract
entered with Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was due to expire during December, 1998. This witness
has further stated that to his knowledge, the Security and
Fire Service, Bombay renewed same to the authority of
FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. was given
the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security Guards to
FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and thereafter,
Industrial Security and Fire Services were given the contract
for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within the period
from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given the
contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness has
also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992 to
March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied by
establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-Incharge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed Incharge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given
to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5613
and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh
hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of
security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H
of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in
nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and
illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the
Party No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the
order passed by the Tribunal for production of documents,
the Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the Party No.1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No.1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact the so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No.1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No.1 and the Party
No.1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the Party No.1 and the workman and
the so called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though Party No.1 unilaterally extended the
contract, the contractor did not accept the same and without
any contractor, the workman continued the work with Party
No.1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No.1 paid the wages from
01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the wokman and such facts also
prove that the workman was the employee of Party No.1
and it was Party No.1, who terminated the services of the
workman without compliance of the mandatory provisions
of section 25-F of the Act. In support of the submissions,
the union representative placed reliance on the decisions
reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority),
2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs.
State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No.1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of party no.1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No.1 and the workman and the
Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No.1 has no control over the
wokman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party
No.1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
5614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the wokman was never engaged by Party
No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No.1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or
25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No.1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the sub-mission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-rejudicata, due to
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in
W.P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become wokmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Cout did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by
the petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other facts
which are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate Authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Coporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No.1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No.1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not poduced any evidence to show that he was directly
engaged by the Paty No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5615
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-420 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners including
the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to
regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal empolyer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the government
or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in
this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of
the factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate
Government may after consultation with the Central Board
or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by
notification in the Official Gazette, employment of contract
labour "in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that
before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract, labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representation duly authorised by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
Central Government or the State Government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed
out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour as
such but has provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the
Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and to
decide whether the employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment should
be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out
that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to regulate
the conditions of service of the worker employed by the
contractor who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii)
to provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether, in
certain notified processes, operation or other works in any
establishment by the appropriate government, under section
10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor
the Rules framed by the Central Government or by any
appropriate government provide that upon abolition of
contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workes, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been
insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains
the old employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated
in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract
which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect
the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself given rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction
under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis
of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workman between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do
...........". 'The expression' employed has at least two
known connotations, but as used in the definition,
the context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5617
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the definition of the term as contained the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he
contracted with a third person to accomplish on the
definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor
would not without something more become the
workman of that third person. Therefore, when the
workmen employed by the contractor were certainly
not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to
that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other palce in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions
of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider
the question whether the contractor has been interposed
either on the ground of having undertaken to pruduce any
given result for the establishment or for supply of contract
labour for work of the establishment under a genuine
contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance
of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found
to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called
contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the
principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the
services of the contract labour in the concerned
establishment. If the contract is found to be genuine and
the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen
he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the
condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into
consideration the age of the workers at the time of their
initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the
condition as to academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-
12.8.1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545 (W) if 1996, D/-9.5.1997 (Cal):
W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/-17.4.1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/-2.8.2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999,
D/-23.12.1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
Labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that a combined reading of the terms
"Establishment" and "Workman" shows that a workman
engaged in any establishment would have direct
relationship with the principal employer as a servant of
master. But what is true of a workman could not be correct
of contract labour. When the provisions of the Act neither
contemplate creation of direct relationship of master and
servant between the principal employer and the contract
labour nor can such relationship be implied from the
provisions of the action issuing notification under Section
10(1) of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and the forms
made thereunder."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand it to be considered.
5618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted
by the workman that he was engaged through the contractor
in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural
for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform different duties
as a security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him
were done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced
number of documents to show that the workman was a
contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by
the contractors. Hence, for non-production of the documents
by Party No. 1, there is no need to draw any adverse
inference. As the facts and circumstances of the case in hand
are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the
cases referred in the decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on
which reliance has been placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have no
clear application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor anything has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourers and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even, if, it is
held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,
1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are
liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits thereunder. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Section 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2089.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 247@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@149@2003&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5619
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2089.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 247/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/149/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/247/2003
Date: 20.03.2013
Party No. 1 (a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1 (b)
: The Senor Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Devidas Bapurao Goyale, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/149/2003-IR (CM-II) Dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Devidas Bapurao Goyale,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Devidas
Bapurao Goyale, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.01.1992 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of secton
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1992, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
5620
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so-called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 aslo supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.01.1992 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with foodgrains, then only, services
of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and
Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5621
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the managment
had any contract with them, in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary.The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them upto
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceedings and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.
1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX show
that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext M-XXXI
shows that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within
the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness
has also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992
to March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied by
establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to
different places for performing security duties and identity
cards were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when
they were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-Incharge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed In charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.01.1992 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given
to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act
and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh
hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of
security guard, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial
in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void
and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so-called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a Camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
5622
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1
to produce the documents, but in spite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party
No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so-called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and in fact the so-called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so-called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and in spite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no
question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the
Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Governmnt from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party
No. 1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)- 6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5623
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal
(Civil) 3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md.
Raffi) and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State
Gangasagar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the
learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present reference
is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the decision of
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and Others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed questions of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
approporiate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
XX
XX
XX
XX
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applications are free
to approach the appropriate authority for redressal
of their grievances.''
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to hit by the principles of res-judicata. So,
there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, ''In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper.'' The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and
the worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999
and as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature,
he is entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman
has also claimed that as the Central Government issued
notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour
system in FCI and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and Party No. 1
implemented such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only
and gave employment and regularized and absorbed the
services of the Security Guards working at Nagpur and
Manmad and did not implement the same at Wardha and
other places to deprive him from the benefits under the
Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities, Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation
of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB
IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others).
5624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employess of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The ''Contract Labour'' has been defined in
Section 2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been
employed as contract labour in or in connection with the
work of an establishement when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a contractor,
with or without the knowledge of the principal employer.
Section 2 (1) (c) defines ''Contractor'' to mean a person who
undertakes to produce a given result for the establishment,
other than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture
to such establishment, through contract labour or who
supplies contract labour for any work of the establishment
and includes a sub-contractor. ''Principal employer'' has
been defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or
department of the Government or a local authority, the head
of that office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour ''in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment'', Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whim this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license isued in that
behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
''either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor''. Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall
be the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement
of wages in the presence of the authorized representative
of the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. Form the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the prinicpal employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5625
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the Act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the Act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to
direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct connection
with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned.
Again in Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992
I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has
two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor who is
engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the
abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any establishment
by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules
framed by the central government or by any appropriate
government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,
the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees, Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a somke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction
under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis
of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed and
engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time
a direct link is established between the contract labourers
and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor from
the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before
them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force emplolyed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do ..............". 'The expression' employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
5626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contrained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1975-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
have to consider the question whether the contractor
has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract
or is a mere ruse/ camouflage to evade compliance of
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract
is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the conditions as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively, M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/- 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/
-9-5-1997 (Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997, D/-17-4-
1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-
2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/-
23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or
in connection with the work of an establishment,
the relationship of master and servant is created
between the principal employer and the contract
labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of
the terms "Contract labour", "Establsihement" and
"Workman" does not show that the legal relationship
between the person employed in any industry and
the owner of the industry is created irrespective of
the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The work "Workman" is defined in wide
terms. It is a generic term of which contract labour is
a species. It is true that combined reading of the
terms "Establishment" and "Workman" shows that
a workman engaged in any establishment would have
drirect relationship with the principal employer as a
servant off master. But what is true of a workman
could not be correct of contract labour. When the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5627
provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation
of direct relationship of master and servant between
the principal employer and the contract labour nor
can such relationship be implied from the provisions
of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)
of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a
relationship be found to exist from the rules and the
forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the Union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
5628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2090.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 248@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&09&2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@150@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2090.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 248/2003)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05-09-2013.
[No. L-22012/150/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/248/2003
Date: 20.03.2013
Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager, Food Corporation
of India, Ajani, Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager, Food
Corporation of India, Mistry Bhawan,
Dinshaw Wacha Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Verses
Party No. 2
: The Secretary, Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,
Hind Nagar Ward No. 2, Near Boudha
Vihar, Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha
(M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Ramesh Kisanrao Natkut, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/150/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Ramesh Kisanrao Natkut,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were
noticed to file their respective statement of claim and
written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri
Ramesh Kisanrao Natkut ("the workman" in short), filed
the statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.04.1991 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as
a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1991, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the mandatory
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5629
provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided
to abolish the appointment of contract labour as
contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification
on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour
system in the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of
the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all
places and management of FCI implemented the notification
only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security
Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola,
Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour
system was continued by the management, with an intention
to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the
contractor came to an end, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and the original period
of contract given to the contractor for providing Security
services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per
the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the
workman was not employed by them, there was no question
of following the procedure of termination by them and they
were not the employer of the workman and the services of
the workman were never utilized by them as employer from
18.05.1991 to 14.03.1999, without any break in service
and the workman did not completed 240 days of work in a
year as alleged and as the workman was engaged by the
Security Contractor, there was no relationship of master
and servant between them and the workman at any point of
time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted
by the Central Government, so the allegations made by the
workman against them are not true and there was no
question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act
and the work does not constantly exist and the work of
providing security guards was given to other Government
Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and
therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief
from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their godowns are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and
in pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the
year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the
year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
5630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that their initial appointment was through
contractor and they have not filed the appointment order
of the contractor and the contractor appointed them on
01.08.1993 and they have not filed any document showing
that the management had any contract with them, in respect
of the service and they had not applied to the FCI and there
was no advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his
examination in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness
has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement
by Party No. 1. In his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted the suggestions given to him that prior to
15.06.1993, the FCI had a contract with Bombay
Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. for supply of Security
Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows that there was
deduction of provident fund by FCI of the Security Guards
supplied by Singh Security Services from the bill of the
contractor and subsequently release of the same by FCI to
the contractor for deposit and Ext M-XXXI shows that
Singh Security Services had requested for payment of
Rs. 54,350/- due to them towards payment of wages to
Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license issued
to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay was valid
up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that the contract
entered with Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was due to expire during December, 1998. This witness
has further stated that to his knowledge, the Security and
Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the authority of
FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. was given
the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security Guards to
FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and thereafter,
Industrial Security and Fire Services were given the contract
for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within the period
from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given the
contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness has
also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992 to
March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied by
establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-Incharge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed In charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one months' notice nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given
to the workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act
and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh
hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of
security guard, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial
in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void
and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a comouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5631
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No.
1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was
placed by the union representative on the decisions
reported in 2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs.
Eight Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004
(103) FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative that
neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors engaged
by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per rules to engage contract labours and
infact that so called contractors were mediators and not
contractors and even though there was legal ban on
engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1 engaged
the workman and some others as security guards and from
the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on record and the
admission of the witness examined on behalf of the Party
No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement the
workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party
No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to
the workman and such facts also prove that the workman
was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1,
who terminated the services of the workman without
compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F
of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O., General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1was exempted by the Central Government
from the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers,
so contract was given to the security contractor, as per
rules, for supply of security guards and due to the
notification of the Government for abolitions of contract
labour system, Home guards and Police personnel were
appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no control
over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held the termination of the workman by the contractor
was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as
such, the workman cannot agitate the question again and
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-
judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for the appointment of its
employees and it is clear that the workman was never
engaged by Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment
and no evidence has been adduced by the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in
the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of the alleged
termination and as such, there was no question of
compliance of section 25-H of the Act and the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
5632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surrendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief
and passed the following order:
"In view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union water front workers and others (reported in 2001 (7)
SCCI), the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted
since the petition involves disputed question of facts as
also other facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to
absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engated by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engated by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a
new turn. At one time the establishmnet being the
employer all persons working therein was the
employees of such employer. But slowly the employer
including Central and State Governments started
entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.
Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5633
has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors
exploited the labourers engaged by them in various
manners including the payment of low wages. Hence,
the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 was enacted to regulate the employment of
contract labour in certain establishment and to
provide for its abolition in certain circumstances and
for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2(1)(b) to mean a workman, who has been employed
as contract labour in or in connection with the work
of an establishment when he is hired in or in
connection with such work by or through a
contractor, with or without the knowledge of the
principal employer. Section 2(1)(c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
proeduce a given result for the establishment, other
than a mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture
to such establishment, through contract labour or
who supplies contract labour for any work of the
establishment and includes a sub-contractor.
"Principal employer" has been defined to mean (i) in
relation to any office or department of the
Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may
be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the
owner or occupier of the factory. In view of section
10, of the appropriate Government may after
consultation with the Central Board or, as the case
may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in
any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 required
that before issuing any such notification, in relation
to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and
benefits provided for the contract labour in that
establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into
consideration is whether the work performed by the
contractor labourers is of perential nature. Section
12 enjoins that no contractor to whom that Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work
through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by
the licensing authority. The license so issued may
contain conditions in respect of hours of work,
fixation of wages and other essential amenities in
respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance
with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity
required to be provided under section 16, section 17,
section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract
labour employed in an establishment, is not provided
by the contractor within the time prescribed by the
contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer
within such time as may be prescribed and all
expensed incurred by the principal employer in
providing the amenity may be recovered by the
principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall
be responsible for the payment of wages to each
worker employed by him as contract labour but at
the same time in order to protect the interest of such
contract labour, it requires every principal employer
to nominate a representative the duly authorized by
him to be present at the time of disbursement of
wages by the contractor. It shall be the duty of the
contractor to ensure the disbursement of wages in
the presence of the authorized representative of the
principal employer. Because of Sub-Section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of
wages within the prescribed period, then the principal
employer shall be liable to make payment of wages in
full to the contact labour employed by the contractor
and recover the amount so paid from the contractor.
Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid has
been made penal for which punishment can be
imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never
purported to abolish it in its entirely. The primary
object appears to be that there should not be any
exploitation of the contract labourers by the
contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have
been imposed on the contractor as well as on the
principal employer. Of course if any expenses are
incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the
principle employer he is entitled to deduct the same
from the bill of the contractor. The Act also conceives
that all appropriate government may after
consultation with the central board or the state board,
as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process,
operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years,
they make a claim that they should be absorbed by
the principal employer and be treated as employees
of the principal employer especially when the
principal employer is the central government or the
state government or an authority which can be held
to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the
constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
5634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India
limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed
out the object and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 1 CLR SC 165=(1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the
contract labour as such but has provided for its
abolition by the Central Government in appropriate
cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the
court to enquire into the question and to decide
whether the employment of contract labour in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided
by the government after considering relevant aspects
as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the
case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Singh V. Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court
refused to direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to
absorb the contract labourers in its employment
saying that, the contract labourers have not been
found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer
and employee between the Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned. Again in
Dena Nath V. National Fertilizer Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1,
this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor
who is engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to
provide for the abolition of contract labour altogether,
in certain notified processes, operation or other works
in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated,
that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central
government or by any appropriate government
provide that upon abolition of contract labour the
labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporation in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers
and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before that court. Normally,
the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under
the Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora
to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral
and documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do...............". "The expression' employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that the should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5635
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957—I—LLJ—477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
stands, the workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third person.
Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor
were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC—3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not
geneuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract
labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the services
of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If
the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise
found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration
the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment
by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-12-8-
1999(Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-09-5-1997 (Cal): W.A.
Nos. 345—354 of 1997 m D/-17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999,
D/-23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the act as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
5636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim no any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guard was
given by Party No 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 has engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contracts Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 25.05.92, Govt. Of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of building
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party
No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be held that
there was no relationship of master and servant between
the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there was no
question of termination of the services by the Party No. 1
or compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of
the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with repect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a paty in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannout be answered in favour of the
workman. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2091.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,QlhvkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 249@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@151@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2091.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 249/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/151/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5637
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/249/2003
Date: 20.03.2013.
Party No. l(a)
:
The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. l(b)
:
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai -400020.
Party No. 2
:
The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,
Hind Nagar, Ward No. 2, Near Boudha
Vihar , Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha
(M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Sukhdeo Sahabdeorao Dhoke, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/151/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Sukhdeo Sahabdeorao Dhoke,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Sukhdeo
Sahabdeorao Dhoke (“the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 01.08.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25- F of the Act and after his illegal termination,
fresh hands from the department of home guard and police
were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties of Security
guards, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work which he was performing is constantly in
existence and the same is of a perennial nature and as his
termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for
a period of two years, but the contract was made only on
papers and after every two years, the Party No.1 changed
the contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so-called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real employer
and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and
change of contractors by Party No.1 from time to time was
sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim
and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor
was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral
termination from services was against the mandatory
provisions of the Act and the Central Govermment decided
to abolish the appointment of contract labour as
contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification
on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour
system in the establishment of the Party No.1 and to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of
the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system in all
places and management of FCI implemented the notification
only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security
Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola,
Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour
system was continued by the management, with an intention
to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Amravati Depot and the Party No.1 was
5638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No.1 and Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March,1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 01.08.1993
to14.03. 1999 , without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their godowns are filled with food grains, then only, services
of the security guards are required and in pursuance of the
notification issued by the Central Government abolishing
contract labour system, they appointed Home guards and
Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No.1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that their initial appointment was through
contractor and they have not filed the appointment order
of the contractor and the contractor appointed them on
01.08.1993 and they have not filed any document showing
that the management had any contract with them, in respect
of the service and they had not applied to the FCI and there
was no advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M -7
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5639
bears his signature and Exts. M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.1.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows
that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI
shows that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and
within the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were
given the contract for supply of Security Guards. This
witness has also admitted the suggestions that from
January, 1992 to March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial
Security Investigation Services, Amravati was given the
contract by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and
according to Ext. M- XXXIX, the Government did not
prohibit the appointment of contract labour in sweeping,
cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned and
occupied by establishment of FCI and that the workman
and other Security Guards were being deployed to different
depots and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and
lists were being prepared of the Security Guards, who were
being deployed to the depots and other building to perform
the security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-In charge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed In charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 01.08.1993 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the service of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's wages
in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given
to the workman, as required under section 25- F of the Act
and after termination of the services of the workman, fresh
hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of
security guard, in violation of the provision of section 25- H
of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial in
nature, hence the termination of the workman is void and
illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so-called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No.1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1
to produce the documents, but in spite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I- CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
5640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so-called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so-called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so-called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14-03-1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No.1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128)
FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General
Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that Party No.1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was never
appointed by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No.1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No.1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and
the Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No.1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned advocates
for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil) 7038/2002
(M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar), Appeal (Civil) 6303-
6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani),
Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar District
Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil) 3639/
2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5641
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were judgment that the Hon'ble
High Court did not consider the main relief and passed the
following order:
“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances.”
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the party No. l.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the
statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman
that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India
Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor. In
paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has
mentioned that, "In the year 1993, he was engaged by the
Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a period
of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper." The case
of the workman is that after every two years, the Party No.
1 on papers showed the change of contractors, but he was
not disturbed from services and he worked continuously
without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a
security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled for
reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed
that as the Central Government issued notification on
01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and
directed to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such
direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Amravati and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor,
it is clear that the workman was engaged by the contractor.
The workman has not produced any evidence to show that
he was directly engaged by the Party No.1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC
3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other/than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. “Principal employer” has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be,
may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
5642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour “in any process, operation or other work
in any establishment,” Sub-section (2) of Section 10
requires that before issuing any such notification, in
relation to an establishments, the appropriate Government
shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits
provided for the contract labour in that establishment and
other relevant factors. One of the relevant factors, which
is to be taken into consideration is whether the work
performed by the contract labourers is of perennial nature.
Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is
applicable shall undertake or execute any work through
con tract labour except under and in accordance with a
license issued in that behalf by the licensing authority.
The license so issued may contain conditions in respect
of hours of work, fixation of wages and other essential
amenities in respect of contract labour as the appropriate
Government may deem fit to impose in accordance with
rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity required to
be provided under section 16, section 17, section 18, or
section 19 for the benefit of the contract labour employed
in an establishment, is not provided by the contractor
within the time prescribed by the contractor within the
time rescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided
by the principal employer within such time as may be
prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by
the principal employer from the contractor “either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor
under any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor”.
Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for
the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as
contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the
interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal
employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by
him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by
the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to
ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the
authorized representative of the principal employer. Because
of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to
make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then
the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of
wages in full to the contact labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from the
contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid
has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
Central Government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited V.
Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object and
scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5643
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V.
National Fertilizers Ltd. 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out
that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central Government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors, As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985- II LLOJ -4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do ...... ". 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 -I -LLJ -477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he
contracted with a third person to accomplish on the
definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor
would not without something more become the
workman of that third person. Therefore, when the
workmen employed by the contractor were certainly
not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to
that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Honble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
5644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not
genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour
will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the services
of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If
the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise
found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration
the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment
by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T, Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-
12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-
9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/-
17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-2000 (Bom)
and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab
IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is
true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the party No.1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the party No.1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the party
No.1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by party No.1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards was
given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the workman
was a contract labourer and he was engaged by the
contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5645
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89 /LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labor contractor by Party No.1 was not
a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 2092.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 282@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@225@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2092.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 282/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/225/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/282/2003 Date: 20.03.2013.
Party No. 1 (a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No.l (b)
: The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgatye, Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar ,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the management
of Food corporation of India and their workman, Shri Deepak
Namdeorao Pandit, for adjudication, as per letter
5646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
No. L-22012/225/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the
following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Deepak Namdeorao Pandit,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Deepak
Namdeorao Pandit, ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 21.07.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home
guard and police were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the
duties of security guards, in violation of the provision of
section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was
performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a
perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and
unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for a
period after every two years, the Party No.1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and he
was also not disturbed from his services and he was merely
shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually, he
was working under the direct control and supervision of the
Party No.1 and the contractor had no role to play in the same
and the work performed by him was being assigned to him
by Party No.1 and he was a regular employee of Party No.1
and Party No.1 was his real employer and not the contractor
as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors
by Party No.1 from time to time was sham and only a
camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract
between Party No.1 and the contractor was bogus and not
genuine and therefore, his oral termination from services
was against the mandatory provisions of the Act and the
Central Government decided to abolish the appointment of
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and
issued notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish
the contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No.1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No.1 and
Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991
to14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5647
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and
the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and
when their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in pursuance
of the notification issued by the Central Government
abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home
guards and Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the
contract and the change of contractor in every two years
was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No.1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No.1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the management
had any contract with them, in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M -7
bears his signature and Exts. M-7 to M-l5 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.1.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows
that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI
shows that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
5648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within
the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness
has also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992
to March, 1992, M/s Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied
by establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-In charge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed In charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March,1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25- F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25- H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour but. the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the party No.1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunl by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No.
1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed
by the Tribunal for production of documents, the party
No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I- CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight
Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103)
FLR-187 (Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with party No. 1 till. 14.03.1999 and the Party No.
1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03. 1999 to the
workman and such facts also prove that the workman was
the employee of party no.1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that party No.1 has admitted the claims made
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5649
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was never
appointed by party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the party No.1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and party No.1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the party No.1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon 'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
party No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with party No.1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in
W.P. 1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99
before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the
Hon 'ble High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal
of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on
29.07.2002 in the said writ petition, it is found that the
workman and others claimed regularisation on the ground
that they were employed by the contractor for doing regular
work of the Food Corporation of India and in view of the
same, they have become workmen of Food Corporation of
India, since the work on which they were employed is of
perennial nature. However, it is found from the judgment
that the Hon 'ble High Court did not consider the main
relief and passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCC1), the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
5650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
party no.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the
statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman
that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India
Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor.
In paragraph 4 of the the statement of claim, the workman
has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was engaged by
the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a
period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper."
The case of the workman is that after every two years, the
Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors,
but he was not disturbed from services and he worked
continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he
worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed
that as the Central Government issued notification on
01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and
directed to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such
direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No.1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon 'bIe Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon 'bIe Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was. the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to ,
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the government
or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in
this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the
factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate Government
may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the
case may be, a State Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment,"
Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing
any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the
appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work any benefits provided for the contract labour in
that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is
whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of
perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any
work through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the
licensing authority. The license so issued may contain
conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages
and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5651
accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any
amenity required to be provided under section 16, section
17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract
labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed by the contractor
within the time prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be
provided by the principal employer within such time as
may be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the principal
employer in providing the amenity may be recovered by
the principal employer from the contractor "either by
deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under
any contract or as a debt payable by the contractor".
Section 21 says that a contractor shall be responsible for
the payment of wages to each worker employed by him as
contract labour but at the same time in order to protect the
interest of such contract labour, it requires every principal
employer to nominate a representative duly authorized by
him to be present at the time of disbursement of wages by
the contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to
ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence of the
authorized representative of the principal employer. Because
of sub-section (4) of section 21, if the contractor fails to
make payment of wages within the prescribed period, then
the principal employer shall be liable to make payment of
wages in full to the contract labour employed by the
contractor and recover the amount so paid from the
contractor. Any contravention of the provisions aforesaid
has been made penal for which punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principal employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate Government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be, absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
Central Government or the State Government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it
was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the
contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition
by the Central Government in appropriate cases under
Section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the employment of
contract labour in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to
be decided by the government after considering the relevant
aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the
case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct
the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct connection
with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned.
Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd 1992 I CLR 1,
this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes
to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service of the worker
employed by the contractor who is engaged by a principal
employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract
labour altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or
other works in any establishment by the appropriate
Government, under Section 10 of the Act. It was further stated
that neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the Central
Government or by any appropriate Government provide that
upon abolition of contract labour, the labourers would be
directly absorbed by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
5652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. In fact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction
under Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis
of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all
such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged
by the contractors, As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before
them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985- II LLOJ-4
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do .........". 'The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 -I -LLJ -477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
stands , the workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third person.
Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor
were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of
service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the
question whether the contractor has been interposed either
on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5653
result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or
is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine
but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will
have to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable,
and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by the
contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T, Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D / -
12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D / -9-5-
1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345- 354 of 1997m D/ -17-4-1998
(Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8-2000 (Bom) and
W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab
IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is
true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment "and
"Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the party No.1 for non-production of documents as
ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman
is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the
workman that he was engaged through the contractor in
F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for
the party No.1 to direct him to perform different duties as a
security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were
done properly. Moreover, the party no.1 has produced
number of documents to show that the workman was a
contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by
the contractors. Hence, for non- production of the
documents by party No.1, there is no need to draw any
adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions by the
Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the
union representative, with respect, I am of the view that
the said decisions have no clear application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89 /LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
5654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The engagement of labor contractor by Party No.1 was not
a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No.1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non.joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2093.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,QlhvkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 283@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@226@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2093.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 283/
2003) of the Cental Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Food Corporation of
India, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/226/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/283/2003
Date: 20.03.2013.
Party No.1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur - 440015.
Party No. 1(b) :
The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020.
