4083 GI/2013
(5715)
lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=ky;
¼nwjlapkj foHkkx½
¼jktHkk"kk vuqHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2108.—dsUnzh; ljdkj jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼;Fkk la'kksf/kr] 1987] 2007 rFkk 2011½
ds fu;e 10¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa eq[; egkizca/kd] iatkc nwjlapkj ifjeaMy] p.Mhx<+ ds iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu iz/kkukpk;Z] {ksñnwñizñ dsUnz] jktiqjk
dk;kZy;] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkfj;ksa us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks ,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrh gSA
2- ;g vf/klwpuk jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxhA
[la- bZ&11016@01@2009&jktHkk"kk]
Hkkjr Hkw"k.k dkSjk] la;qDr lfpo
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(Department of Telecommunications)
(O. L. SECTION)
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2013
S.O. 2108.—In pursuance of Rule 10(4) of the Official Languages (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976
the Central Government hereby notifies the Office of the Principal, Regional Telecommunication Centre, Rajpura under
the administrative control of Chief Manager, Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh, where more than 80% staff have acquired
working knowledge of Hindi.
2. This notification shall come into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette.
[No. E-11016/01/2009-O.L.]
BHARAT BHUSHAN KAURA, Jt. Secy.
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- 40]
ubZ fnYyh, flrEcj 29—vDrwcj 5] 2013] 'kfuokj@vkf'ou 7—vkf'ou 13] 1935
No. 40]
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 29—OCTOBER 5, 2013, SATURDAY/ASVINA 7—ASVINA 13, 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)
5716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=ky;
¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½
¼Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks½
ubZ fnYyh] 16 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2109.—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
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS og LFkkfir gks x;k gS%&
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 10400%2013 lwph fu;a=.k
—
31 vxLr] 2013
ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
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] caxyq:] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ ,e,l Mh@th&8 vf/klwpuk]
dsñ ,uñ jko] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼izcU/k ,oa ra= foHkkx½
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)
New Delhi, the 16th September, 2013
S.O. 2109.—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 has been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the Indian
No. & Year of Indian
Date Established
No.
Standard Established
Standard, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 10400:2013 Inventory Management—
—
31 August, 2013
Glossary of terms (Second revision)
Copy of the above Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, 9 Bahadur
Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002 and its Regional Offices at Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch
Offices at Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,
Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.
[Ref. MSD/G-8 Notification]
K. N. RAO, Scientist 'F' & Head (Management & Systems Department)
ubZ fnYyh] 18 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2110.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x;s mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS %
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5717
vuqlwph
Hkkjrh;
Hkkx
vuq
o"kZ
mRikn
bdkbZ
U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd
bdkbZ nj
LySc esa bdkb;ka
'ks"k
izpyu frfFk
ekud
LySc ¼#-½
la[;k
cM+s iSekus ij
NksVs iSekus ij
10701
2012
LVªDpjy IykboqM
1 oxZ
#- 91000
# 77000
4-00
lHkh
18-09-2013
ehVj
14856
2000
vkarfjd mi;ksx ds fy, dkWap js'kk
1 oxZ
#-108000
# 92000
0-15
lHkh
18-09-2013
izcfyr IykfLVd ¼thvkjih½ ds
ehVj
c[rsuqek njoktksa ds 'kVj
[la- lh,eMh3@th&40]
ihñ dsñ xaHkhj] oSKkfud ^th* ,oa iz/kku ¼izek.ku½
New Delhi, the 18th September, 2013
S.O. 2110.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards,
hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the schedule:
SCHEDULE
IS No.
Part
Sec
Year
Product
Units
Minimum Marking fee
Unit
Units
Re-
Effective
Large scale
Small scale
Rate
in
main
date
scale
Slab 1
Slab-1
IS 10701
-
-
2012
Structural
1 square
Rs. 91000
Rs. 77000
Rs.
All
-
18.09.2013
Plywood
meter
4.00/-
unit
IS14856
-
-
2000
Glass Fibre
1 square
Rs. 108000
Rs. 92000
Rs.
All
-
18.09.2013
Reinforced
meter
0.15/
Plastic(GRP)
unit
panel type door
shutters for Internal Use
[No. CMD3/G-40]
P. K. GAMBHIR, Scientist 'G' & Chief (Certification)
5718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2111.—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 vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 9401¼Hkkx 7½% 2013
vkbZ ,l 9401¼Hkkx 7½ % 1984
31@08@2013
unh ?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa esa dk;Z ekiu
dh i)fr;ksa ¼cka/k vkSj lEc) lajpuk,a½
Hkkx 7 tksM+ ¼igyk 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 % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] paMhx<+] 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:ouUriqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 23@Vh&9]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2111.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of the Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 9401(Part 7) : 2013 Method of
IS 9401 (Part 7) : 1984
31/08/2013
measurement of works in river
valley projects (dams and appurtenant
structures) Part 7 Joints (First revision)
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, Bhubneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram, Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD 23/T-9]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5719
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2112.—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 vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 13041%2013 nzo pkfyr
vkbZ ,l 13041%1991
31@08@2013
gkbLVksa ds fujh{k.k] ijh{k.k vkSj j[k&
j[kko dh flQkfj'ksa ¼LFkkiu ds ckn½
¼igyk 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 % ubZ
fnYyh] dksydkrk] paMhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkwous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http:/www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 12@Vh&22]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2112.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title and Year of the Indian
No. & Year of the Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 13041:2013 Recommendations for
IS 13041:1991
31/08/2013
inspection, testing and maintenance
of hydraulic hoist (after erection)
(First revision)
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, Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD12/T-22]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist ‘F’ & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2113.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
5720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vf/kØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 14793 % 2013
vkbZ ,l 14793 % 2000
31-08-2013
ty oSKkfud lajpukvksa rFkk e'khuksa ij
Hkwdai ds vykok daiu v/;;uksa ds fy,
;a=ksa dk laLFkkiu] vuqlj.k vkSj voyksdu &
dk;Z lafgrk ¼igyk 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 % 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] iq.ks rFkk fr#ouUriqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV }kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 16@Vh&21]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2113.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of the Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 14793:2013 Installation, maintenance and
IS 14793:2000
31.08.2013
observation of the instruments for vibration
studies other than earthquakes on hydraulic
structures and mechines Code of practice (first revision)
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, Coimbatoe, Guwahati, Hyderabad. Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD16/T-21]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head (Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2114.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vf/kØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 9401¼Hkkx 6½% 2013 unh ?kkVh ifj;kstukvksa
vkbZ ,l 9401
31-08-2013
esa dk;Z ekiu dh i)fr;ka ¼cka/k vkSj lEc) lajpuk,a½
¼Hkkx 6½% 1984
Hkkx 6 osafVys'ku ds ikbi vkSj vU; lfUufgr lkexzh
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5721
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 miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 23@Vh&8]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2114.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title and Year of the Indian
No. & Year of the Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 9401 (Part 6):2013 Method of
IS 9401(Part 6):1984
31.08.2013
measurement of works in river valley
projects (dams and appurtenant structures)
Part 6 Ventilation pipes and other embedded
materials (first revision)
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. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD 23/T-8]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head ( Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 19 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2115.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 16115%2013 iw.kZ gks pqdh
&
31-08-2013
flapkbZ ifj;kstukvksa ¼izeq[k ,oa e/;e½
dk ewY;kadu &ekxZn'khZ fl)kar
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 miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in ij baVjusV
}kjk [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ MCY;w vkj Mh 06@Vh&17]
tsñ lhñ vjksM+k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼ty lalk/ku foHkkx½
5722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 19th September, 2013
S.O. 2115.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No., Title and Year of the Indian
No. & Year of the Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16115:2013 Evaluation of
-
31.08.2013
completed irrigation projects
(major and medium) — Guidelines
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. Indian Standards can be purchased from BIS sales portal http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. WRD 06/T-17]