Versus
Party No.2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Chandanshiv Shravan Sadanshiv, for
adjudication, as per letter No.L- 22012/226/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Chandanshiv Shravan Sadanshiv,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Chandanshiv
Shravan Sadanshiv ('the workman" in short), filed the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5655
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No.1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 01.05.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14-03-1999 was not in good faith, but in colourable
exercise of the rights and powers by the Party No.1 and
while terminating his services, neither one month's notice
nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment
compensation was given to him as required under Section
25- F of the Act and after his illegal termination, fresh hands
from the department of home guard and police were engaged
by Party No.1 to extract the duties of Security guards, in
violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the
work which he was performing is constantly in existence
and the same is of a perennial nature and as his termination
is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in
service with continuity and full back wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No.1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the
so called contractor did not replace the Security Guards
and he was also not disturbed from his services and he
was merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was, working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real employer
and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and
change of contractors by Party No.1 from time to time was
sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim
and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor
was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral
termination from services was against the mandatory
provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided
to abolish the appointment of contract labour as
contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification
on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour
system in the establishment of the Party No.1 and to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the management
and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of the Party No.1 to
abolish the contract labour system in all places and
management of FCI implemented the notification only at
Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola, Amravati,
Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour system
was continued by the management, with an intention to
deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was, paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No.1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No.1 and Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninteruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman,
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under section
10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition)
Act, they were exempted by the Central Government, so the
allegations made by the workman against them are not true
and there was no question of violation of the provisions of
25 (H) of the Act and the work does not constantly exist and
the work of providing security guards was given to other
Government Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards
and therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief
from them and the work of security is not perennial in nature
and as and when their go-downs are filled with food grains,
then only, services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
5656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition), Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
such, the workman is not entitled to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the management
had any contract with them in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts. M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No.1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.1
his cross-examination, this admitted the suggestions given
to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI had a contract with
Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. for supply of
Security Personnel and Ext. M -XXIX shows that there
was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the Security
Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from the bill of
the contractor and subsequently release of the same by
FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI shows
that Singh Security Services had requested for payment of
Rs. 54,350/- due to them towards payment of wages to
Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license issued to
Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay was valid up
to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that the contract
entered with Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was due to expire during December, 1998. This witness has
further stated that to his knowledge, the Security and Fire
Services, Bombay renewed same to the authority of FCI
and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd. was given the
contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security Guards to FCI
and after 1993, Singh Security Services and thereafter,
Industrial Security and Fire Services were given the contract
for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within the period
from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given the contract
for supply of Security Guards. This witness has also
admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992 to March,
1992, M/s Chaitainya Industrial Security Investigation
Services, Amravati was given the contract by the FCI for
supply of Security Guards and according to Ext. M- XXXIX,
the Government did not prohibit the appointment of
contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching
of buildings owned and occupied by establishment of FCI
and that the workman and other Security Guards were being
deployed to different depots and buildings of FCI to
perform guard duties and lists were being prepared of the
Security Guards who were being deployed to the depots
and other building to perform the security duties and the
authorities of FCI were deciding the names of the Security
Guards to be deployed to different places for performing
security duties and identity cards were issued to the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5657
Security Guards by the FCI when they were being sent to
the different places for performing security duties and when
a Security Guard was being found absent from duty, the
office of the FCI-cum-In-charge or Security Guard was
marking him absent from duty and was reporting the matter
to the Shed In charge for taking necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial
in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void
and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the party no.1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the party No.1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the party No.1 to produce
the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the party No.1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the party No.1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the party No.1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the party No.1 and the party
No.1 is the real employer and there was master and servant
relationship between the party No.1 and the workman and
the so called contract given to the contractor expired on
31.12.1998 and though party No.1. unilaterally extended
the contract, the contractor did not accept the same and
without any contractor, the workman continued the work
with party no.1 till 14.03.1999 and the party No.1 paid the
wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman and
such facts also prove that the workman was the employee
of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who terminated the
services of the workman without compliance of the
mandatory provisions of section 25- F of the Act. In support
of the submissions, the union representative placed reliance
on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K. Panda
Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99
(Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O. General Forest Division,
Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that party No.1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was never
appointed by party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman were
terminated by the contractor and as such, there was no
question of Party No. 1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman and the
Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
5658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment, for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the party
No.1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of 1999
for the reliefs sought in this reference and the Hon'ble
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res-judicata between
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the party No.1 that the party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by party
No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with party No.1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-
H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the party no.1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the party no. l that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union water front workers and others [reported in 2001 (7)
SCC 1], the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be
granted since the petition involves disputed question of
facts as also other facts which are required to be adjudicated
by appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to
absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the party no.1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was, directly apppointed or engaged by
the party no.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he as
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No. 1 implemented such direction
at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5659
same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly
engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners including
the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to
regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process; operation or other work in
any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
5660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory, restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplated progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it
was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the
contract labour as such but has provided for its abolition
by the Central Government in appropriate cases under
section 10 of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into
the question and to decide whether the employment of
contract labour in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment should be abolished or not. That has to
be decided by the government after considering the
relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the Act. Again
in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to
direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct connection
with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned.
Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR
1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has two
purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of service
of the worker employed by the contractor who is engaged
by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition
of contract labour altogether, in certain notified processes,
operation or other works in any establishment by the
appropriate government, under section 10 of the Act. It
was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules framed
by the central government or by any appropriate
government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,
the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether, the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced, before the court. Normally, the Labour Court
and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes
on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence
produced before them."
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5661
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do……" The expression' employed has at least
two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the term as
contained in, the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he contracted
with a third person to accomplish on the definition as it
stands, the workman of the contractor would not without
something more become the workman of that third person.
Therefore, when the workmen employed by the contractor
were certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for whose
benefit it is intended, does not extend to reading in the
provisions of the Act what the legislature has not provided
whether expressly or by necessary implication, or
substituting remedy or benefits for that provided by the
legislature. The intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate
the conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract labour
system by the appropriate Government on consideration
of factors enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 10 of
the Act among other relevant factors. But, the presence of
some or all those factors, provide no ground for absorption
of contract labour on issuing notification under Section
10(1) by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to either
in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA
Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA
Act, it is not for the High Courts or the Supreme Court to
read in some unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute
for penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour in the
establishment of principal employer or a lesser or a harsher
punishment. Such an interpretation of the provisions of
the statute will be far beyond the principle of ironing out
the creases and the scope of interpretative legislation and
as such clearly impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine
but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will
have to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable,
and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by the
contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-12-8-
1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-
9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-1998
(Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8- 2000 (Born) and W.P.
No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -23-12- 1999 (Born), 1998 Lab IC 2571
(Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
5662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour not can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made thereunder."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the party no.1 for non-production of documents as
ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the workman
is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is admitted by the
workman that he was engaged through the contractor in
F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was quite natural for
the party no.1 to direct him to perform different duties as a
security guard and to see that duties entrusted to him were
done properly. Moreover, the Party No. 1 has produced
number of documents to show that the workman was a
contract labour and payment of wages to him was made by
the contractors. Hence, for non-production of the
documents by party no.1, there is no need to draw any
adverse inference. As the facts and circumstances of the
case in hand are quite different from the facts and
circumstances of the cases referred in decisions by the
Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been placed by the
union representative, with respect, I am of the view that
the said decisions have no clear application of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the party
no.1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor anything has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the party no.1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the party no.l had engaged the workman and others as
contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any right
on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is.
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The Workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No.1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance
of the various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the
workman of the benefits thereunder. The workman has not
been able to produce any document to show that at any
point of time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee.
It is clear from the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of
the last three months to the workman in presence of the
Labour Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the
same. As it is clear from the evidence on record that the
workman was engaged as a contract labour with Party No.1,
by the contractor and as such, it can be held that there was
no relationship of master and servant between the Party
No.1 and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No.1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence it is ordered:—
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5663
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2094.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 285@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@228@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II)]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2094.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 285/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/228/2003 - IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT /NGP /285/2003
Date: 20.03.2013
Party No.1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No.1(b)
: The Senior Regional Manager
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No.2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No.2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Ramesh Khushairao Bangar, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/228/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Ramesh Khushairao Bangar,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?”
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Ramesh
Khushairao Bangar ("the workman" in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 01.11.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No.1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
5664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a .regular
employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No.1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No.1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No.1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the
Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at
Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract
labour system was continued by the management, with an
intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour
laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so-called contractors engaged by the Party No.1 and
Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long spell
of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991
to14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home Guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and
the work of security is not perennial in nature and as and
when their go-downs are filled with foodgrains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in pursuance
of the notification issued by the Central Govemment
abolishing contract labour system, they appointed Home
guards and Police personnel as security guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only, and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No.1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the
year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman, and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether,
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5665
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross examination, the workman has
admitted that their initial appointment was through
contractor and they have not filed the appointment order
of the contractor and the contractor appointed them on
01.08.1993 and they have not filed any document showing
that the management had any contract with them, in respect
of the service and they had not applied to the FCI and there
was no advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and intially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.1.
In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows
that there was deduction of provident fund, by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext M-XXXI.
shows. that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of.Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay lntelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of. Security Guards to FCI and
within the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were
given the contract for supply of Security Guards. This
witness has also admitted the suggestions that from
January, 1992 to March, 1992, Mis Chaitainya Industrial
Security Investigation Services, Amravati was given the
contract by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and
according to Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not
prohibit the appointment of contract labour in sweeping,
cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned and
occupied by establishment of FCI and that the workman
and other Security Guards were being deployed to different
depots and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and
lists were being prepared of the Security Guards, who were
being deployed to the depots and other building to perform
the security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity, cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-Incharge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed Incharge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruptions till 14th March,1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No.1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one month's
wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation
was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F
of the Act and after termination of the services of the
workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to
extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the
provision
of
section
25-H of the Act and the work of security guard is perennial
in nature, hence the termination of the workman is void
and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as , contract labour, but the so called contract
5666
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was made only on papers and the workman was actually
working under the direct control and supervision of the
Party No.1 and he was never a contract labour and such
action of the Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage
to deny the legitimate claim of the workman and the so
called contract between the management and the contractor
was bogus and not genuine and the Central Government
by notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment
of contract labour and directed to give employment to
contract labours engaged by the management and therefore,
the management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the party no. 1 to produce
the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the Union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman ,and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No.1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.012.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. General Forest Division,
Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No.1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was never
appointed by Party No.1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor came
to an end in March; 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No.1 complying with the due procedure
of termination and there was no relationship of master and
servant between the Party No.1 and the workman and the
Party No.1 was exempted by the Central Government from
the ban imposed for engagement of contract labourers, so
contract was given to the security contractor, as per rules,
for supply of security guards and due to the notification of
the Government for abolition of contract labour system,
Home guards and Police personnel were appointed as
security guards and Party No. 1 has no control over the
workman and the security contractor was submitting bills
for payment for supply of security guards and the security
contractor was paying the wages to the workman. It was
further submitted by the learned advocate for the Party
No.1 that the workman and some others had approached
the Hon 'bIe High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P. 1389 of
1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference-and the Hon'hle
High Court while depositing of the said petition have held
that. the termination of the workman by the contractor was
a valid one and the action of FCI was legal and as such, the
workman cannot agitate the question again and the decision
of the Hon'bIe High Court operates as res-judicata between,
the parties and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No.1 that the Party No.1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by Party
No.1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence has
been adduced by the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12 calendar
months of the date of the alleged termination and as such,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5667
there was no question of compliance of section 25-F or 25-H
of the Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006. (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi)
and Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar
Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan),
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No.1 that title present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgement of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. national
Union water front workers and others (reported in
2001(7) SCC1), the relief sought by the petitioners
cannot be granted since the petition involves
disputed question of facts as also other facts which
are required to be adjudicated by appropriate
authority. Accordingly, the main prayer to absorb
them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, tile question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No.1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after
every two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the
change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from
services and he worked continuously without any break
till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of
perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.
The workman has also claimed that as the Central
Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish
the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and Party No.1 implemented such direction at
Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and
regularized and absorbed the services of the Security Guards
working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not implement the
same at Wardha and other places to deprive him from the
benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the
union representative and the two decisions reported in
1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food
Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)
and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India
Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers
and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court, have held that: —
5668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in Official Gazette, employment of contract
labour "in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that
before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable bhy the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punisnment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never purported
to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to
be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract
labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For
achieving that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as
well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses
are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of
the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate
government may after consultation with the central board
or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by
notification in official gazette, employment of contract.
labour in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process, operation
or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5669
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and
abolition of contract labour. The underline policy of
the Act is to abolish contract labour, wherever
possible and practicable and where it cannot be
abolished to altogether, the policy of the Act is that
the working conditions of the contract labour should
be so regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V. Union
of India 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was pointed
out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour
as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the
Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and
to decide whether the employment of contract labour in
any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considerng the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to
direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct connection
with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned.
Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I
CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has
two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor who is
engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the
abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any establishment
by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules
framed by the central government or by any appropriate
government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,
the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many
principal employers while renewing the contracts
have been insisting that the contractor or the new
contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a
condition is incorporated in the contract itself.
However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the
contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to
regularization in the employment of the principal
employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and on whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a
mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been
urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of
the requisite material. It is not possible for High Court
or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or
jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It need
not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the
labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct
link is established between the contract labourers
and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor
from the scene, is a matter which has to be established
on material produced before the court. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the
Industrial Disputes Act are the Competent Fora to
adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence produced before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do........."
'The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the context
would indicate that it is used in the sense of a
relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
5670
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the definition of the term as contained in the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC -3656
(supra) the Hon'bIe Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or, a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus, on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
brought before it by any contract in regard to conditions of
service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the
question whether the Contractor has been interposed either
on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given
result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour
for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or
is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine
but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will
have to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable,
and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by the
contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ -
12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -9-5-
1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17 -4-1998
(Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -2-8- 2000 (Bom) and
W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999(Bom), 1998 Lab
IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regardjng drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5671
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No.1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No.1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No.1.
Moreover, for the sake of arguement, even if, it is
held that the party no,1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act,
1976, then the persons responsible for such violation are
liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment. of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No.1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No.1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from, the evidence that Party No.1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2095.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/
kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 286@2003½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@229@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2095.—In pursuance of Section 17 of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
5672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 286/2003) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, NAGPUR as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on 05-09-
2013.
[No. L-22012/229/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desh Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
CASE NO. CGIT/NGP/286/2003
DATE: 20.03.2013
Party No. 1 (a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1 (b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Shirila Pundlikrao Guldoekar, for
adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/229/2003-IR (CM-II)
dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Shirila Pundlikrao Guldoekar,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Shirila
Pundlikrao Guldoekar ("the workman" is short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 18.05.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5673
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt. Manager
of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was supervising
his work through their officers and he had no relation with
the so called contractors engaged by the Party No. 1 and
Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as, torch, lathi,
whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of the long
spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled to be
reinstated in service with continuity and full back wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninteruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home Guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home Guards and Police Personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as Torch, Lathi, Whistle and Uniform etc. to
the workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman is support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the management
had any contract with them, in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
5674
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13-12-1996 and initially,
he was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been
examined as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his
examination in chief which is on affidavit, this witness has
reiternated the facts mentioned in the written statement by
Party No. 1. In his cross-examination, this witness has
admitted the suggestions given to him that prior to
15-06-1993, the FCI had a contract with Bombay Intelligence
Security Pvt. Ltd. for supply of Security Personnel and Ext.
M-XXIX shows that there was deduction of provident fund
by FCI of the Security Guards supplied by Singh Security
Services from the bill of the contractor and subsequently
release of the same by FCI to the contractor for deposit
and Ext. M- XXXI shows that Singh Security Services had
requested for payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards
payment of wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII,
the license issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services,
Bombay was valid up to 18-05-1998 and Ext. M-XXXII
shows that the contract entered with Industrial Security and
Fire Services, Bombay was due to expire during December,
1998. This witness has further stated that to his knowledge,
the Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to
the authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-1992 for supply of
Security Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security
Services and thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services
were given the contract for supply of Security Guards to
FCI and within the period from 1991 to 1999, three
contractors were given the contract for supply of Security
Guards. This witness has also admitted the suggestions
that from January, 1992 to March, 1992, M/s Chaitainya
Industrial Security Investigation Services, Amravati was
given the contract by the FCI for supply of Security Guards
and according to Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not
prohibit the appointment of contract labour in sweeping,
cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned and
occupied by establishment of FCI and that the workman
and other Security Guards were being deployed to different
depots and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and
lists were being prepared of the Security Guards, who were
being deployed to the depots and other buildings to perform
the security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and indentity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-In charge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed In charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18-05-1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the
workman had completed more than 240 days of work in
each year and before termination of the services of the
workman, neither one month's notice nor one months'
wages in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation
was given to the workman, as required under section 25-F
of the Act and after termination of the services of the
workman, fresh hands were engaged by Party No. 1 to
extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the
provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of
security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination
of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under this direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01-11-1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labour engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15-06-2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employees of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30-05-2008 directed the Party No. 1 to
produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by
the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5675
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr.Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the
Regional Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage
contract labours and infact the so called contractors were
mediators and not contractors and even though there was
legal ban on engagement of contract labourers, the Party
No. 1 engaged the workman and some others as security
guards and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence
on record and the admission of the witness examined on
behalf of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial
engagement the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly
show that the workman was the employee of the Party No.
1 and the Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was
master and servant relationship between the Party No. 1
and the workman and the so called contract given to the
contractor expired on 31-12-1998 and though Party No. 1
unilaterally extended the contract, the contractor did not
accept the same and without any contractor, the workman
contrinued the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and
the Party No. 1 paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to
14.03.1999 to the workman and such facts also prove that
the workman was the employee of Party No. 1 and it was
Party No. 1, who terminated the services of the workman
without compliance of the mandatory provisions of section
25-F of the Act. In support of the submissions, the union
representative placed reliance on the decisions reported in
1994 II CLR- 402 (R.K. Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003
(98) FLR 826 (M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.Vs. State
of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma
Vs. D.F.O. General Forest Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative for
the workman that party No 1 has admitted the claims made
by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim
that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatment in service with
continuity and full backe wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999 , the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition No. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
5676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
(reported in 2001(7) SCC1), the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to the adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food Corporation
of India as a security guard through a contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2(1)(b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2(1)(c) defines
"Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to produce
a given result for the establishment, other than a mere
supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5677
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) I SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
5678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath Vs.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed
out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are intially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do .........".
'The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the context
would indicate that it is used in the sense of a
relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the definition of the terms as contained in the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has been provided whether expressly or
by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5679
of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors.
But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide
no ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not
genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour
will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the services
of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If
the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise
found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration
the age of workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/- 12-
8-1999 (Cal.): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-
9-5-1997 (Cal.): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/-17-4-1998
(Kant.): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/-2-8-2000 (Bom.) and W.P.
No. 2616 of 1999, D/-23-12-1999 (Bom.), 1998 Lab IC 2571
(Cal.), Reserved.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is createrd between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is generic term of which contract labour is a species. It is
true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made thereunder.
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
5680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if , it is
held that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and
others as contract labourers in violation of the provisions
of the Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition)
Act, 1976, then the persons responsible for such violation
are liable for criminal prosecution, but such violation of
the provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.1992, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid this wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the cirucmstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So, the contractor, who had
engaged by workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2096.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 296@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 05-09-2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@239@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2096.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 296/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05.09.2013.
[No. L-22012/239/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/296/2003
Date: 20.03.2013
Party No. 1(a) : The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Ajani,
Nagpur, Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India, Mistry
Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hind Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5681
AWARD
(Dated 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Pramod Bramhaji Mohod, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/239/2003-IR (CM-II) dated
08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Pramod Bramhaji Mohod,
Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and
justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Pramod
Bramhaji Mohod ('the workman' in short), filed the
statement of claim and the management of Food
Corporation of India ("Part No. 1" in short) filed their
written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.10.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as
a Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security Guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but actually,
he was working under the direct control and supervision
of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no role to play in
the same and the work performed by him was being
assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 was
his real employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a camouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
5682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefor, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief
as claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.
1389/99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP
and denied the relief prayed for and therefor, this Tribunal
has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision
of the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they
floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was
awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every
two years was not on papers only and they had no say in
the appointment of security guards by the security
contractor and they had no control over the appointment
and service conditions of the workman, who was an
employee of the security agency and he was never their
employee and the security contractor was the employer of
the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their requirement
and they did not have the power to terminate any employee
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc. to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has
admitted that their initial appointment was through
contractor and they have not filed the appointment order
of the contractor and the contractor appointed them on
01.08.1993 and they have not filed any document showing
that the management had any contract with them, in respect
of the service and they had not applied to the FCI and there
was no advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts. M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his examination
in cheif, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party
No. 1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted
the suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the
FCI had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX
shows that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI
of the Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services
from the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5683
the same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-
XXXI shows that Singh Security Services had requested
for payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within
the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness
has also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992
to March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied by
establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-Incharge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed Incharge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F the Act and after
termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the
workman as contract labour, but the so called contract was
made only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so-called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus and
not genuine and the Central Government by notification
dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of contract
labour and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and therefore, the management
of FCI was bound to abolish the contract labour system
and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the
workman for production of nine documents relating to him,
from which, it could have been held without any doubt
that the workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and
not a contract labour and after hearing the parties, the
Tribunal by order dated 30-05-2008 directed the Party
No. 1 to produce the documents, but inspite of the order
passed by the Tribunal for production of documents, the
Party No. 1 failed to produce the documents and as such,
adverse inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so-called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and in fact the so-called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
5684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submission, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home Guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S Mani), Appeal (Civil) 6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs.
National Union Water front Workers and Others
(reported in 2001 (7) SCCI), the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb their cannot be granted.
**
**
**
* * s
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5685
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter within
a period of one year. The applicants are free to approach
the appropriate authority for redressal of their grivevances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on meritand granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate fo the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the
statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman
that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India
Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a contractor.
In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman
has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was engaged by
the Food Corporation of India through contractor, for a
period of 2 years, but the contract was made on paper."
The case of the workman is that after every two years, the
Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of contractors,
but he was not disturbed from services and he worked
continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and as he
worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service. The workman has also claimed
that as the Central Government issued notification on
01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI and
directed to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and Party No. 1 implemented such
direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from thebenefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-emamination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was directly
engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropose to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-IILLJ-
4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of IndiaVs.
M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and other Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-40-2 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working there in was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrucsting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners including
the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to
regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumistances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relatlion to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of Section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be, a State Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment." sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into consideration is whether the work performed by the
contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
5686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they make
a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to intrduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to all
together, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers Association Vs. Union
of India, 19851 I CLR SC 165=(1985) I SCC 630 it was pointed
out that Parliament has not abolished the contract labour
as such but has provided for its aboilition by the Central
Government in appropriate cases under section 10 of the
Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question and
to decide whether the employment of contract labour in
any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. India Oil Corporation
Ltd. 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath Vs.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed
out that the aforesaid Act have two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5687
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do ................". 'The expression' employed has at
least two known connotations, but as used in the
definition, the context would indicate that it is used
in the sense of a relationship brought about by
express or implied contract of service in which the
employee renders service for which he is engaged
by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in
cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily
prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command
and obedience. The essential condition of a person
being a workman within the terms of the definition is
that he should be employed to do the work in that
industry and that there should be, in other words, an
employment of his by the employer and that there
should be a relationship between the employer and
employee or master and servant unless a person is
thus employed there can be no question of his being
a "workman" within the definition of the terms as
contained in the Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1757 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section (2)
of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant factors.
But, the presence of some or all those factors, provide
no ground for absorption of contract labour on
issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of
contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute
5688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
brought before it by any contract in regard to
conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will
have to consider the question whether the contractor
has been interposed either on the ground of having
undertaken to produce any given result for the
establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract
or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of
various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the
workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is
found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the
so called contract labour will have to be treated as
employees of the principal employer who shall be
directed to regularize the services of the contract
labour in the concerned establishment. If the contract
is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It
otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by
relaxing the condition as to maximum age
appropriately taking into consideration the age of
the workers at the time of their initial employment by
the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical
qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,
D/- 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/- 9-5-1997 (Cal):
W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P.
No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571
(Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made there under."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the Party
No. 1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has been
placed by the union representative, with respect, I am of
the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5689
also found from the materials on record that the
appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply
of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not only
on papers as claimed by the workman. The workman has
failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable
evidence. The engagement of labour contractor by Party
No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade
compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to
deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The
workman has not been able to produce any document to
show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages
as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party
No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman
in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor
did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on
record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour
with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be
held that there was no relationship of master and servant
between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there
was no question of termination of the services by the Party
No. 1 of compliance of the provisions of Sections 25-F or
25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above the applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2097.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,QlhvkbZ
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je
U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 297@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@240@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2097.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 297/
2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Food Corporation of India,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
05/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/240/2003-IR (CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/297/2003
Date: 20.03.2013.
Party No. 1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No. 1(b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha
Road, Churchgatye,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No. 2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena, Hindi Nagar
Ward No. 2, Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M.S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Deelip Trambakrao Jadhav, for adjudication,
as
per
letter
No.
L-22012/240/2003-IR
(CM-II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating the
services of Shri Deelip Trambakrao Jadhav, Security Guard
w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Deelip
Trambakrao Jadhav (''the workman" in short), filed the
5690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
statement of claim and the management of Food Corporation
of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No. 1 from 01.05.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No. 1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties
of Security Guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No. 1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No. 1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No. 1 and he was a regular
employee of Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 was his real
employer and not the contractor as alleged and the
engagement and change of contractors by Party No. 1 from
time to time was sham and only a comouflage to deny his
legitimate claim and the contract between Party No. 1 and
the contractor was bogus and not genuine and therefore,
his oral termination from services was against the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Central
Government decided to abolish the appointment of contract
labour as contemplated under section 10 of the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued
notification on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the
contract labour system in the establishment of the Party
No. 1 and to give employment to contract labours engaged
by the management and therefore, it was the mandatory
duty of the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system
in all places and management of FCI implemented the
notification only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but
at Akola, Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the
contract labour system was continued by the management,
with an intention to deprive him from the benefits under
the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991 to
14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolision) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5691
The further case of party no.1 is that for the relief as
claimed by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded the
contract and the change of contractor in every two years
was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they
were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in
the year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in
the year 1999 and therefore, the security contract given to
the contractor was terminated and hence, the services of
the workman were terminated by the security contractor
and they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was
the contractor, who was paying the same to the workman
and when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the
workman, they paid the amount as per the directions given
by the ALC from time to time and the said amount was
recovered from the contract's bill and they only used to
check the attendance of the security guards to find out as
to whether the contractor had made arrangement of the
requisite number of security guards, as per their
requirement and they did not have the power to terminate
any employee appointed by the contractor and they did
not provide any article, such as torch, lathi, whistle and
uniform etc. to the workman and as such, the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the management
had any contract with them, in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not pled any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each your and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initially appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially he
had appointed by Singh Security Services and contractor
had appointed them have not been made parties in the
proceeding and he has not filed any document to show
that FCI was paying salary to them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.
1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Sucurity Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows
that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI
shows that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of Rs. 54,350/- due to them towares payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority of FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt.
Ltd. was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within
the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given
the contract for supply of security Guards. This witness
has also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992
to March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract
by the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to
Ext. M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the
appointment of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning,
dusting and watching of buildings owned and occupied
by establishment of FCI and that the workman and other
5692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Security Guards were being deployed to different depots
and buildings of FCI to perform guard duties and lists were
being prepared of the Security Guards, who were being
deployed to the depots and other building to perform the
security duties and the authorities of FCI were deciding
the names of the Security Guards to be deployed to different
places for performing security duties and identity cards
were issued to the Security Guards by the FCI, when they
were being sent to the different places for performing
security duties and when a Security Guard was being found
absent from duty, the office of the FCI-cum-In charge or
Security Guard was marking him absent from duty and was
reporting the matter to the Shed in charge for taking
necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman
was engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at
Amravati depot as a security guard and he worked
continuously without any interruption till 14th March, 1999
and his services were terminated orally by the Party No. 1,
without following the due procedure of law and the workman
had completed more than 240 days of work in each year
and before termination of the services of the workman,
neither one month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu
of notice nor retrenchment compensation was given to the
workman, as required under section 25-F of the Act and
after termination of the services of the workman, fresh hands
were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security
guard, in violation of the provision of section 25-H of the
Act and the work of security guard is perennial in nature,
hence the termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman nad the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuine and the Central Government by
notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to
produce the documents, but inspite of the order passed by
the Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1
failed to produce the documents and as such, adverse
inference is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal
Corporation,
Faridabad
and
Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12/1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contractor did not accept the
same and without any contractor, the workman continued
the work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in 1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-829 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union represenrtative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never appointed
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5693
by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the contractor as a
security guard and as such, the concerned contractor is a
necessary party and inspite of raising such objection in
the written statement, the workman did not implead the
contractor as a party and for that the reference is not
maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as res
judicata between the parties and the workman is not entitled
to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
Vs. S. Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajasthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicate, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman along with 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petitio no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
other claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench
is Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted since the petition
involves disputed questions of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
**
**
**
**
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitioners approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principles of res-judicata.
So, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1. as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
5694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on papar." The case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In his evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
sepecific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs. M/s Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and Others).
In the decision reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract Labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any office or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the government
or the local authority, as the case may be, may specify in
this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or occupier of the
factory. In view of section 10, of the appropriate Government
may after consultation with the Central Board or, as the
case may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in the
Official Gazette, employment of contract labour "in any
process, operation or other work in any establishment,"
Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires that before issuing
any such notification, in relation to an establishments, the
appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions
of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in
that establishment and other relevant factors. One of the
relevant factors, which is to be taken into consideration is
whether the work performed by the contract labourers is of
perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins that no contractor to
whom this Act is applicable shall undertake or execute any
work through contract labour except under and in
accordance with a license issued in that behalf by the
licensing authority. The license so issued may contain
conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation of wages
and other essential amenities in respect of contract labour
as the appropriate Government may deem fit to impose in
accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that if any
amenity required to be provided under section 16, section
17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the contract
labour employed in an establishment, is not provided by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefore, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5695
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contract labour employed by the contractor and recover
the amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention
of the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is
apparent that the framers of the Act have allowed and
recognized contract labour and they have never purported
to abolish it in its entirety. The primary object appears to
be that there should not be any exploitation of the contract
labourers by the contractor or the establishment. For
achieving that object, statutory restrictions and
responsibilities have been imposed on the contractor as
well as on the principal employer. Of course if any expenses
are incurred for providing any amenity to the contract
labourers or towards the payment of wages by the principle
employer he is entitled to deduct the same from the bill of
the contractor. The Act also conceives that all appropriate
government may after consultation with the central board
or the state board, as the case may be, prohibit by
notification in official gazette, employment of contract
labour in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of
employment of contract labour in such process, operation
or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be treated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India limited
Vs. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of essential amenities. This is why the Act
provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association V.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to direct the Indian
Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers in its
employment saying that, the contract labourers have not
been found to have direct connection with the refinery. In
other words, there was no relationship of employer and
employee between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the
contract labourers concerned. Again in Dena Nath V.