J. C. ARORA, Scientist 'F' & Head ( Water Resources Deptt.)
ubZ fnYyh] 20 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2116.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ekudksa dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os ekud LFkkfir gks x, gSa %
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k
u, Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
vf/kØfer Hkkjrh; ekud
vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ gks]
dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 1641%2013 Hkouksa ¼lkekU;½ dh
vkbZ ,l 1641%1988
31-07-2013
vfXu lqj{kk% vfXu Js.khdj.k vkSj oxhZdj.k
ds lkekU; fl)kar & jhfr lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ ,l 1642%2013 Hkouksa ¼lkekU;½ dh
vkbZ ,l 1642%1989
31-07-2013
vfXu lqj{kk% lajpukvksa ds fooj.k & jhfr lafgrk
¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
3-
vkbZ ,l 1643%2013 Hkouksa ¼lkekU;½ dh
vkbZ ,l 1643%1988
31-08-2013
vfXu lqj{kk% vfXu ds lEidZ esa vkus ds
[krjs & jhfr lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
4-
vkbZ ,l 1644%2013 Hkouksa ¼lkekU;½ dh
vkbZ ,l 1644%1988
31-08-2013
vfXu lqj{kk% fudklh dh vko';drk,a vkSj
futh tksf[ke & jhfr lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa 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 dksfp esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jk;ñ pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5723
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2013
S.O. 2116.—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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated it:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 1641:2013 Fire Safety of Buildings
IS 1641:1988
31.07.2013
(General): General Principles of Fire
Grading and Classification — Code
of Practice (Second Revision)
2.
IS 1642:2013 Fire Safety of Buildings
IS 1642:1989
31.07.2013
(General): Details of Construction —
Code of Practice (Second Revision)
3.
IS 1643:2013 Fire Safety of Buildings
IS 1643:1988
31.08.2013
(General): Exposure Hazard — Code
of Practice (Second Revision)
4.
IS 1644:2013 Fire Safety of Buildings
IS 1644:1988
31.08.2013
(General) : Exit Requirements and
Personal Hazard — Code of Practice
(Second Revision)
Copy of these Standards are 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, Coimbatoe, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Kochi.
[Ref. CED/Gazette]
J. ROY CHOWDHURY, Scientist 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)
ubZ fnYyh] 23 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2117.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks
,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x, ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd, x, gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k]
la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd
frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ ,l 3025 ¼Hkkx 39½ % 1991 ty vkSj
la'kks/ku la[;k uañ 2
30 flrEcj] 2013
vif'k"V ty ds fy, uewus ysus vkSj ijh{k.k
flrEcj 2013
¼HkkSfrd ,oa jklk;fud½ dh i)fr;ka Hkkx 39
rsy ,oa xzht ¼igyk 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 % 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] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjusV ij [kjhnk tk
ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ lh,pMh 32@vkbZ,l 3025 ¼Hkkx 39½]
Mkñ jktho dsñ >k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½
5724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2013
S.O. 2117.—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 amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of the
Date from which
No.
Standards
Amendment
the amendment shall
have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 3025 (Part 39):1991 Method of
Amendment No. 2
30 September, 2013
Sampling and Test (Physical and
September 2013
Chemical) for water and wastewater
Part 39 Oil and Grease (First Revision)
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, Coimbatoe, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian Standard can be made of http://www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. CHD 32/IS 3025(Part 39)]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 31 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2118.—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
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSaA
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ dh la[;k] o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 5466 % 2013 peZ'kks/ku ouLifr
—
31 vxLr] 2013
lkexzh — ijh{k.k i)fr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ,l 6199 % 2013 oSVy fu"d"kZ — fof'kf"V
—
31 vxLr] 2013
¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
3-
vkbZ,l 6301 % 2013 {kkjh; Øksfe;e lYQsV
—
31 vxLr] 2013
¼peZ 'kks/ku ds fy,½ — fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
4-
vkbZ,l 6657 % 2013 [kky dh Nky —
—
31 vxLr] 2013
fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
5-
vkbZ,l 6658 % 2013 dktw ds chtkoj.k —
—
31 vxLr] 2013
fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
6-
vkbZ,l 13271 % 2013 fQuksfyd flUVSu—
—
31 vxLr] 2013
ijh{k.k i)fr ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
7-
vkbZ,l 13528 % 2013 iwoZ peZ'kks/ku flUVSu—
—
31 vxLr] 2013
fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
8-
vkbZ,l 13625 % 2013 ,Øhfyd vkSj flUVSu okys
—
31 vxLr] 2013
iqu% peZ'kks/ku flUVSu—fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5725
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;kWa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjksa] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ
fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]
t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk
baVjuSV ij [kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ lh,pMh 17@vkbZ,l 5466] 6199] 6301] 6657] 6658] 13271] 13528] 13625]
MkWñ jktho dsñ >k ] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼jlk;u½
New Delhi, the 31st August, 2013
S.O. 2118.— 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, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto
annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the Indian
No. & Year of Indian
Date of Established
No.
Standard Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 5466 : 2013 Vegetable Tranning
—
31 August, 2013
Materials—Method of test (First Revision)
2.
IS 6199 : 2013 Wattle Extract—
—
31 August, 2013
Specification (First Revision)
3.
IS 6301 : 2013 Basic Chromium Sulphate
—
31 August, 2013
(for tanning)— Specification (First
Revision)
4.
IS 6657 : 2013 Sal Bark—Specification
—
31 August, 2013
(First Revision)
5.
IS 6658 : 2013 Cashew Testa—Specification
—
31 August, 2013
(First Revision)
6.
IS 13271 : 2013 Phenolic Syntans—
—
31 August, 2013
Methods of test (First Revision)
7.
IS 13528 : 2013 Pretanning Syntans—
—
31 August, 2013
Specification (First Revision)
8.
IS 13625 : 2013 Retanning Syntans
—
31 August, 2013
including Acrylic and Related Syntans—
Specification (First Revision)
Copy of these Standards are 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. On line purchase of Indian standard can be made at :http//www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. CHD 17/IS 5466, 6199, 6301, 6657, 6658, 13271, 13528, 13625]
Dr. RAJIV K. JHA, Scientist 'F' & Head (CHD)
ubZ fnYyh] 24 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2119.—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
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSaA
5726
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vuqlwph
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dkas½ dh la[;k]
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 16016 % 2013 fiu VEcyj
rqjUr
iz.kkyh ds csyukdkj rkys &
fof'k"V
bu Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;kWa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110002] {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa%
dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]
dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij
[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA
[lanHkZ ,ebZMh@th&2 % 1]
rstchj flag ] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼;kaf=d bathfu;fjax½
New Delhi, the 24th September, 2013
S.O. 2119.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Burea 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. and Year of the Indian
No. and Year of Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 16016 : 2013 Cylinderical locks with
—
With immediate
pin tumbler mechanism—Specification
effect
Copy of these Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:
Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram. On line purchase of Indian Standard can be made at :http//www.standardsbis.in.
[Ref. MED/G-2:1]
T. V. SINGH, Scientist 'F' & Head (Mechanical Engineering)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2120.—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
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, ekud¼dksa½ esa la'kks/ku fd;k x;k@fd, x, gSa%
vuqlwph
Øe
la'kksf/kr Hkkjrh; ekud dh
la'kks/ku dh la[;k vkSj
la'kks/ku ykxw gksus
la[;k
la[;k vkSj o"kZ
frfFk
dh frfFk
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 1786 % 2008
la'kks/ku la[;k 2] tqykbZ 2013
16 flrEcj] 2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5727
bl la'kks/ku dh izfr;kWa 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] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ lhbZMh@jkti=]
tsñ jkW; pkS/kjh] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼flfoy bathfu;jh½
New Delhi, the 25th September, 2013
S.O. 2120.—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 amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars of which are gven in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
Sl. No.
No. and Year of the
No. and year of
Date from which the
Indian Standards
the amendment
amendment shall have effect
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 1786 : 2008
Amendment No. 2, July, 2013
16 September, 2013
Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah
Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices at 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.)
ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2121.—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
vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x, gSa%
Øe
LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud¼dksa½ dh la[;k o"kZ
u;s Hkkjrh; ekud }kjk vfrØfer
LFkkfir gksus dh frfFk
la[;k
vkSj 'kh"kZd
Hkkjrh; ekud vFkok ekudksa] ;fn dksbZ
gks] rks la[;k vkSj o"kZ
¼1½
¼2½
¼3½
¼4½
1-
vkbZ,l 6410 % 2013 pqacdh; nks"k
vkbZ,l 6410 %1991 pqacdh; nks"k
31 vxLr] 2013
fudkyus dh L;kgh vkSj ikmMj&fof'kf"V
fudkyus dh L;kgh vkSj ikmMj&
¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½
fof'k"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½
2-
vkbZ,l 15987 % 2013 la?kV&bZdks rduhdh
—
31 vxLr] 2013
dk iz;ksx djds daØhV lajpukvksa dh
vfouk'kh ijh{k.k gsrq&vuq'kaflr jhfr
bu Hkkjrh; ekudksa dh izfr;kWa 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] iq.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA
[lanHkZ ,eVhMh 21@Vh&28 ,oa 77]
ihñ ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k ¼,eVhMh½
New Delhi, the 25th September, 2013
S.O. 2121.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules (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 gven in the
Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:
5728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Sl.
No. & Year of the Indian
No. & Year of Indian
Date of Establishment
No.
Standards Established
Standards, if any, Superseded by
the New Indian Standard
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
1.
IS 6410 : 2013 Magnetic flaw detection
IS 6410 : 1991 Specification
31 August, 2013
inks and powders—Specification
for magnetic flaw detection
(second revision)
inks and powders (first revision)
2.
IS 15987 : 2013 Non-destructive testing
—
31 August, 2013
of concrete structures using impact-
echo technique—Recommended
Practice
Copy of this Standard are 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. MTD 21/T-28 & 77]
P. GHOSH, Scientist 'F' & Head (MTD)
dks;yk ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 25 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2122.—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc) vuqlwph esa mfYyf[kr Hkwfe esa dks;yk vfHkizkIr fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gS(
mDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks= ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e ¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe 438] rkjh[k] 22
Qjojh] 2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk vuqiiqj 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 /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 4 dh mi/kkjk 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 gSA
mijksDr vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe esa fgrc) dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/klwpuk ds jkti= esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu dh vof/k ds Hkhrj
Hkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼jktLo½ lkÅFk bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ls]&
(i) mDr vf/klwpuk dh /kkjk 4 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds v/khu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k lEHkor% gksus okyh fdlh {kfr ds fy,
vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 ds v/khu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk( ;k
(ii) mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/k esa ;k mDr vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 13 dh mi&/kkjk ¼4½ ds v/khu [kuu iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk
13 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds [kaM (i) ls (iv) esa fofufnZ"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks minf'kZr djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/kr lHkh
ekufp=ksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkosatks dks ifjnÙk dj ldsxkA
vuqlwph
lkseuk Hkwfexr [kku] glnso {ks=
ftyk & vuqiiqj] e/; izns'k
¼js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth@Hkwfe@438] rkjh[k 22 Qjojh] 2013½
Øe
xzke dk uke
cankscLr la[;k
iVokjh gYdk
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
fVIif.k;ka
la-
la[;k
esa
1-
yksgljk
929
43
dksrek
vuqiiqj
14-893
Hkkx
2-
Hkxrk
769
43
dksrek
vuqiiqj
40-014
Hkkx
dqy%&54]907 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 135-68 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5729
lhek o.kZu%
d&[k
js[kk xzke Hkxrk&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Hkxrk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ
fcUnq ^[k* ij feyrh gSA
[k&x
js[kk xzke Hkxrk ds nf{k.kh Hkkx ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ xzke Hkxrk&yksgljk ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^x* ij feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk xzke yksgljk ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA
?k&d
js[kk xzke yksgljk ds mÙkjh Hkkx ls gksdj xqtjrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@03@2013&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
New Delhi, the 25th September, 2013
S.O. 2122.—Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the
locality mentioned in the Schedule annexed hereto;
And whereas the plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/438, dated the 22nd February, 2013 containing
details of the area of land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Collector, District Anuppur
(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 the 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 thereof; or
(ii) claim compensation under sub-section (1) of section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license 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 relatintg 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 (Chhattishgarh) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.
SECHEDULE
Somna U/g Mine, Hasdeo Area
District: Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh
(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND/438, dated the 22nd February, 2013)
Sl.
Name
Settlement
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area in
Remarks
No.
of
number
halka
hectares
village
number
1.
Lohsara
929
43
Kotma
Anuppur
14.893
Part
2.
Bhagta
769
43
Kotma
Anuppur
40.014
Part
Total: 54.907 hectares (appromixately) or 135.68 acres (approximately)
Boundary description:—
A-B
Line starts from point 'A' on the common boundary of villages Bhagta-Lohsara and passes through south-
ern part of village Bhagta and meets at point 'B'.
B-C
Line passes through southern part of village Bhagta and meets at point 'C' on the common boundary of
villages Bhagta-Lohsara.
5730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
C-D
Line passes through northern part of village Lohsara and meets at point 'D'.
D-A
Line passes through northern part of village Lohsara and meets at starting point 'A'.
[F. No. 43015/03/2013-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 27 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2123.—dks;yk /kkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½ vf/kfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e
dgk x;k gS½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds v/khu tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii), rkjh[k 20 vDrwcj] 2012 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr
ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vf/klwpuk dkñvkñ la[;kad 3186] rkjh[k 16 vDrwcj] 2012 ij mDr vf/klwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe
esa ;k ,slh Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr vf/kfu;e dgk x;k gS½] ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ds
v/khu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd osLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k
gS½] ,sls fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krksZa dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, jtkean gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/kjksfir djuk mfpr le>s(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 11 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr
Hkwfe vkSj bl izdkj fufgr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/kdkj rkjh[k 20 vDrwcj] 2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,]
fuEufyf[kr fuca/kuksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/khu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~—
1- ljdkjh daiuh mDr vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu ;Fkk vo/kkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqDlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh
lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(
2- 'krZ ¼1½ ds v/khu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vf/kfu;e dh
/kkjk 14 ds v/khu ,d vf/kdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/kdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/k esa mixr lHkh
O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/k esa tksfd vihy vkfn
lHkh fof/kd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/k esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdj fufgr mDr Hkwfe
esa ;k ml ij ds vf/kdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/k esa vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krksZa dk ikyu djsxh] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=ksa ds
fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/kjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@36@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 27th September, 2013
S.O. 2123.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,
number S.O. 3186, dated the 16th October, 2012, in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii), Dated the 20th
October, 2012, issued under sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957
(20 of 1957) (Hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the land and the rights in or over the land described in the Schedule
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free
from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to
as the Government company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government thinks fit to
impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby direct that the said land and the rights in or over the said land so vested, shall, with effect from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5731
20th October, 2012, instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, vest in the Government company, subject
to the following terms and conditions, namely:—
1. the Government company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation,
interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act;
2. a Tribunal shall be constituted under section 14 of the said Act, for the purpose of determining the amounts
payable to the Central Government by the Government company under conditions (1), and all expenditure incurred in
connection with any such Tribunal and persons appointed to assist the said Tribunal shall be borne by the Government
company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with
the rights in or over the said land, so vested, shall also be borne by the Government company;
3. the Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure
that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding
the rights in or over the said land so vested;
4. the Government company shall have no power to transfer the land and the right in or over the said land so vested,
to any other person without the prior approval of the Central Government; and
5. the Government company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the Central
Government for particular areas of the said land as and when necessary.