National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed
out that the aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to
regulate the conditions of service of the worker employed
by the contractor who is engaged by a principal employer
and (ii) to provide for the abolition of contract labour
altogether, in certain notified processes, operation or other
works in any establishment by the appropriate government,
under section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that neither
the Act nor the Rules framed by the central government or
by any appropriate government provide that upon abolition
of contract labour, the labourers would be directly absorbed
by the principal employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. Infact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
5696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation there was no privity of contract
of employer and workmen between the corporation
and the workmen. "Workmen" has been defined
(omitting the words not necessary) in the Industrial
Disputes Act to mean (any person including an
apprentice) employed in any industry to do ...........",
"The expression' employed has at least two known
connotations, but as used in the definition, the
context would indicate that it is used in the sense of
a relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the definition of the term as contained in the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957 - I - LLJ - 477). Now where a
contractor employs a workman to do the work which
he contracted with a third person to accomplish on
the definition as it stands, the workman of the
contractor would not without something more
become the workman of that third person. Therefore,
when the workmen employed by the contractor were
certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no
claim to that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Section 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not
genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour
will have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer who shall be directed to regularize the services
of the contract labour in the concerned establishment. If
the contract is found to be genuine and the principal
employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give
preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise
found suitable, and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition
as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration
the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5697
by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to
academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/-
12.8.1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/-9.5.1997 (Cal):
W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/- 17.4.1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/- 2.8.2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999,
D/- 23.12.1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the terms "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the terms "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made thereunder."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the party
No.1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor any thing has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1, had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labor contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits there under. The workman has not been
able to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to be workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the workman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
5698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
no clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2098.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,Q lh
vkbZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 298@ 2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05&09&2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@241@2003&vkbZvkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2098.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 298/2003 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Food Corporation of India, and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
05-09-2013.
[No. L-22012/241/2003-IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND. PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/298/2003
Date: 20.03.2013.
Party No.1(a)
: The District Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Ajani, Nagpur,
Nagpur-440015.
Party No.1 (b) : The Senior Regional Manager,
Food Corporation of India,
Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha Road,
Churchgate,
Mumbai-400020.
Versus
Party No.2
: The Secretary,
Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,
Hind Nagar Ward No.2,
Near Boudha Vihar,
Post: Wardha, Distt. Wardha (M. S.)
AWARD
(Dated: 20th March, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of Food Corporation of India and their
workman, Shri Anil Rangrao Thakare, for adjudication, as
per letter No.L- 22012/241/2003-IR (CM-II) dated 08.12.2003,
with the following schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management of Food
Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating
the services of Shri Anil Rangrao Thakare, Security
Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not,
to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Anil Rangrao
Thakare ('the workman" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of Food Corporation of India
("Party No.1" in short) filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as presented in the
statement of claim is that he was in the employment of
Party No.1 from 01.10.1993 and he was initially engaged
through a contractor at Amravati Depot of Party No.1, as a
Security Guard and he was in continuous service without
any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services
were terminated orally by Party No.1, without following
the due procedure of law and he had completed more than
240 days of work in each year and the termination of his
services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in
colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party
No.1 and while terminating his services, neither one month's
notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to him as required
under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal
termination, fresh hands from the department of home guard
and police were engaged by Party No.1 to extract the duties
of Security guards, in violation of the provision of section
25-H of the Act and the work which he was performing is
constantly in existence and the same is of a perennial nature
and as his termination is illegal and unlawful, he is entitled
for reinstatement in service with continuity and full back
wages.
The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he
was engaged by the Party No.1 through the contractor for
a period after every two years, the Party No.1 changed the
contractor on papers only and the engagement of the so-
called contractor did not replace the Security Guards and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5699
he was also not disturbed from his services and he was
merely shown to be engaged by the contractors, but
actually, he was working under the direct control and
supervision of the Party No.1 and the contractor had no
role to play in the same and the work performed by him was
being assigned to him by Party No.1 and he was a .regular
employee of Party No.1 and Party No.1 was his real employer
and not the contractor as alleged and the engagement and
change of contractors by Party No.1 from time to time was
sham and only a camouflage to deny his legitimate claim
and the contract between Party No.1 and the contractor
was bogus and not genuine and therefore, his oral
termination from services was against the mandatory
provisions of the Act and the Central Government decided
to abolish the appointment of contract labour as
contemplated under section 10 of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification
on 01.11.1990 with directions to abolish the contract labour
system in the establishment of the Party No.1 and to give
employment to contract labours engaged by the
management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of
the Party No.1 to abolish the contract labour system in all
places and management of FCI implemented the notification
only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security
Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola,
Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour
system was continued by the management, with an intention
to deprive him from the benefits under the labour laws.
It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary
was paid by the Party No.1 and not by the contractor and
his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.
Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No.1 was
supervising his work through their officers and he had no
relation with the so called contractors engaged by the Party
No.1 and Party No.1 also supplied the articles, such as,
torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view of
the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is entitled
to be reinstated in service with continuity and full back
wages.
3. The Party No.1 in their written statement have
pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their
employment and the workman has not impleded the
contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman
was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI
Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in
absence of the contractor the proceeding cannot proceed
and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly
till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the contractor
came to an end, the services of the workman were terminated
by the contractor and the original period of contract given
to the contractor for providing Security services was up to
1998 and the same was extended as per the terms and
conditions till March, 1999 and as the workman was not
employed by them, there was no question of following the
procedure of termination by them and they were not the
employer of the workman and the services of the workman
were never utilized by them as employer from 18.05.1991
to14.03.1999, without any break in service and the workman
did not complete 240 days of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship of master and servant between
them and the workman at any point of time and under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation and
Abolition) Act, they were exempted by the Central
Government, so the allegations made by the workman
against them are not true and there was no question of
violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act and the
work does not constantly exist and the work of providing
security guards was given to other Government Agencies
like Police Personnel and Home guards and therefore, the
workman has no right to claim any relief from them and the
work of security is not perennial in nature and as and when
their go-downs are filled with food grains, then only,
services of the security guards are required and in
pursuance of the notification issued by the Central
Government abolishing contract labour system, they
appointed Home guards and Police personnel as security
guards.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that for the relief as
claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before the
Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No. 1389/
99 and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the said WP and
denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal has
no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision of
the Hon'ble Court operates as res-judicata and they floated
tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was awarded
the contract and the change of contractor in every two
years was not on papers only and they had no say in the
appointment of security guards by the security contractor
and they had no control over the appointment and service
conditions of the workman, who was an employee of the
security agency and he was never their employee and the
security contractor was the employer of the workman.
The further case of Party No. 1 is that the appropriate
government decided to abolish the employment of the
contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the
Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970
and the interpretation of the notification issued on
01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they were
exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the year
1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the year
1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the
contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the
workman were terminated by the security contractor and
they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the
contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and
when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,
they paid the amount as per the directions given by the
ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered
from the contract's bill and they only used to check the
attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether
the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite
number of security guards, as per their requirement and
they did not have the power to terminate any employee
5700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any
article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc to the
workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any
relief.
4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of
their respective claims, besides placing reliance on
documentary evidence.
The workman in support of his claim has examined
himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,
the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the
statement of claim. This witness has also proved some
documents to show that duties were allotted to him and
other Security Guards by Party No. 1 and their attendance
was being taken by Party No. 1.
5. In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted
that their initial appointment was through contractor and
they have not filed the appointment order of the contractor
and the contractor appointed them on 01.08.1993 and they
have not filed any document showing that the management
had any contract with them, in respect of the service and
they had not applied to the FCI and there was no
advertisement for the post. The workman has further
admitted that they have not filed any document showing
that they had worked for 240 days in each year and they
were paid by FCI and what was their salary. The workman
has also admitted that the contractor continued them up to
1999 and he does not know the name of the contractor,
who initally appointed them and the document Ext. M-7
bears his signature and Exts M-7 to M-15 are their
applications and in 1993, they were appointed by the
contractor and the letter, Ext. M-16 bears his signature,
under which they were sent to FCI by Industrial Security
and Fire Services, Mumbai on 13.12.1996 and initially, he
was appointed by Singh Security Services and the
contractors, who appointed them have not been made
parties in the proceeding and he has not filed any document
to show that FCI was paying salary to the them.
6. One Shri Ramdas Shamrao Kale has been examined
as a witness on behalf of the Part No. 1. In his examination
in chief, which is on affidavit, this witness has reiterated
the facts mentioned in the written statement by Party No.
1. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the
suggestions given to him that prior to 15.06.1993, the FCI
had a contract with Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
for supply of Security Personnel and Ext. M-XXIX shows
that there was deduction of provident fund by FCI of the
Security Guards supplied by Singh Security Services from
the bill of the contractor and subsequently release of the
same by FCI to the contractor for deposit and Ext. M-XXXI
shows that Singh Security Services had requested for
payment of Rs. 54,350 due to them towards payment of
wages to Security Guards and Ext. M-XXXVII, the license
issued to Industrial Security and Fire Services, Bombay
was valid up to 18.05.1998 and Ext. M-XXXII shows that
the contract entered with Industrial Security and Fire
Services, Bombay was due to expire during December, 1998.
This witness has further stated that to his knowledge, the
Security and Fire Services, Bombay renewed same to the
authority FCI and Bombay Intelligence Security Pvt. Ltd.
was given the contract in 1991-92 for supply of Security
Guards to FCI and after 1993, Singh Security Services and
thereafter, Industrial Security and Fire Services were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards to FCI and within
the period from 1991 to 1999, three contractors were given
the contract for supply of Security Guards. This witness
has also admitted the suggestions that from January, 1992
to March, 1992, M/s. Chaitainya Industrial Security
Investigation Services, Amravati was given the contract by
the FCI for supply of Security Guards and according to Ext.
M-XXXIX, the Government did not prohibit the appointment
of contract labour in sweeping, cleaning, dustring and
watching of buildings owned and occupied by establishment
of FCI and that the workman and other Security Guards were
being deployed to different depots and buildings of FCI to
perform guard duties and lists were being prepared of the
Security Guards, who were being deployed to the depots
and other building to perform the securit duties and the
authorities of FCI were deciding the names of the Security
Guards to be deployed to different places for performing
security duties and identity cards were issued to the Security
Guards by the FCI, when they were being sent to the different
places for performing security duties and when a Security
Guard was being found absent from duty, the office of the
FCI-cum-In charge or Security Guard was marking him absent
from duty and was reporting the matter to the Shed In-charge
for taking necessary action.
7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the
union representative for the workman that the workman was
engaged by the management of FCI on 18.05.1991 at Amravati
depot as a security guard and he worked continuously
without any interruption till 14th March, 1999 and his services
were terminated orally by the Party No. 1, without following
the due procedure of law and the workman had completed
more than 240 days of work in each year and before
termination of the services of the workman, neither one
month's notice nor one month's wages in lieu of notice nor
retrenchment compensation was given to the workman, as
required under section 25-F of the Act and after termination
of the services of the workman, fresh hands were engaged
by Party No. 1 to extract the duties of security guard, in
violation of the provision of section 25-H of the Act and the
work of security guard is perennial in nature, hence the
termination of the workman is void and illegal.
It was further submitted by the union representative
for the workman that the Party No. 1 had shown the workman
as contract labour, but the so called contract was made
only on papers and the workman was actually working
under the direct control and supervision of the part no. 1
and he was never a contract labour and such action of the
Party No. 1 was sham and only a camouflage to deny the
legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract
between the management and the contractor was bogus
and not genuinue and the Central Government by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5701
notification dated 1.11.1990 abolsihed the employment of
contract labour and directed to give employment to contract
labours engaged by the management and therefore, the
management of FCI was bound to abolish the contract
labour system and to give employment to the workman.
It was further submitted by the union representative
that on 15.06.2007, an application was filed by the workman
for production of nine documents relating to him, from
which, it could have been held without any doubt that the
workman was an employee of the Party No. 1 and not a
contract labour and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal
by order dated 30.05.2008 directed the Party No. 1 to produce
the documents, but inspite of the order passed by the
Tribunal for production of documents, the Party No. 1 failed
to produce the documents and as such, adverse inference
is to be drawn against the Party No. 1.
In support of such contentions, reliance was placed
by the union representative on the decisions reported in
2005 I-CLR-254 (Statesman Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Eight Industrial
Tribunal, West Bengal & ors.) and 2004 (103) FLR-187
(Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and Shri Niwas).
It was also submitted by the union representative
that neither the Party No. 1 nor the so called contractors
engaged by the Party No. 1 were registered with the Regional
Labour Commissioner as per rules to engage contract
labours and infact the so called contractors were mediators
and not contractors and even though there was legal ban
on engagement of contract labourers, the Party No. 1
engaged the workman and some others as security guards
and from the pleadings of the parties, the evidence on
record and the admission of the witness examined on behalf
of the Party No. 1 that from the date of his initial engagement
the workman worked till 14.03.1999 clearly show that the
workman was the employee of the Party No. 1 and the
Party No. 1 is the real employer and there was master and
servant relationship between the Party No. 1 and the
workman and the so called contract given to the contractor
expired on 31.12.1998 and though Party No. 1 unilaterally
extended the contract, the contract did not accept the same
and without any contractor, the workman continued the
work with Party No. 1 till 14.03.1999 and the Party No. 1
paid the wages from 01.01.1999 to 14.03.1999 to the workman
and such facts also prove that the workman was the
employee of Party No. 1 and it was Party No. 1, who
terminated the services of the workman without compliance
of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act. In
support of the submissions, the union representative placed
reliance on the decisions reported in1994 II CLR-402 (R.K.
Panda Vs. Steel Authority), 2003 (98) FLR-826 (M/s. Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of UP) and 2011 (128) FLR-
99 (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. D.F.O., General Forest
Division, Sheopur).
It was also submitted by the union representative
for the workman that Party No. 1 has admitted the claims
made by the workman and has not been able to prove their
claim that the workman was a contract labour, by producing
cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with
continuity and full back wages.
8. Per contrac, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never
appointed by Party No. 1 and he has engaged by the
contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned
contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such
objection in the written statement, the workman did not
implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference
is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was engaged
by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor
came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman
were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was
no question of Party No. 1 complying with the due
procedure of termination and there was no relationship of
master and servant between the Party No. 1 and the workman
and the Party No. 1 was exempted by the Central
Government from the ban imposed for engagement of
contract labourers, so contract was given to the security
contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and
due to the notification of the Government for abolition of
contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel
were appointed as security guards and Party No. 1 has no
control over the workman and the security contractor was
submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards
and the security contractor was paying the wages to the
workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
for the Party No. 1 that the workman and some others had
approached the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference and the
Hon'ble High Court while depositing of the said petition
have held that the termination of the workman by the
contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was legal
and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question again
and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court operates as
res-judicata between the parties and the workman is not
entitled to any relief.
In the alternative, it was submitted by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1 that the Party No. 1 is a "State"
as per the provisions of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and it has a set Rules for appointment of its employees
and it is clear that the workman was never engaged by
Party No. 1 as per the Rules of appointment and no evidence
has been adduced by the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days with Party No. 1 in the preceding 12
calendar months of the date of the alleged termination and
as such, there was no question of compliance of section
25-F or 25-H of the Act and the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
In support of such contentions, the learned
advocates for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Appeal
(Civil) 7038/2002 (M/s. Essen Deinki Vs. Rajiv Kumar),
Appeal (Civil) 6303-6316 of 2003 (Manager, RBI, Bangalore
5702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Vs. S Mani), Appeal (Civil)-6511 of 2005 (Surendranagar
District Panchayat Vs. Dayachai Amar Singh), Appeal (Civil)
3639/2006 (Krishna Bhagaya Jala Nigam Vs. Md. Raffi) and
Appeal (Civil) 2969/2004 (Rajsthan State Gangasagar Mills
Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan).
9. First of all, I will take up the submission made by
the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the present
reference is hit by the principles of res-judicate, due to the
decision of the Hon'ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.
1389/99.
It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78
others through the union, "Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena
Saptahit Jaibhim" had filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before
the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur
Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon'ble
High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the
order passed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in
the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and
others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were
employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the
Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they
have become workmen of Food Corporation of India, since
the work on which they were employed is of perennial
nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the
Hon'ble High Court did not consider the main relief and
passed the following order:
"In view of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench
in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.
National Union water front workers and others
[(reported in 2001) (7) SCCI], the relief sought by the
petitioners cannot be granted sine the petition
involves disputed question of facts as also other
facts which are required to be adjudicated by
appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer
to absorb them cannot be granted.
xx
xx
xx
xx
In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the question
of granting other prayer does not arise. In case, the
petitions approach the appropriate authority, the
appropriate authority shall take decision in the matter
within a period of one year. The applicants are free to
approach the appropriate authority for redressal of
their grievances."
So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon'ble
High Court as mentioned above that the Hon'ble High Court
did not consider the claim made by the workman and others
on merit and granted them the liberty to approach the
appropriate authority for redress. Hence, the reference
cannot be said to be hit by the principle of res-judicate. So,
there is no force in the contention raised by the learned
advocate for the Party No. 1.
10. In this reference, it is never the case of the
workman that he was directly appointed or engaged by the
Party No. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of
the statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the
workman that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation
of India Depot, Gondia as a security guard, through a
contractor. In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the
workman has mentioned that, "In the year 1992, he was
engaged by the Food Corporation of India through
contractor, for a period of 2 years, but the contract was
made on paper." the case of the workman is that after every
two years, the Party No. 1 on papers showed the change of
contractors, but he was not disturbed from services and he
worked continuously without any break till 14.03.1999 and
as he worked as a security guard of perennial nature, he is
entitled for reinstatement in service. The workman has also
claimed that as the Central Government issued notification
on 01.11.1990 to abolish the contract labour system in FCI
and directed to give employment to contract labours
engaged by the management and Party No. 1 implemented
such direction at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave
employment and regularized and absorbed the services of
the Security Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and
did not implement the same at Wardha and other places to
deprive him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.
In this evidence on affidavit also, the workman has
mentioned that he was initially engaged in Food
Corporation of India as a security guard through a
contractor.
From the evidence on record and the own admission
of the workman in the cross-examination including the
specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor
and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed
through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the
workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman
has not produced any evidence to show that he was
directly engaged by the Party No. 1.
11. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention
about the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court
regarding contract labours, in the decision reported in 1994
II CLR-402 (Supra), on which reliance is placed by the union
representative and the two decisions reported in 1985-II
LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation of India
Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India) and 2001 LAB IC 3656
(S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National
Union Water Front Workers and others).
In the decicion reported in 1994-II CLR-402 (Supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
2. With the Industrial growth, the relation between
the employer and the employees also has taken a new turn.
At one time the establishment being the employer all
persons working therein was the employees of such
employer. But slowly the employer including Central and
State Governments started entrusting many of the jobs to
contractors. Contractors in their turn employed a worker,
who has no direct relationship with the establishment in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5703
which they were employed. Many contractors exploited
the labourers engaged by them in various manners
including the payment of low wages. Hence, the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted
to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain
establishment and to provide for its abolitition in certain
circumstances and for matters connected therewith.
3. The "Contract labour" has been defined in Section
2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed as
contract labour in or in connection with the work of an
establishment when he is hired in or in connection with
such work by or through a contractor, with or without the
knowledge of the principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c)
defines "Contractor" to mean a person who undertakes to
produce a given result for the establishment, other than a
mere supply of goods or articles of manufacture to such
establishment, through contract labour or who supplies
contract labour for any work of the establishment and
includes a sub-contractor. "Principal employer" has been
defined to mean (i) in relation to any officer or department
of the Government or a local authority, the head of that
office or department or such other officer as the
government or the local authority, as the case may be, may
specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory, the owner or
occupier of the factory. In view of section 10, of the
appropriate Government may after consultation with the
Central Board or, as the case may be a state Board, prohibit,
by notification in the Official Gazette, employment of
contract labour "in any process, operation or other work in
any establishment," Sub-section (2) of Section 10 requires
that before issuing any such notification, in relation to an
establishments, the appropriate Government shall have
regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for
the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant
factors. One of the relevant factors, which is to be taken
into considerations is whether the work performed by the
contract labourer is of perennial nature. Section 12 enjoins
that no contractor to whom this Act is applicable shall
undertake or execute any work through contract labour
except under and in accordance with a license issued in
that behalf by the licensing authority. The license so issued
may contain conditions in respect of hours of work, fixation
of wages and other essential amenities in respect of contract
labour as the appropriate Government may deem fit to
impose in accordance with rules. Section 20 provides that
if any amenity required to be provided under section 16,
section 17, section 18, or section 19 for the benefit of the
contract labour employed in an establishment, is not
provided by the contractor within the time prescribed by
the contractor within the time prescribed therefor, such
amenity shall be provided by the principal employer within
such time as may be prescribed and all expensed incurred
by the principal employer in providing the amenity may be
recovered by the principal employer from the contractor
"either by deduction from any amount payable to the
contractor under any contract or as a debt payable by the
contractor". Section 21 says that a contractor shall be
responsible for the payment of wages to each worker
employed by him as contract labour but at the same time in
order to protect the interest of such contract labour, it
requires every principal employer to nominate a
representative duly authorized by him to be present at the
time of disbursement of wages by the contractor. It shall be
the duty of the contractor to ensure the disbursement of
wages in the presence of the authorized representative of
the principal employer. Because of sub-section (4) of
section 21, if the contractor fails to make payment of wages
within the prescribed period, then the principal employer
shall be liable to make payment of wages in full to the
contact labour employer by the contractor and recover the
amount so paid from the contractor. Any contravention of
the provisions aforesaid has been made penal for which
punishment can be imposed.
4. From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent
that the framers of the Act have allowed and recognized
contract labour and they have never purported to abolish
it in its entirety. The primary object appears to be that there
should not be any exploitation of the contract labourers by
the contractor or the establishment. For achieving that
object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities have been
imposed on the contractor as well as on the principal
employer. Of course if any expenses are incurred for
providing any amenity to the contract labourers or towards
the payment of wages by the principle employer he is
entitled to deduct the same from the bill of the contractor.
The Act also conceives that all appropriate government
may after consultation with the central board or the state
board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification in official
gazette, employment of contract labour in any process,
operation or other work in any establishment, taking all
facts and circumstances of employment of contract labour
in such process, operation or the work into consideration.
5. Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is
discernible that after having work for some years, they
make a claim that they should be absorbed by the principal
employer and be trated as employees of the principal
employer especially when the principal employer is the
central government or the state government or an authority
which can be held to be state within the meaning of Article
12 of the constitution, although no right flows from the
provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be
absorbed or to become the employees of the principal
employer. This court in the case of Gammon India Limited
V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed out the object
and scope of the act as follows:—
"The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation of
contract labour and also to introduce better condition
of work. The Act provides for regulation and abolition
of contract labour. The underline policy of the Act is
to abolish contract labour, wherever possible and
practicable and where it cannot be abolished to
altogether, the policy of the Act is that the working
5704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conditions of the contract labour should be so
regulated as to ensure payment of wages and
provisions of eseential amenities. This is why the
Act provides for regulated conditions of work and
contemplates progressive abolition to the extent
contemplated by Section 10 of the Act."
In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers' Association Vs.
Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165=(1985) 1 SCC 630 it was
pointed out that Parliament has not abolished the contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the
Central Government in appropriate cases under section 10
of the Act. It is not for the court to enquire into the question
and to decide whether the employment of contract labour
in any process, operation or other work in any establishment
should be abolished or not. That has to be decided by the
government after considering the relevant aspects as
required by Section 10 of the Act. Again in the case of
Mathura Refinery Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR 684, this court refused to
direct the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract
labourers in its employment saying that, the contract
labourers have not been found to have direct connection
with the refinery. In other words, there was no relationship
of employer and employee between the Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers concerned.
Again in Dena Nath Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., 1992 I
CLR 1, this court pointed out that the aforesaid Act has
two purposes to serve (i) to regulate the conditions of
service of the worker employed by the contractor who is
engaged by a principal employer and (ii) to provide for the
abolition of contract labour altogether, in certain notified
processes, operation or other works in any establishment
by the appropriate government, under section 10 of the
Act. It was further stated that neither the Act nor the Rules
framed by the Central government or by any appropriate
government provide that upon abolition of contract labour,
the labourers would be directly absorbed by the principal
employer.
6. It is true that with passage of time and purely with
a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. In fact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which
is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the
continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract
labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularization
in the employment of the principal employer. Whether the
contract labourers have become the employees of the
principal employer in course of time and on whether the
engagement and employment of labourers through a
contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as
has been urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the
requisite material. It is not possible for High Court or this
court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions only on the basis of
the affidavits. It need not to be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by
the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link
is established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court and
the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act
are the Competent Fora to adjudicate such disputes on the
basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them."
12. In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)
the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a
contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,
the corporation had nothing to do with the manner
of handling work done by the contractor, the labour
force employed by him, payments made by him etc.
In such a fact situation, there was no privity of
contract of employer and workmen between the
corporation and the workmen. "Workmen" has been
defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the
Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person
including an apprentice) employed in any industry
to do....". 'The expression' employed has at least two
known connotations, but as used in the definition,
the context would indicate that it is used in the sense
of a relationship brought about by express or implied
contract of service in which the employee renders
service for which he is engaged by the employer and
the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind as agreed
between them or statutorily prescribed. It discloses
a relationship of command and obedience. The
essential condition of a person being a workman
within the terms of the definition is that he should be
employed to do the work in that industry and that
there should be, in other words, an employment of
his by the employer and that there should be a
relationship between the employer and employee or
master and servant unless a person is thus employed
there can be no question of his being a "workman"
within the definition of the term as contained in the
Act.
Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of
Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor
employs a workman to do the work which he
contracted with a third person to accomplish on the
definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor
would not without something more become the
workman of that third person. Therefore, when the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5705
workmen employed by the contractor were certainly
not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to
that effect has been made by the union."
13. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-3656
(supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—
"The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to
be constructed liberally in favour of the class for
whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to
reading in the provisions of the Act what the
legislature has not provided whether expressly or by
necessary implication, or substituting remedy or
benefits for that provided by the legislature. The
intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the
conditions of service of the contract labour and to
authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract
labour system by the appropriate Government on
consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section
(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant
factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,
provide no ground for absorption of contract labour
on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the
appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in
Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the
consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the
CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23 and
25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts or
the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified
remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal
consequences specified in Section 23 and 25 a
different sequel be it absorption of contract labour
in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser
or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of
the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the
principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of
interpretative legislation and as such clearly
impermissible.
Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under
S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract
labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before
it by any contract in regard to conditions of service, the
industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question
whether the contractor has been interposed either on the
ground of having undertaken to produce any given result
for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for
work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a
mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various
beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the
benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine
but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will
have to be treated as employees of the principal employer
who shall be directed to regularize the services of the
contract labour in the concerned establishment. If the
contract is found to be genuine and the principal employer
intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference
to the erstwhile contract labour. It otherwise found suitable,
and if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum
age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the
workers at the time of their initial employment by the
contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic
qualifications other than technical qualifications.
Air India's case 1977 AIR SCW 430 Overruled
prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999, D/ - 12-
8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/- 9-5-1997(Cal):
W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ - 17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No.
4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000 (Bom) and W. P. No. 2616 of
1999, D/ - 23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal),
Reversed.
It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of
contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in
connection with the work of an establishment, the
relationship of master and servant is created between the
principal employer and the contract labour. Even a
combined reading of the definition of the term "Contract
labour", "Establishment" and "Workman" does not show
that the legal relationship between the person employed in
any industry and the owner of the industry is created
irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about such
relationship. The word "Workman" is defined in wide terms.
It is a generic term of which contract labour is a species. It
is true that combined reading of the term "Establishment"
and "Workman" shows that a workman engaged in any
establishment would have direct relationship with the
principal employer as a servant of master. But what is true
of a workman could not be correct of contract labour. When
the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation of
direct relationship of master and servant between the
principal employer and the contract labour nor can such
relationship be implied from the provisions of the action
issuing notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
A fortiori much less can such a relationship be found to
exist from the rules and the forms made thereunder."
So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, the
present case in hand is to be considered.
14. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding drawing of adverse inference
against the Party No. 1 for non-production of documents
as ordered by the Tribunal on the application of the
workman is concerned, it is to be mentioned that it is
admitted by the workman that he was engaged through the
contractor in F.C.I. and due his such engagement, it was
quite natural for the Party No. 1 to direct him to perform
different duties as a security guard and to see that duties
entrusted to him were done properly. Moreover, the party
no.1 has produced number of documents to show that the
workman was a contract labour and payment of wages to
him was made by the contractors. Hence, for non-
production of the documents by Party No. 1, there is no
5706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
need to draw any adverse inference. As the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are quite different from
the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in the
decisions by the Hon'ble Courts, on which reliance has
been placed by the union representative, with respect, I am
of the view that the said decisions have no clear application
of this case.