[F. No. 43015/36/2009-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
isVªksfy;e vkSj izkd`frd xSl ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2124.—l{ke izkf/kdkjh] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ vf/kfu;e] 1962 ¼1962
dk 50½ dh /kkjk 17 ds v/khu fojfpr isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbZu ¼Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj dk vtZu½ fu;e] 1963 ds fu;e 4 ds
mifu;e ¼1½ ds ijarqd ds vuqlj.k esa] xsy ¼bf.M;k½ fyfeVsM ds ijke'kZ ls ftlesa] ;FkkfLFkfr] ml {ks= esa Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/kdkj fufgr
fd;k x;k gS ;k ml {ks= esa ikbiykbZu dk LokfeRo fufgr gS] uhps lkj.kh ds LrEHk 8 esa ;Fkk mfYyf[kr iatkc jkT; ds cokuk&uaxy vkSj Lij
ikbiykbZu ifj;kstuk ds ek/;e ls ikbiykbZu fcNk;s tkus ds izpkyu dh lekfIr dh rkjh[k ?kksf"kr djrk gSA
vuqlwph
/kkjk 3¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
/kkjk 6¼1½ ds v/khu vf/klwpuk
Øe
xkao dk uke
rkyqdk@rglhy
jkti= esa
dkñvkñ la[;k
jkti= esa
dkñvkñ la[;k
dk;Z dh
lañ
izdk'ku dk
vkSj fnukad
izdk'ku dk
vkSj fnukad
lekfIr dk
fnukad
fnukad
fnukad
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1-
/kex<+&1
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
2-
yksglhcyh
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
3-
leliqj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
4-
mrlj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
5732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
5-
tM exksyh
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
fnlEcj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
6-
xksfonx<+
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
fnlEcj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
7-
deh dyk
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
8-
ihiy e?kksyh
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
9-
dkcqyiqj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vDrwcj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
10-
Qjhniqj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vDrwcj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
11-
lkgy
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
12-
ypoku
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
13-
/kex<+&2
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
14-
lqgkjh
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
15-
esgek
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
16-
[ksjiqj tVku
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
17-
[kSjh xfM;ka
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
18-
xkthiqj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
19-
t[kjku
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
20-
c<ksyh xqtjku
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
21-
xksikyiqj
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
22-
icjh
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
23-
r[krw ektjk
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5733
24-
lsgjk
jktiqjk
14-07-2009
1738¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
25-
Nysjh dyk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
26-
gluiqj Nysjh [kqnZ
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
27-
dksVyk tVku
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
28-
ewysiqj
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
29-
itkSyk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
30-
ufyuk dyk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
31-
ujsuiqj ,fy;kl
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
pksjokyk
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
32-
:M+dh
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
33-
c<ksNh dyk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
34-
iMjyh
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
35-
[kjk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
uoacj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
36-
ehjiqj
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
37-
fl/kqou
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
38-
lqUnjiqj
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
39-
tkgyk
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
40-
Hkaojklh tsj
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
41-
[kSjh
Qrsgx<+ lkfgc
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
uoacj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
42-
cknyh
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
43-
c:xk tsj
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
44-
c:xk cysUn
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
45-
lksurh
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
46-
tykyiqj
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
47-
lSfy;kuh
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
48-
[kqekuk
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
49-
'kkgiqj
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
50-
lykuk
veyksg
14-07-2009
1739¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
51-
[krjk
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
52-
ck?kj
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
53-
ektjh
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
54-
jlwyjk
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
55-
bdksykgk
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
56-
bdksykgh
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
57-
HkkeM+h
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
ekpZ&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
58-
?kq?kjkyh
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
59-
vlxjhiqj
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
vizSy&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
60-
jk;iqj
[kUuk
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
61-
ektjh
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5735
62-
cjekyhiqj
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
63-
fc'kuiqjk
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
Qjojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
64-
dnksu
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
fnlacj&11
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
65-
pudksb;u [kqn
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
66-
nhiuxj
ik;y
14-07-2009
1740¼E½
3-12-2009
3096¼E½
tuojh&12
14-07-2009
3-12-2009
[Qkñ lañ ,y&14014@26@’12&thñihñ]
,lñ ihñ vxzoky] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
New Delhi, the 30th September, 2013
S.O. 2124.—In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (i) of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisi-
tion of Right of User in Land) Rules, 1963, framed under section 17 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of
Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited with whom the right of user in
the land in that area has been vested or ownership of the pipeline in that area vests as the case may be, hereby declares the
date of termination of operation of laying Bawana-Nangal & spur pipeline project in Punjab as mentioned in column-8 of the
Schedule below, namely:—
SCHEDULE
Notification Under section 3(1)
Notification Under section 6(1)
Date of
Date of
Date of
Sr. No. Village Name
Tehsil
Publication of
S.O. No. &
Publication of
S.O. No.
Termination of
Gazette
Date
Gazette
Dated
Opeations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1.
Dharmgarh-1
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
2.
Nasimli
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
3.
Samaspur
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
4.
Untsar
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
5.
Jand Mangoli
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
December-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
6.
Gobindgarh
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
December-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
7.
Kami Kalan
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8.
Pipal Mangholi
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
9.
Kabulpur
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
October-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
10.
Faridpur
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
October-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
11.
Sahal
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
12.
Lochman
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
13.
Dharmgarh-2
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
14.
Suharo
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
15.
Mehma
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
16.
Khairpur Jattan
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
17.
Kheri Gadian
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
18.
Gazipur
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
19.
Jakhran
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
20.
Badholi Gujjran
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
21.
Gopalpur
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
22.
Pabri
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
23.
Takhtu Majra
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
24.
Sehra
Rajpura
14.07.2009
1738(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
25.
Chhalari Kalan
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
26.
Husianpur
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
Chhalari Khurd
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
27.
Kotla Jattan
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5737
28.
Mullepur
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
29.
Panjola
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
30.
Nalina Kalan
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
31.
Chuharwala
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
32.
Rurki
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
33.
Bari Badochi
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
34.
Pandrali
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
35.
Khara
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
November-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
36.
Mirpur
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
37.
Sidhuwan
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
38.
Sunderpura
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
39.
Jahla
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
40.
Bhamarasi Zer
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
41.
Kheri
Fatehgarh Sahib 14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
November-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
42.
Badali
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
43.
Barunga Zer
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
44.
Barunga Baland
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
45.
Saunti
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
46.
Jalalpur
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
47.
Saliani
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
48.
Khumana
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
49.
Shahpur
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
50.
Salana
Amloh
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
51.
Khatra
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
52.
Baghaur
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
53.
Majri
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
54.
Rasulra
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
55.
Ikolaha
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
56.
Ikolahi
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
57.
Bhamadi
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
March-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
58.
Ghungrali
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
59.
Majri
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
April-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
60.
Asgaripur
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
61.
Raipur
Khanna
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
62.
Barmali Pur
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
63.
Bishanpura
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
February-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
64.
Kadon
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
December-11
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
65.
Chankoean Khurd
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
66.
Deepnagar
Payal
14.07.2009
1739(E)
3.12.2009
3096(E)
January-12
14.07.2009
3.12.2009
[F. No. L-14014/26/’12-G..P.]
S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5739
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2125.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
,uñVhñihñlhñ nknjh 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 uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
74@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@08@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@27@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 30th August, 2013
S.O. 2125.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2012)
of the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.
1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the General Manager, NTPC, Dadri and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23.08.2013.
[No. L-42011/27/2012-IR(DU)]
SOM NATH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 74/2012
The General Secretary,
NTPC Employees Union,
Vidut Nagar, B-87,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P.
...Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
NTPS, NTPC,
Vidut Nagar, Dadri,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
U.P.
...Management
AWARD
National Bipartite Committee (NBC) is the Apex Body,
consisting of workmen representatives from various projects
and stations of National Thermal Power Corporation (in
short the Corporation) and representatives of the
Corporation, for consultation and negotiation in respect of
issues pertaining to the employees of workmen category
working with the Corporation. Employees of workmen
category, working with the Corporation, are being paid
annual performance linked incentive known as annual
additional incentive and special reward, based on agreement
entered in NBC. Employees of executive category, working
with the Carporation, are also paid annual additional
incentive in accordance with the guidelines of Department
of Public Enterprises (in short DPE). The Corporation issued
circular dated 23.09.2006, applicable for year 2005-06 and
2006-07, for grant of annua1 productive incentive to the
employees of workmen category, based on agreement in
NBC. They were paid performance related payment,
performance linked bonus, incentive or additional incentive
for the year 2008-09 in terms of agreement arrived in NBC
while employees of executive category were paid such
benefits in terms of guidelines of DPE.