15. So far the contention raised by the union
representative regarding the non-registration of the Party
No. 1 or the contractors with the Regional Labour
Commissioner as per Rules is concerned, it is to be
mentioned that such a plea has neither been taken in the
statement of claim nor anything has been stated in that
regard in the evidence of the workman. In absence of such
pleading, the contention cannot be entertained. Moreover,
it is clear from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence
on record and the specific suggestions given to the witness
examined on behalf of the Party No. 1 in his cross-
examination that contract for supply of security guards
was given by Party No. 1 to different contractors, the
workman was a contract labourer and he was engaged by
the contractors with Party No. 1.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, even if, it is held
that the Party No. 1 had engaged the workman and others
as contract labourers in violation of the provisions of the
Contract Labour (Regulations and Abolition) Act, 1976,
then the persons responsible for such violation are liable
for criminal prosecution, but such violation of the
provisions of the above said Act, does not confer any
right on the workman to claim regularisation in service.
16. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW
dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows
that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in
sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings
owned or occupied by the establishments of Food
Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted
by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract
labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is
also found from the materials on record that the appointment
of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply of Security
Guards was genuine and the same was not only on papers
as claimed by the workman. The workman has failed to
prove such claim by adducing cogent or reliable evidence.
The engagement of labour contractor by Party No. 1 was
not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance of the
various beneficial legislations, so as to deprive the workman
of the benefits thereunder. The workman has not been able
to produce any document to show that at any point of
time, Party No. 1 paid his wages as their employee. It is
clear from the evidence that Party No. 1 paid wages of the
last three months to the workman in presence of the Labour
Commissioner, as the contractor did not pay the same. As
it is clear from the evidence on record that the workman
was engaged as a contract labour with Party No. 1, by the
contractor and as such, it can be held that there was no
relationship of master and servant between the Party No. 1
and the wokman. Hence, there was no question of
termination of the services by the Party No. 1 or compliance
of the provisions of Sections 25-F or 25-H of the Act.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as
mentioned above, which are quite different from the facts
and the circumstances of the cases referred in the decisions,
on which reliance is placed by the union representative,
with respect, I am of the view that the said decisions have
not clear application to the present case in hand.
17. It is the own case of the workman that he was
engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had
engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.
The said contractor has not been added as a party in this
reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the
reference is bad in law.
In view of the materials on record and the discussions
made above and applying the principles enunciated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the three decisions mentioned above,
the reference cannot be answered in favour of the workman.
Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The reference is answered in the negative. The
workman is not entitled to any relief.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 4 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2099.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ MCY;w lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2009½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 04@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@15@2009&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e-II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 4th September, 2013
S.O. 2099.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Indistrial dispute
between the management of Ghugus Sub Area of Western
Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the
Central Government on 04/09/2013.
[No. L-22012/15/2009-IR (CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5707
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR
Case No. CGIT/NGP/26/2009
Date: 18.06.2013
Party No.1
: The Sub Area Manager,
Ghugus Sub Area of WCL,
Post Ghugus Colliery,
Chandrapur (M.S.)-442505.
Party No. 2
: The President,
Sanyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh,
(AITUC), Ghugus Br. Qtr. No. 223,
WCL Colony, Ram Nagar,
PO: Ghugus, Chandrapur (MS).
AWARD
(Dated: 18th June, 2013)
In exercise of the 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) ("the Act" in
short), the Central Government has referred the industrial
dispute between the employers, in relation to the
management of WCL and their workman, Shri Surajpal
Jagmohan, for adjudication, as per letter No. L No.L-22012/
15/2009-IR (CM-II) dated 28.7.2009, with the following
schedule:—
"Whether the action of the management in respect
of their Ghugus O/C Mines of Wani Area in
converting Shri Surajpal Jagmohan from higher to
lower category and subsequently recovering his
already paid dues from his salary is legal and justified?
To what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"
2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed
to file their respective statement of claim and written
statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Surajpal
Jagmohan, ("the workman" in short), filed the statement of
claim and the management of WCL, ("Party No.1" in short)
filed their written statement.
The case of the workman as projected in the
statement of claim is that he was appointed as a Tub loader
w.e.f. 11.11.1974 and worked in the underground as a loader
in Nakoda Incline of Ghugus colliery and during the
periodical Medical examination as required under the Mines
Act and Rules made thereunder, he was directed to appear
before the Medical Board on 17.06.1996 for his medical
examination and after his medical examination, the Medical
Board recommended his name for alternate light work on
surface, finding him unfit to do his original work of Tub
loader in the underground and though he was entitled for
protection of his wages, the party no.1 after deputing him
for light work, reduced his basic wages in violation of the
provisions of law and placed him in the lowest time rated
category of NCWA. It is further pleaded by the workman
that at the initial stage of his performing light job, he was
paid the basic wages of his original job, so he was confident
that his wages would be protected, but at the time of
implementation of NCWA-VII in the year 2006, the party
no.1 deducted a sum of Rs. 1,77,280/- from the arrears of
pay, on the ground of payment of excess basic pay,
consequent upon his conversion from piece-rated to time
rated and due to non-protection of his basic wages, he
sustained recurring loss of Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per
month and his conversion from piece-rated to time-rated
was as per administrative order issued by party no.1 and
he had never opted for his conversion from piece-rated to
time rated worker and due to administrative exigencies as
mentioned above, he was transferred by party no. l from
Nakoda incline to Ghugus OC Mine as per office order
dated 27.08.1998 and there was a bipartite settlement
between the party no.1 and the recognized union before
the Regional Labour Commissioner, Nagpur on 02.11.1992
for protection of the basic wages of loaders, on their
conversion from piece-rated to time-rated and inspite of
such settlement, the party no.1 did not protect his basic
wages and though such pay protection was given to
number of loaders on their conversion from piece-rated to
time- rated, he was given discriminating treatment by party
no.1 and deduction of his wages is illegal and arbitrary and
he is entitled for protection of his wages, consequent upon
his conversion from piece-rated to time-rated and to get
refund of the amount of Rs. 1,77,280, which was illegally
deducted from his arrears with interest there on.
3. The party no.1 in the written statement has pleaded
inter-alia that the case filed by the workman is false,
fabricated, frivolous and not maintainable in the eye of law
and the workman has suppressed the material facts and
has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and as
such, the reference is liable to be rejected. It is further
pleaded by the party no.1 that the workman was working
as a piece-rated worker in Nakoda incline and on the written
request of the workman and in the year 1996, light job was
given to him for 15 days on humanitarian ground and
therefore, his wage was not reduced for the said period
and Nakoda Mine was due to close in the year 1998, so the
workman was transferred to Ghugus Open Cast Mine with
his voluntary consent and wage was fixed on midpoint
basis, as per the guide line provided in the settlement dated
31.10.1995, between the recognized union and the party
no.1 and the designation and wages are different in
underground mine and open cast mine and party no.1 had
properly followed the Rules and Law of equal pay for equal
work and had paid the workman his legitimate wages for
the work done in time-rated and piece-rated category
respectively and the workman retired from services on
5708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
30.06.2008 and providing of alternate job to him in Ghugus
open cast mine was not on the recommendation of Medical
Board, but his transfer from Nakoda incline to Ghugus open
cast mine and conversion was due to closure of Nakoda
mine in the year 1998 and the workman gave his consent
voluntarily to work as General Mazdoor category-I in
Ghugus open cast mine and accordingly, the workman
alongwith 230 other time rated workmen was re-designated/
converted as General Mazdoor cat.1 vide office order dated
02.07.1999 and his wage was not protected as he was not
entitled for the same, as per the settlement dated 03.10.1995
and his wage was re-fixed on the midpoint basis as per the
said term of settlement and the sum of Rs. 1,77,280 was
deducted from his arrears of pay revision, as excess amount
was paid to him and the settlement dated 02.11.1992 is not
applicable in the present case, as the workman was
converted to time rated category in the year 1998 and by
that time, the bipartite settlement dated 31.10.1995 was
already in force and there was no discriminating treatment
to the workman and the workman is not entitled for any
relief.
4. In support of his claim, the workman has examined
himself as a witness. It is to be mentioned here that except
examining himself the workman has not produced any other
evidence. On the other hand, the party no.1 has relied on
the documents filed by it and has not adduced any oral
evidence. It is also necessary to mention that the case was
fixed to 07.05.2013 for argument, but none appeared on
behalf of the management, so argument was heard from the
side of the workman and the case was posted for award.
5. At the time of argument, the learned advocate for
the workman reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement
of claim and submitted that the workman is entitled for the
reliefs as claimed.
6. Perused the record including the pleadings of the
parties, the oral evidence of the workman and the
documents produced by the management. As the workman
has not produced any document in support of his claim
that he was examined by the medical Board of party no.1
on 17.06.1996 and the Medical Board found him unfit to
work in the underground and therefore, recommended to
give him alternate light job on surface, his oral evidence in
that respect cannot be held to be sufficient to come to the
conclusion that on medical ground, the workman was given
alternate job on surface. Moreover, the workman in his
cross-examination has categorically admitted that he was
transferred to Ghugus Open Cast Colliery, as Nakoda
colliery was closed.
7. On perusal of the documents produced by the
party no.1 and the other materials on record, it is found
that the workman was transferred to Ghugus Open Cast
Colliery from Nakoda Incline due to closure of Nakoda
Incline and he was converted to daily rated workman from
piece rated workman alongwith 229 other workmen, as per
order dated 02.07.1999. It is also found that the workman
submitted a joining letter on 10.09.1998 at Ghugus open
cast colliery and he also signed a consent letter to work
voluntarily as a general mazdoor category-I at Ghugus open
cast colliery.
8. The party no.1 has claimed that in view of the
settlement between it and the recognized union dated
31.10.1995, the workman was not entitled for protection of
his wages and according to the provisions of the said
settlement, his wages was re-fixed on the midpoint of the
commensurate category.
9. In view of the admitted facts as already mentioned
above, now, it is only to be considered as to whether the
workman was not entitled for protection of his basic pay of
piece rated loader in view of the settlement dated 31.10.1995.
On perusal of the so-called settlement dated
31.10.1995, it is found that the same is not a settlement at
all, but the same is the record note of discussion held
between the management of WCL and RKKMS union on
31.10.1995 at Nagpur. Moreover, judicial notice is necessary
to be taken that there are five major unions including
RKKMS in the coal industry including WCL, with whom,
negotiations and settlements are being made by the coal
industry. So, any settlement arrived at by the management
of WCL with only the RKKMS union cannot bind all the
employees of WCL. There is no evidence on record to
show that the workman is a member of RKKMS union.
There is also no pleading on behalf of the party no.1 that
the workman is a member of RKKMS union and he is bound
by the so called settlement dated 31.10.1995 or that though
the said settlement was with RKKMS union, the same was
applicable to all the employees of WCL. As the so-called
settlement dated 31.10.1995 in fact is not a settlement in the
true sense, it is held that the same is not binding on the
workmen.
Moreover, there is also provision in clause 5 of the
said settlement about protection of pay of piece rated
workers. Clause 5 of the said settlement reads as follows:—
"Such piece-rated workmen who may be put in time-
rated/monthly rated in future by managerial decisions
i.e. without, seeking option for time-rated/monthly-
rated or without going through the selection process
against internal notification for time-rated/monthly-
rated, will continue to get protection of piece-rated
wages. Such piece rated workmen who come to TR
as per option given by them will not get this benefit."
On examination of the case of the workmen with the
provisions of the aforesaid clause 5, it is found that the
transfer and conversion of the workman as time-rated
workman from piece-rated worker was due to closure of
Nakoda Incline. The consent letter taken from the workman
to work as General Mazdoor category-I was taken after
such conversion. Hence, the putting of the workman in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5709
time rated is held to be by way of managerial decision.
Therefore, the workman is entitled for protection of his
basic pay of piece-rated loader. As it is held that the
workman is entitled for protection of his wages, the recovery
of Rs. 1,77,280 from his arrears of pay revision is not legal
and the action of Party No. 1 in that respect cannot be
sustained. Hence, it is ordered:—
ORDER
The action of the management in relation to their
Ghugus open cast mines in recovering the sum of
Rs. 1,77,280 from the arrears of pay of the workman, Shri
Surajpal Jagmohan is illegal and unjustified. The workman is
entitled for protection of his wages of piece rated worker
from the date of his conversion to time rated worker till the
date of his retirement and all consequential benefits. The
workman is also entitled for refund of Rs. 1,77,280. The Party
No. 1 is directed to comply with the directions within 30
days of the notification in the official gazette.
J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2100.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dk /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa uh;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
[v/;k;&4¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¼/kkjk&76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds
mica/k jktLFkku jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
Øe
fooj.k
rglhy dk
ftyk
lañ
uke
1-
ftyk fpÙkkSM+x<+ rglhy fpÙkkSM+x<+ ds fuEukafdr jktLo
fpÙkkSM+x<+
fpÙkkSM+x<+
xzke ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=%—
¼1½ ckefu;k ¼2½ ek;jk ¼3½ fxyw.M ¼4½ ?kVh;koyh ¼5½ lseyh;k ¼6½ lkok dh <k.kh
¼7½ u;k [ksjk ¼8½ uhe dk vejkuk ¼9½ jsy dk vejkuk ¼10½ vejiqjk
¼11½ foyk;rh [ksM+k ¼12½ pkSFk iqjk ¼13½ fcyksM+k ¼14½ iaprksyh ¼15½ lkejh
¼16½ 'kHHkqiqjk ¼17½ vjuh;kiaFk ¼18½ tkyeiqjk ¼19½ vksjM+h ¼20½ vksNM+h
¼21½ ds'kjiqjk ¼22½ esM+h dk vejkuk ¼23½ lkok ¼24½ tkQj[ksjk ¼25½ HkkfV;ksa dk [ksM+k
¼26½ Qyklh;k ¼27½ ikVuh;k ¼28½ eh.kks dk dUFkkjh;k ¼29½ cus"Vh ¼30½ fcyksnk
¼31½ phdlh 32½ ¼cM+ dk vejkuk ¼33½ lhanoMh ¼34½ ekrkth dk vksjM+h
¼35½ [kksj 36½ :xukFkiqjk 37½ jkek [ksM+k
2-
ftyk fpÙkkSM+x<+ rglhy fuEckgsM+k ds fuEukafdr jktLo
fuEckgsM+k
fpÙkkSM+x<+
xzke ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=%—
¼1½ jkeiqjk ¼2½ nyexjh ¼3½ ik;jh ¼4½ ekaxjksy ¼5½ Hkkoyh;k ¼6½ jkoyh;k
¼7½ lar[kM+k ¼8½ lkaM ¼9½ VkbZ ¼10½ VkbZ dk [ksjk ¼11½ lhxMh;k ¼12½ Qkpj lksaydh
¼13½ lWjFky ¼14½ Å[kfu;k ¼15½ Qkpjvghjku ¼16½ cksjk[ksM+h ¼17½ lkaxfj;k
¼18½ ihj[ksM+k ¼19½ lhrkjketh dk [ksM+k ¼20½ HkV~VdksVM+h ¼21½ dUFkkjh;k
3-
ftyk fpÙkkSM+x<+ rglhy Hknslj ds fuEukafdr jktLo
Hknslj
fpÙkkSM+x<+
xzke ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=%—
1½ dUukSt
[lañ ,l&38013@56@2013&,l ,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2100.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Rajasthan namely:—
5710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Sl.
Particular
Tehsil
District
No.
1.
The Following Revenue Villages falling within
Chittorgarh
Chittorgarh
the limit of Chittorgarh Tehsil, Distt-Chittorgarh
(1) Bamniya (2) Mayra (3) Giloond (4) Gatawayali (5) Semaliya (6) Sawa ki Dhani
(7) Naya Khera (8) Neem ka Amarana (9) Rail ka Amarana
(10) Amarpura (11) Bilayati Khera (12) Chauthpura (13) Bilora (14) Panchtoli
(15) Samari (16) Shambhupura (17) Araniyapanth (18) Jalampura (19) Oradi
(20) Ochadi (21) Kesarpura (22) Medi ka Amarana (23) Sawa (24) Jhapar Khera
(25) Bhatiyo ka Khera (26) Phalisiya (27) Pataniya (28) Meeno ka Kanthariya
(29) Banasti (30) Biloda (31) Chikasi (32) Bar ka Amarana
(33) Sindwadi (34) Mataji ki Odi (35) Khor (36) Rugnathpura (37) Rama Khera
2.
The Following Revenue Villages falling within
Nimbahera
Chittorgarh
the limit of Nimbahera Tehsil, Distt-Chittorgarh
(1) Rampura (2) Dalmagri (3) Payari (4) Mangrol (5) Bhawalia (6) Rawalia
(7) Satkhanda (8) Sand (9) Tai (10) Tai ka Khera (11) Sigdiya (12) Phachar
Solanki (13) Sarthal (14) Ukhaniya (15) Fachar Ahiran (16) Borakhedi
(17) Sangriya (18) Peerkheda (19) Sitaramji ka Kheda (20) Bhattkotdi
(21) Kanthariya
3.
The Following Revenue Villages falling within
Bhadeshar
Chittorgarh
the limit of Bhadeshar Tehsil, Distt-Chittorgarh
(1) Kannoj
[No. S-38013/56/2013-SS-I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2101.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds
mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao
dksMSDdkuy]
fnaMqDdy ftyk esa dksMSDdkuy rkyqd ds lhek
dksMSDdkuy rkyqd] esa 'kkfey gksus okys
fnaMqDdy ftyk
1- dksMSDdkuy uxj ikfydk
rFkk jktLo xkao
2- foyiVV~h
3- iwyÙkwj
4- eUuo.kwj
5- dwDdy
6- iwEckjS
7- osYydfo
8- vMqDde
9- iu~uSdkaMq
[lañ ,l&38013@57@2013&,l ,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2101.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages of
Kodaikanal,
1.
Kodaikanal Municipal Limit
Kodaikanal Taluk
2.
Vilpatti
Dindigul District
3.
Poolathur
4.
Mannavanur
5.
Kookal
6
Poomparai
7.
Vellagavi
8.
Adukkam
9.
Pannaikadu
[No. S-38013/57/2013-SS-I]
GEORGE KUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5711
ubZ fnYyh 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2102.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds
mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
jktxhj
Øe
¼ekStk dk uke½ jktLo xzke
Fkkuk la[;k
ftyk
lañ
dk uke
1-
iFkjkSjk
480
ukyank
2-
eatSBk
418
ukyank
3-
pUnkSjk
417
ukyank
4-
dgVk
419
ukyank
5-
olq,e
477
ukyank
6-
cMgjh
481
ukyank
7-
uksUgh
478
ukyank
8-
ukgqc
476
ukyank
9-
lhek
469
ukyank
10-
csyksok
470
ukyank
11-
gluiqj
473
ukyank
12-
>kyj
471
ukyank
13-
pdjlwy
479
ukyank
14-
egknsoiqj
483
ukyank
15-
cjukSlk
492
ukyank
16-
xksoMhgk
499
ukyank
17-
ekSykukMhg
494
ukyank
18-
fe;kWfoxgk
495
ukyank
19-
cgsMk
412
ukyank
20-
rsrfj;k
411
ukyank
21-
cukSyh
493
ukyank
22-
HkwbZ
407
ukyank
23-
feYdh
416
ukyank
24-
[ksjklyk:
415
ukyank
25-
pdHkwbZ
414
ukyank
26-
xksjkSj
502
ukyank
27-
dVkjh
501
ukyank
28-
[kSjkpeu
496
ukyank
29-
tekyiqj [kj
498
ukyank
30-
djheiqj
497
ukyank
31-
jVuk
503
ukyank
32-
Nfcykiqj
505
ukyank
33-
v.Mol
506
ukyank
34-
yksnhiqj
507
ukyank
35-
nksxh
504
ukyank
36-
dryiqjk
508
ukyank
37-
ekyhlk<+
509
ukyank
38-
fiy[kh
484
ukyank
39-
usdiqj
486
ukyank
40-
<sjk
489
ukyank
41-
egqvYyk
487
ukyank
42-
uhek
488
ukyank
43-
es;kj
491
ukyank
44-
c<+kSuk
500
ukyank
45-
esjk
491
ukyank
46-
nfj;kiqj
474
ukyank
47-
ygqvkj
461
ukyank
48-
fojpSr
462
ukyank
49-
jktxhj
485
ukyank
50-
iafMriqj
475
ukyank
51-
jlyiqj
460
ukyank
52-
lkSjbZ
472
ukyank
53-
efVgkuh
482
ukyank
[lañ ,l&38013@58@2013&,l ,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
Øe
¼ekStk dk uke½ jktLo xzke
Fkkuk la[;k
ftyk
lañ
dk uke
5712
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2102.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter V (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter
V andVI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Bihar namely:—
RAJGIR
Sl.
Name of the Revenue
Revenue
District
Village
P.S. No.
1.
Pathroura
480
Nalanda
2.
Manjaitha
418
Nalanda
3.
Chandoura
417
Nalanda
4.
Katha
419
Nalanda
5.
Vasuam
477
Nalanda
6.
Barhari
481
Nalanda
7.
Nonhi
478
Nalanda
8.
Nahub
476
Nalanda
9.
Seema
469
Nalanda
10.
Belova
470
Nalanda
11.
Hasanpur
473
Nalanda
12.
Jhalar
471
Nalanda
13.
Chakarsool
479
Nalanda
14.
Mahadeopur
483
Nalanda
15.
Barnousa
492
Nalanda
16.
Govdeeha
499
Nalanda
17.
Moulanadeeh
494
Nalanda
18.
Miyavigaha
495
Nalanda
19.
Bahera
412
Nalanda
20.
Tetariya
411
Nalanda
21.
Banouli
493
Nalanda
22.
Bhooi
407
Nalanda
23.
Milki
416
Nalanda
24.
Kherasalaru
415
Nalanda
25.
Chakbhooi
414
Nalanda
26.
Gorour
502
Nalanda
27.
Katari
501
Nalanda
28.
Khairachaman
496
Nalanda
29.
Jamalpur Khar
498
Nalanda
30.
Karimpur
497
Nalanda
31.
Ratna
503
Nalanda
32.
Chhabilapur
505
Nalanda
33.
Andavas
506
Nalanda
34.
Lodipur
507
Nalanda
35.
Dogi
504
Nalanda
36.
Katalpura
508
Nalanda
37.
Malisardh
509
Nalanda
38.
Pilkhee
484
Nalanda
39.
Nekpur
486
Nalanda
40.
Dhera
489
Nalanda
41.
Mahualla
487
Nalanda
42.
Neema
488
Nalanda
43.
Meyar
491
Nalanda
44.
Bedhouna
500
Nalanda
45.
Mora
491
Nalanda
46.
Dariyapur
474
Nalanda
47.
Lahuar
461
Nalanda
48.
Virchait
462
Nalanda
49.
Rajgir
485
Nalanda
50.
Panditpur
475
Nalanda
51.
Rasalpur
460
Nalanda
52.
Sourai
472
Nalanda
53.
Matihani
482
Nalanda
[No. S-38013/58/2013-SS-I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2103.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78]
79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds
mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo
xkao
oykikMh] o dfjiV~Vh
10- fpUukxkSaMkiqje
oykikMh rkyqd
11- dfjiV~Vh
lsye ftyk
12- esV~VqiV~Vh
13- ls"k.kpkoMh
14- d:ekiqje
15- eqreiV~Vh
Sl.
Name of the Revenue
Revenue
District
Village
P.S. No.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % flrEcj 28] 2013@vkf'ou 6] 1935
5713
16- feUukeiYyh
17- oykikMh
18- is:eikyk;e
19- v;ks/;kiV~Vue
20- lsUjk;eiky;e
[la- ,l&38013@59@2013&,l ,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013
S.O. 2103.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Tamil-Nadu namely:—
Centre
Area Comprising the Revenue
Villages
Vazhapadi & Karipatti
1.
Chinnagoundapuram
in Vazhapadi Taluk
2.
Karipatti
Salem District
3.
Mettupatti
4.
Seshanchavadi
5.
Karumapuram
6.
Muthampatti
7.
Minnampalli
8.
Vazhapadi
9.
Perumapalayam
10.
Ayothiapattanam
11.
Senrayampalayam
[No. S-38013/59/2013-SS-I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2104.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj] 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k
dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—
Øñ lañ jktLo xzke dk uke
gkscyh
rkyqd
ftyk
1-
dsaiuk;du gYyh
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
2-
cUusj/kV~Vk foyst
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
3-
tUxw ikY;k
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
4-
gqfyaexyk
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
5-
dksIik foyst
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
6-
pwM+lUnzk
ltkZiwjk
vkusdy
cSaxywj
7-
ldyiwjk
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
8-
gqYy gYyh
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
9-
eqÙkkuYywj
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
10-
gsUuxjk
thxuh
vkusdy
cSaxywj
[la- ,l&38013@60@2013&,l ,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013
S.O. 2104.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013 as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Karnataka namely:—
Sl. Name of the Rev.
Hobli
Taluk
District
No. Village or Municipal
Limits
1.
Kempanayakanahalli
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
2.
Banneragatta Village
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
3.
Jangu Palya
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
4.
Hulimangala
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
5.
Koppa Villege
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
6.
Choodasandra
Sarjapura
Annekal
Bangalore
7.
Sakalpura
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
8.
Hullahalli
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
9.
Muthanallur
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
10. Hennagara
Jigani
Annekal
Bangalore
[No. S-38013/60/2013-SS-I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
dsUnz
{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo
xkao
5714
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 28, 2013/ASVINA 6, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2105.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948
¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi /kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk
iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 vDrwcj 2013 dks ml
rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds
v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½
v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79
vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Rr dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k vkU/
kz izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Rr gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—
^^vka/kz izns'k jkT; ds uyxks.Mk ftys ds oseqyifYy e.My esa
lsV~Vhikyse ds jktLo xkaoA**
[lañ ,l&38013@61@2013&,l,l&I]
tktZdqVh Vhñ ,yñ] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 17th September, 2013
S.O. 2105.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State
Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government
hereby appoints the 1st October, 2013, as the date on which
the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45
which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-
V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections
77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into
force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following
areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:—
"The Revenue village of Settipalem of Vemulapally
Mandal in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh."
[No. S-38013/61/2013-SS-I]
GEORGEKUTTY T. L., Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2106.—Hkkjrh; jsy vf/kfu;e] 1989 ¼1989 dk
24½ dh /kkjk 136 ds varxZr jsyos deZpkjh ¼dk;Z ds ?k.Vs rFkk
foJke dh vof/k½ fu;ekoyh] 2005 ds fu;e 4¼2½ }kjk iznRr
'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUæ ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Je ,oa jkstxkj
ea=ky; esa la;qDr lfpo Jh ,ñlhñ ik.Ms; dks mDr fu;eksa ds varxZr
vihyksa dh lquokbZ djus gsrq vihyh; izkf/kdkjh vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
ljdkjh jkti= esa blds izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ;g izHkkoh gksxkA
[Qkñ lañ tsM&20025@06@2006&lh,y,l&I]
ckcw psfj;u] mi&lfpo
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2106.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
Rule 4(2) of Railway Servants (Hours of Work and Period
of Rest) Rules, 2005 under Section 136 of the Indian
Railways Act, 1989 (24 of 1989), the Central Government
hereby notifies Shri A. C. Pandey, Joint Secretary in the
Ministry of Labour & Employment as the Appellate
Authority to hear Appeals under the said Rules. This will
take effect from the date of its publication in the Official
Gazette.
[F.No. Z-20025/06/2006-CLS-I]
BABU CHERIAN, Dy. Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2107.—dsUnzh; ljdkj larq"V gS fd yksdfgr esa ,slk
djuk visf{kr gS fd j{kk izfr"Bku esa lsokvksa dks ftls vkS|ksfxd
fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½ dh izFke vuqlwph dh
izfof"V 8 ds vUrxZr fufnZ"V fd;k x;k gS] mDr vf/kfu;e ds
iz;kstuksa ds fy, yksd mi;ksxh lsok,a ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A
vr% vc] vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 2 ds [k.M ¼<+½ ds mi[kaM ¼6½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa
dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr m|ksx dks mDr vf/kfu;e
ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, rRdky izHkko ls N% ekl dh dkykof/k ds fy,
yksd mi;ksxh lsok ?kksf"kr djrh gSA
[Qk- lañ ,l&11017@8@2011&vkbZvkj ¼ih,y½]
,- lh- ik.Ms;] la;qDr lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2013
S.O. 2107.—Whereas the Central Government is
satisfied that the public interest requires that the services
in the 'Defence establishments' which is covered by item 8
of the First Schedule to the Industiral Disputes Act, 1947
(14 of 1947), should be declared to be a 'Public Utility
Service' for the purposes of the said Act.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-clause (vi) of clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby
declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a
'Public Utility Service' for the purpose of the said Act for a
period of six months.
[No. S-11017/8/2011-IR(PL)]
A.C. PANDEY, Jt. Secy.
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.