2. Employees of executive categories of the
Corporation received higher amount relating to performance
related payment, performance linked bonus, incentive or
additional incentive in comparison to the employees of
workmen category from year 2007 and onwards. NTPC
Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the union)
raised a dispute claiming that discrimination meted out to
the employees of workmen category in the matter of
performance related payment, performarlce linked bonus,
incentive or additional incentive was uncalled for. The
union asserted that the employees of workmen categories
were entitled to above ex-gratia payments equal to the
employees of executive categories. This demand was not
conceded to by the Corporation. Aggrieved by that Act,
the union raised a dispute before the Concilation Officer.
Since Corporation contested the claim, conciliation
proceedings ended into 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-42011/27/2012/IR(DU), New
Delhi dated 25.04.2012 with following terms:
"Whether action of management in disbursing
productivity linked bonus exceeding statutory limit
of 20% of wages/salary earned during relevant year
is illegal and unjustified? If so, what relief the workmen
are entitled to?"
3. Corrigendum dated 18.06.2012, was issued by the
appropriate Government, modifying terms of reference as
follows:
"Whether the action of the management in disbursing
the performance related payment. (PRP) Performance
linked bonus/incentive/additional incentive to the
executive employees in higher proportion in
comparison to that of non-executive employees from
the years 2007 onwards are illegal and unjustified? If
so, what relief the workmen are entitled to?"
5740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Claim statement was filed by the union pleading
therein that it is a recognized representative union for and
on behalf of employees of the Corporation. The union
works to promote industrial peace and harmony as well as
to safeguard and protect interest of the workers from
exploitation and anti labour policies of the Corporation.
The Corporation used all unfair means concerning its
employees of workmen category. Based on performance,
the Corporation started paying productivity linked special
incentive from the year 1994, which incentive was given to
all employees (executive and non-executive) subject to
maxima of 20% of their salary/wages to be calculated @ of
Rs. 2500 per month for the purpose of the incentive. The
Corporation also introduced an annual performance linked
incentive scheme for all employees, executive as well as
non-executive, vide its circular dated 23.09.2006 applicable
from the year 2005-06, on the basis of percentage of basic
pay. All employees were paid performance linked incentive
@ 5% of basic pay, subject to minimum of Rs. 4000.00 for
2005-06. In the year 2007, the Corporation started payment
of annual additional incentive in higher proportion to the
executive employees than the employees of workmen
category. Employees of executive category were paid
annual additional incentive while employees of workmen
category were paid annual additional incentive plus special
reward. In the year 2008, employees of executive category
were paid annual additional incentive in much higher
proportion than employees of workmen category. Same
was the case in the year 2009 also.
5. The union presents that no transparency was
maintained by the Corporation, in the matter of payment of
additional incentives and performance related payments.
All these payments are profit sharing by the employees,
though nomenclature of payments have changed from time
to time. Discrimination in the matter of aforesaid payments,
made by the Corporation, is highly arbitrary, unjustified
and uncalled for. Payment of lesser amount to the
employees of workmen category than employees of
executive cadre is violative of provisions of Article 14, 15
and 16 of the Constitution. The Corporation cannot resort
to such discrimination. It has been claimed that employees
of workmen category are entitled to performance related
payments, performance linked bonus, incentive or
additional incentive equal in amount/proportion as being
paid to the employees of executive categories of the
Corporation. The union prays for an award in its favour in
that regard.
6. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading
that ex-gratia/special incentive are being paid to the
employees, limited to 20% basic pay (basic pay was limited
to ceiling specified in the Bonus Act, 1972) without any
legal obligation. Actual payment was based on performance,
assessed through productivity linked schemes and
agreements in NBC, on year to year basis. It has been
denied that the Corporation introduced annual performance
linked incentive scheme for its employees of executive and
non-executive category on percentage of basic pay. Annual
performance linked incentive scheme, circulated vide
circular dated 23.09.2006, was applicable for year 2005-06
and 2006-07, in accordance with agreement entered in NBC.
Employees of workmen category were paid special reward
based on the said agreement. The Corporation agreed to
pay suitable amount in addition to special reward, in view
of performance of its employees of workmen category.
Employees of executive category were given annual
additional incentive, based on guidelines of DPE. The
Corporation was well within its rights to decide performance
related payment to its employees, subject to total out go
remaining within 5% of distributable profit. Amount
disbursed to the employees of workmen category was much
more than maximum amount payable as bonus to the
employees covered under the provisions of the Payment
of Bonus Act, 1972. Performance related payment cannot
be claimed as a matter of right. There is no legal obligation
on the part of the Corporation to pay incentives, which are
paid as goodwill gesture. The Corporation assesses
performance of its employees of executive category,
through performance management system, for being eligible
for performance related payments. On the other hand,
employees of workmen category continue to receive special
reward, based on performance of the Corporation, as per
agreement in NBC. Besides, that they also receive annual
additional incentive as performance related payments.
7. Since performance related payment for employees
of executive category is decided in terms of guidelines of
DPE and performance rleated payment in case of workmen
is decided as per agreement in NBC, the union cannot agitate
that the methodology to calculate and disbursement of
those payments to various categories should be based on
one uniform standard. It does not lile in the mouth of the
union to claim parity of the employees of workmen category
with that of employees of executive category in the matter
of performance related payments.
8. The Corporation agitates that performance related
payments are being made to the employees of workmen
category in terms of agreement in NBC, which is the apex
body for consultation and negotiation in respect of issues
relating to the employees of workmen category. The union,
which represents a very small proportion of workmen
strength of the Corporation, cannot challenge issues
settled/decided through agreements in NBC. The union
has no locus standi to challenge terms of agreement entered
into in NBC for the year 2007 and onwards. On the other
hand the union is bound by the agreements arrived at in
NBC for the year 2007 and onwards. When performance
related payments to the employee of executive category
were decided in terms of guidelines of DPE, the Corporation
shared these facts with the union representatives in NBC.
The union now raises frivolous issues through the present
claim statement. The Corporation asserts that there is no
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5741
violation of provisions of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the
Constitution. Claim put forward merits dismissal. A prayer
has been made that an award may be passed in favour of
the Corporation and against the union.
9. Charts of performance related payments, filed by
and on behalf of the workmen, were admitted by the
Corporation during the course of admission and denial.
These charts are Ex.W1 to W6.
10. When the Corporation admitted aforesaid charts,
it came to light there was no dispute between the parties
on facts. Hence, parties were not called upon to lead their
respective evidence in the matter.
11. During the course of arguments, Shri Om Prakash
Gupta, authorised representative of the union, made a
statement on oath that the union does want to press for
the reliefs claimed in the claim petition. He claimed that
their claim statement may be discarded, while adjudicating
the dispute. According to him, after an award, the union
would like to approach the appropriate Government in case
exigencies permit it. Thus, out of statement made by Shri
Om Prakash Gupta, authorized representative of the union,
it is apparent that the union gives up its contest. It decided
to eat humble pie and await for an award. Resultantly, it is
evident that the union nowhere disputes factual proposition
raised by the Corporation in its written statement.
12. Out of facts pleaded by the Corporation, it came
to light that performance related incentives are given to
employees of workmen category in accordance with the
agreement in NBC. On the other hand, performance related
incentives are given to the employees of executive
categories based on guidelines of DPE. Assessment of
performance and grant of performance related payments
are based on different standards. Employees of executive
category had to undergo standards of assessment of their
performance on guidelines of DPE. Performance and
payment based there on, in the matter of employees of
workmen category, are assessed in terms of agreement in
NBC.
13. Whether employees of workmen category are
entitled to parity in the matter of performance related
payments? For an answer legal provisions are to be taken
into consideration. Equality before law and equal protection
of laws are fundamental rights of every person, ordains
Article 14 of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid
in Article 14 are that persons, who are similarly situated,
shall be treated alike both ill privileges conferred and
liability imposed, which means that amongst equals the
law should be equal and should be equally administered
and that like should be treated alike. Article 16 of the
Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State. What is guaranteed is the
equality of opportunity. Like all other employers,
government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst
a large number of candidates offering themselves for
employment. But the selection process must not be
arbitrary. The guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of
the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b)
promotions (c) termination of employment (d) and matters
relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves, gratuity,
pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to
employment or appointments include all mattes in relations
to employment both prior and subsequent to the
employment which are incidental to the employment and
form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.
14. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14
forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification
or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of
discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,
and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide
latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the
consequences of such classification would undoubtedly
be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from
others. The classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are
grouped together from others left out of the group and the
differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought
to be achieved. Classification may be made according to
the nature of persons, nature of business, and may be
based with reference to time.
15. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of
the Constitution is something more than formal equality
and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share
by having more than equal chance and enables the State to
give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real
equality with reference to social needs. 'Protection
discrimination' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to
bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by
providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them.
Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential
treatment in the matter relating to employment or
appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between
members of separate and independent group of persons.
Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in
terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with
reference to time.
16. Non-executive employees of the Corporation are
a separate class in themselves. They are employees of the
category, who fall within the ambit of the definition of
workmen, as enacted by clause (s) of section 2 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Workmen employees fall in
distinct and different category than employees of executive
category of the Corporation. Employees of executive
category have to perform mainly managerial or
administrative functions or they may have been employed
in supervisory capacity to perform functions mainly of
managerial in nature. Therefore, it is evident that employees,
5742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
who fall in workmen category, are on a different pedestal
than the employees of executive category, who perform
mainly managerial or administrative functions or
supervisory functions. They are recruited through different
recruitment rules and their responsibilities cannot be similar.
Under these circumstances, I am constrained to conclude
that employees of the executive category of the Corporation
form a class distinct and different than the employees of
workmen category of the Corporation. The Corporation
has rightly made classifications in the matter of grant of
incentives to its executive and non-executive employees.
Unequals cannot claim equal treatment.
17. In view of the reasons detailed above, it is
apparent that the employees of the workmen category are
not entitled for payment of performance linked incentives
in parity with the employees of executive category. An
award is passed against the union and in favour of the
Corporation. It be sent to the appropriate Government for
publication.
Dated : 18-7-2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2126-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MkjsdVj] vky
bf.M;k bUlVhfV;wV vkQ esfMdy lkbal 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 uañ 1] ubZ fnYyh ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 232@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@08@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@02@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th August, 2013
S.O. 2126.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 232/
2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the Director, All India Institute of Medical
Science and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 23.08.2013.
[No. L-42012/02/2011-IR(DU)]
SOM NATH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D.No.232/2011
Sh.Naresh Kumar,
S/o Sh.Dewan Chand,
H.No.834, VPO Bakner Thana,
Narela, Delhi – 110049.
Applicant…….
Versus
The Director
All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ansari Road, New Delhi – 110029.
Respondent…….
AWARD
A Sanitary Attendant, Grade-II, serving All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as the Institute) absented himself from his duties
in an unauthorized manner with effect from 01.01.2006. Letter
dated 27.04.2006 was sent to him, advising him to report for
duties immediately. He was also advised to submit medical
certificate in case of his illness and inability to report for
duties. The Sanitary Attendant opted not to comply with
the instructions, so issued, and continued to remain absent
from his duties in an unauthorized manner. Show cause
notice dated 29.05.2006 was issued, calling upon him to
explain as to why domestic action should not be initiated
against him, but to no avail. Charge sheet dated 17.07.2006
was served on him. He opted not to submit his written
statement of defence to the charge sheet, served on him.
The Institute appointed Enquiry Officer, who sent notice
to the Sanitary Attendant to join the enquiry proceedings.
On 03.10.2006, he appeared before the Enquiry Officer. On
subsequent dates, he abstained from taking part in the
enquiry proceedings. Considering these circumstances, he
was proceeded against ex-parte by the Enquiry Officer.
The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary
Authority, who concurred with his findings. The
Disciplinary Authority forwarded a copy of report of the
Enquiry Officer to the Sanitary Attendant and called upon
him to make representation, if any, in writing, to that report.
He opted not to make any representation. Punishment of
removal/termination from service was awarded to him, vide
order dated 13.03.2007. Appeal preferred by the Sanitary
Attendant also came to be dismissed. He raised a demand
on the Institute for reinstatement in service, which was not
conceded to. Ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute
before the Conciliation Officer. Since the Institute contested
his claim, 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-42012/2/2011-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 25.05.2011,
with following terms:
“Whether action of the management of Director,
AIIMS, Delhi in terminating services of Shri Naresh
Kumar, Sanitary Assistant Grade II with effect from
13.03.2007 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the claimant is entitled to?”
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5743
2. Claim statement was filed by the Sanitary
Attendant, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar pleading therein
that he joined services of the Institute on 12.06.1986. He
rendered satisfactory service and gave no chance of
complaint to his employer. Neither charge sheet was served
upon him nor any reasons were assigned when his services
were orally terminated by the Institute on 13.03.2007. He
had rendered continuous service of 240 days in every
calendar year, as contemplated by the provisions of section
25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act).
Provisions of section 25-F and 25-N of the Act were not
complied with. Neither one month’s notice nor pay in lieu
thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid to him.
After termination of his service, fresh recruitment was made.
No opportunity was given to him for re-employment, as
contemplated by provisions of section 25-H of the Act. He
claims reinstatement in service of the Institute with
continuity and full back wages.
3. Demurral was made by the Institute pleading that
the claimant remained absent from his duties in an
unauthorized manner since 01.01.2006. He had not got any
leave sanctioned when he absented from his duties. Vide
memo dated 27.04.2006, he was advised to report for duties
immediately, but in vain. Show cause notice dated 29.05.2006
was issued calling upon him to explain as to why domestic
action should not be initiated for his unauthorized absence
from duties. Charge sheet dated 17.07.2006 was sent to
him. Despite service of the charge sheet, he opted not to
reply it. Domestic enquiry was conducted against him in
accordance with principles of natural justice. He appeared
before the enquiry Officer on the first date of hearing, that
is on 03.10.2006 and thereafter, opted to abstain from the
enquiry proceedings. Enquiry, conducted against him, was
in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Report
of the enquiry was sent to him for his comments on the
same, but he opted to keep silence. Punishment of removal/
termination from service was awarded to him, vide order
dated 13.03.2007. The said order does not amount to
retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the
Act. Provisions of section 25-F and 25-N of the Act had
not come into operation. Claim put forward by Shri Naresh
Kumar is liable to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
4. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were
settled:
(1)
Whether enquiry conducted by the
management was just, fair and proper?
(2)
Whether punishment awarded to the claimant
is proportionate to his misconduct?
(3)
As in terms of reference.
5. On consideration of facts testified by the claimant
and those detailed by Shri A.M. Tewari, submissions made
by the parties and on perusal of record, issue relating to
virus of enquiry, which was treated as preliminary issue,
was answered in favour of the Institute and against the
claimant vide order dated 10.10.2012.
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri T.S Rajput,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the claimant. Shri Karunesh Tandon, authorized
representative, made submissions on behalf of the Institute.
I have given my careful consideration to the arguments
advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:—
Issue No.2.
7. In order to assess as to whether punishment
imposed is proportionate to the misconduct of the claimant,
it is expedient to note charges levelled against him. Those
charges emerged out of the charge sheet dated 17.06.2005,
contents of which are reproduced thus:
“That the said Naresh Kumar, III, while functioning
as Sanitary Attendant, Grade I in this Institute has
been willfully and unauthorizedly absenting himself
from duty with effect from 01.01.2006 without
permission or sanction of leave by the competent
authority.
Shri Naresh Kumar III, Sanitary Attendant Grade II
was advised to report for duty immediately vide
office memo of even number dated 27.04.2006 but he
failed to comply with the orders and continued to
remain absent from duty unauthorizedly without
citing any valid reason. Shri Naresh Kumar III,
Sanitary Attendant Grade II was also advised that in
case he is sick, he should submit the medical certificate
from the GDMO (EHS) or civil surgeon of the area.
But the official failed to comply with these orders
and continues to be assent from duty unauthorizedly
without any valid reason and in gross violation of
orders. A show cause notice dated 29.05.2006 was
again issued to the official but in spite of that he
failed to report for duty till date.
Shri Naresh Kumar III, Sanitary Attendant Grade II,
has thus failed to maintain devotion to duty and is
not amenable to discipline and has acted in a manner
unbecoming of an Institute employee thereby
contravened Rule 3(1)(ii) and Rule 3(1)(iii) of the
CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 as applicable to the
employees of the Institute.”
8. As projected above, the Enquiry Officer was
constrained to proceed with the mater ex-parte when
claimant opted to abstain from the enquiry proceedings.
He examined Shri S.P. Vashist and Smt. Neelam who were
produced before him by the Institute. He appreciated
evidence adduced before him, in the light of the documents
proved by the Institute. He recorded findings against the
claimant, relevant portion, of which is extracted thus:
5744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
“As discussed in the foregoing paras, management
produced documentary evidence Exhibit M-1 to M-4
to prove the charge sheet that CSE was absenting
himself from duty with effect from 01.01.2006 without
prior permission or sanction of leave by the
competent authority (Exhibit M-1 to Exhibit M-3). He
was advised to report for duty by (Exhibit M-1 to
Exhibit M-3) but he did not report. He was also
advised that in case he was sick, he should submit
medical certificate but he did not comply (Exhibit M-1
to Exhibit M-3). All the management documents were
authenticated by management witnesses MW-1 and
MW-2. Management witness also supported the
management story fully. Thus, management proved
the charge as indicated in charge Annexure I. All
Reasonable opportunity was given to the CSE but
the CSE did not produce any evidence to disprove
the charge as indicated in foregoing paras.
Findings
Considering oral, documentary and circumstances
evidence as discussed above article of charge as
given in Annexure I of the charge sheet is considered
proved beyond doubt.”
9. Now an exercise would be undertaken to see as to
whether punishment is proportionate to the misconduct of
the claimant. Before adverting to the exercise, it would be
expedient to have a glance on the power of the industrial
adjudicator in that regard. Prior to introduction of section
11A of the Act, adjudicatory powers of the Tribunal were
articulated in Buckingham & Carnatak Company (1951 (2)
LLJ 314). Four standards were delineated by the Labour
Appellate Tribunal in the above case to render managerial
right of taking disciplinary action vulnerable, namely, (i)
where there is a want of bonafides or (ii) when it is a case of
victimization or unfair labour practice or violation of the
principles of natural justice, or (iii) when there is basic error
of facts, or (iv) when there has been a perverse finding on
the materials. This articulation was adopted by the Apex
Court with slight modification in Indian Iron and Steel
Company Limited (1958 (1) LLJ 260), without any
acknowledgement to the precedent in Buckingham &
Carnatic case (supra), wherein it was ruled that the power
of the management to direct its own internal administration
and discipline was not unlimited and liable to be interfered
with by industrial adjudicator when a dispute arises to see
whether termination of services of a workman is justified
and to give appropriate relief. However, it was announced
that the jurisdiction of an Industrial Tribunal to interfere
with the managerial prerogative of taking disciplinary action
is not of appellate nature as the legislature has not chosen
to confer such jurisdiction upon it. Hence Tribunal could
not substitute its own judgement for that of the
management. The Court laid down that in the following
circumstances an industrial adjudicator can interfere with
the disciplinary action taken by the employer : (1) when
there is want of good faith, (2) when there was victimization
or unfair labour practice, (3) when the management had
been guilty of a basic error or violation of the principles of
natural justice, or (4) when on the materials, the finding
was completely baseless or perverse.
10.Enunciation (1) and (2), referred above, are
addressed to the bona-fides of the employer in initiating
the action and inflicting the punishment, while postulates
(3) and (4) are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore,
an employer is required to act bona-fide in initiating
disciplinary action as well as in inflicting the punishment.
In initiating the action, the alleged act of misconduct should
not be a ruse for something else, such as the trade union
activities of the workman or employers dislike of him for
some personal reasons. The action should not be motivated
by vindictiveness or ulterior purpose, so as to smack for
victimization or unfair labour practice. Likewise in the matter
of inflicting punishment, the employer should act fairly. In
case punishment awarded is so shockingly
disproportionate to the act of the misconduct, as no
reasonable man would ever impose that itself may lead to
an inference of malafides, victimization or unfair labour
practice. In holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must
comply with the rules of natural justice. He must not be a
biased person and give reasonable opportunity to both
sides for being heard. His findings should not be baseless
or perverse.
11.In Ramswarth Sinha (1954 L.A.C. 697) the Labour
Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management
to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal
to justify its action in a “no enquiry” case. Following that
proposition the Apex Court equated the cases of “defective
enquiry” with “no enquiry” cases and ruled that in either
cases, the Tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits
of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by
the parties. Reference can be made to the precedent in
Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1965 (2) LLJ 162] where
the employer had held no enquiry at all before the dismissal
and, therefore, adduced evidence to justify its action before
the Tribunal, which decision was upheld. The Apex Court
discarded the plea on behalf of the workman that since no
enquiry at all had been held by the employer, it had no right
to adduce evidence to justify its stand before the Tribunal.
In Ritz Theatre [1962 (II) LLJ 498] it was ruled by the Supreme
Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to the
merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of the
evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed been
made out. It announced that it would neither be fair to the
management nor fair to the workman himself in such a case
that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence and
thereby drive the management to pass through the whole
process of holding the enquiry all over again. Reference
can also be made to the precedent in Bharat Sugar Mills
Ltd. [1961 (11) LLJ 644].
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5745
12.In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company [1972
(1) LLJ 180], Apex Court considered the catena of decisions
over the subject and laid down the following principles:
“(1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the
management, or if the management makes it clear
that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that
may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightaway
adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its
action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that
evidence so adduced before it, on merits, and give a
decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary
for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the
domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not
rely on it.
(2) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to
the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry
held by it, in the first instance, and alternatively and
without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper
and binding, simultaneously adduce additional
evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In
such a case no inference can be drawn, without
anything more, that the management has given up
the enquiry conducted by it.
(3) When the management relies on the enquiry
conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces
evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to
its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is
the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to
consider whether the enquiry proceedings
conducted by the management, are valid and proper.
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry
proceedings have been held properly and are valid,
the question of considering the evidence adduced
before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only
when the holds that the enquiry proceedings have
not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to
deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case
it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by
the management and decide the matter on the basis
of such evidence.
(4) When the domestic enquiry has been held by the
management and the management relies on the same,
it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try
the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary
issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce
evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the
preliminary issue is against the management.
However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure
may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the
Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary
issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its
finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the
management, then no additional evidence need be
cited by the management. But, if the finding on the
preliminary issue is against the management, the
Tribunal will have to give the employer an
opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give
a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence
contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been
made by the management to the Tribunal during the
course of the proceedings and before the trial has
come to an end. When the preliminary issue is
decided against the management and the latter leads
evidence before the Tribunal, the position, under
such circumstances, will be, that the management is
deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the
domestic tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof
of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the
management will have to prove, by adducing proper
evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct
and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be
just and fair either to the management or to the
workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take
evidence and thereby ask the management to take a
further application, after holding a proper enquiry,
and deprive the workman of the benefit of the
Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced
before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged
misconduct.
(5) The management has got a right to attempt to
sustain its order by adducing independent evidence
before the Tribunal. But the management should
avail itself of the said opportunity by making a
suitable request to the Tribunal before the
proceedings are closed. If no such opportunity has
been available of, or asked for by the management,
before the proceedings are closed, the employer can
make no grievance that the Tribunal did not provide
such an opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it
only the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide
whether the proceedings have been held properly
and the findings recorded therein are also proper.
(6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry
and does not simultaneously lead additional
evidence or ask for an opportunity during the
pendency of the proceedings to adduce such
evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider
the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the
finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the
Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not
been held properly, it is not its function to invite suo
moto the employer to adduce evidence before it to
justify the action taken by it.
(7) The above principles apply to the proceedings
before the Tribunal, which have come before it either
on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an
application under Section 33 of the Act.
5746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13.Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex
Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (supra),
the Parliament inserted section 11-A in the Act, which came
into force w.e.f. 15th of December,1971. In the statement of
objects and reasons for inserting section 11-A, it was stated:
“In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and
Another Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at
p.138), the Supreme Court, while considering the
Tribunal’s power to interfere with the management’s
decision to dismiss, discharge or terminate the
services of a workman, has observed that in case of
dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not act
as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment
for that of the management and that the Tribunal will
interfere only when there is want of good faith,
victimization, unfair labour practice, etc., on the part
of the management.
2. The International Labour Organisation, in its
recommendation (No.119) concerning ‘Termination
of employment at the initiative of the employer’
adopted in June 1963, has recommended that a worker
aggrieved by the termination of his employment
should be entitled to appeal against the termination
among others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator,
a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body
and that the neutral body concerned should be
empowered to examine the reasons given in the
termination of employment and the other
circumstances relating to the case and to render a
decision on the justification of the termination. The
International Labour Organisation has further
recommended that the neutral body should be
empowered (if it finds that the termination of
employment was unjustified) to order that the worker
concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages,
should be paid adequate compensation or afforded
some other relief.
3. In accordance with these recommendations, it is
considered that the Tribunal’s power in an
adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or
dismissal of a workman should not be limited and
that the Tribunal should have the power, in cases
wherever necessary to set aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of
the workman on such terms and conditions, if any,
as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the
workman including the award of any lesser
punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the
circumstances of the case may require. For this
purpose, a new Section 11-A is proposed to be
inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947…….”.
14.After insertion of section 11-A, the Apex Court
summed up the law in the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber
Company [1973 (1) LLJ 278] in the following propositions:
“(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide
upon the quantum of punishment are mainly
managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a
Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the
employer is justified.
(2) Before imposing the punishment, as employer is
expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance
with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if
applicable, and principles of natural justice. The
enquiry should not be an empty formality.
(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an
employer, and the finding of misconduct is a plausible
conclusion flowing from the evidence, adduced at
the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
sit in judgement over the decision of the employer as
an appellate body. The interference with the decision
of the employer will be justified only when the
findings arrived at in the enquiry are perverse or the
management is guilty of victimization, unfair labour
practice or mala fide.
(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer
or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective,
the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality
and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity
to the employer and employee to adduce evidence
before it. It is open to the employer to adduce
evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it
is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.
(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry
is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only
whether there was a prima facie case. On the other
hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned
order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the
Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced
before it, has to decide for itself whether the
misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the
point about the exercise of managerial functions does
not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands
on the same footing as no enquiry.
(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the
evidence placed before it for the first time in
justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry
has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an
employer is found to be defective.
(7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal
should straightaway, without anything more, direct
reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee,
once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been
held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.
(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the
opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time
before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5747
for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity
is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse.
The giving of an opportunity to an employer to
adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal
is in the interest of both the management and the
employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be
satisfied about the alleged misconduct.
(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the
enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence
placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment
imposed cannot, be interfered with by the Tribunal
except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as
to suggest victimization.
(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order
of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated
or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The
Management of Panitole Tea Estate Vs. The workmen,
within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or
Tribunal”.
15. Jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is
also not confined to the case where punishment is
shockingly disproportionate to the act of the misconduct.
The Tribunal has power of substituting its own measure of
punishment in place of managerial wisdom. Change in legal
position, post introduction of section 11A of the Act has
been effectively summarized in the case of Ambassador
Sky Chef (1996 Lab. I.C. 299) wherein High Court of Bombay
observed that the section gives specifically two fold powers
to an industrial adjudicator : firstly, it is a virtual power of
appeal against the findings of fact made by the Enquiry
Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the
evidence and conclusion on facts, and secondly, and far
more important, it is the power of re-appraisal of quantum
of punishment. Now no restriction lies on an industrial
adjudicator to interfere with the enquiry only on four
grounds, referred above. However, wide discretionary
powers with the adjudicator are to be exercised in judicial
and judicious manner before it interferes with the order of
misconduct or punishment.
16. With this prelude in mind, now I would turn to
facts of the present controversy. As record projects, the
claimant attended the enquiry proceedings held on
03.10.2006, submitted a letter for engaging a defence
assistant and was also provided with copies of documents
proved by the Presenting Officer. However, he never turned
up again on subsequent dates. The Enquiry Officer, in the
light of the evidence put forward by the Institute, ocular as
well as documentary, and on consideration of circumstances
of the case, concluded that the charges against the claimant
stood proved. When preliminary issue was addressed to
for adjudication, aspects relating to bona-fides of the
Institute in initiating the domestic enquiry were considered.
It was taken into account as to whether the charges is
specific and clear. Care was taken to see as to whether the
Enquiry Officer followed principles of natural justice and
gave reasonable opportunity to the claimant to defend
himself. It was also considered as to whether the enquiry
report was in consonance with the evidence produced or
perverse. At the cost of repetition, it is announced that the
Institute acted bona-fide and there had been no violations
of principles of natural justice, in conduct of the domestic
enquiry.
17. Punishment of removal/termination from service
was awarded to the claimant. Question for consideration
would be as to whether there are any justifications for
punishment of removal/termination from service? Right of
an employer to inflict punishment of discharge or dismissal
is not unfettered. The punishment imposed must
commensurate with gravity of the misconduct, proved
against the delinquent workman. Prior to enactment of
section 11-A of the Act, it was not open to the industrial
adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding
that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not
commensurate with the act of misconduct. In other words,
the industrial adjudicator could not interfere with the
punishment as it was not required to consider propriety or
adequacy of punishment or whether it was excessive or
too severe. The Apex Court, in this connection, had,
however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee Coal Company
[1963(1) LLJ 291] that where order of punishment was
shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct
which no reasonable employer would impose in like
circumstances, that itself would lead to the inference of
victimization or unfair labour practice which would vitiate
order of dismissal or discharge. But by enacting the
provisions of section 11-A of the Act, the Legislature has
transferred the discretion of the employer, in imposing
punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the
satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally decide
the quantum of punishment for proved acts of misconduct,
in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the Tribunal is satisfied
that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in
any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power
not only to set aside order of punishment and direct
reinstatement with back wages, but it has also the power to
imposed certain conditions as it may deem fit and also to
give relief to the workman, including award of lesser
punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.
18. It is established law that imposing punishment
for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing
authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered
with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not
required to consider the propriety or adequacy of
punishment. But where the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate, regard being had to the particular conduct
and past record, or is such as no reasonable employer
would ever impose in like circumstance, the Tribunal may
treat the imposition of such punishment as itself showing
victimization or unfair labour practice. Law to this effect
5748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and
Engineering Company Labour [1965 (1) LLJ 462]. Likewise
in Management of the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industry [1971 (II) LLJ 630] the Apex Court
ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill
and had blown a trivial matter into one involving loss of
prestige and reputation and as such punishment of
dismissal was held to be unwarranted. In Ram Kishan
[1996 (1) LLJ 982] the delinquent employee was dismissed
from service for using abusive language against a superior
officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Apex Court held that the punishment of dismissal was
harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge
imputed to the delinquent. It was ruled therein, “when
abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it
must be understood in the environment in which that person
is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event
that led to the use of abusive language. No straight- jacket
formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the
abusive language in the given circumstances would
warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be
considered on its own facts”.
19. In B.M.Patil [1996 (11) LLJ 536], Justice Mohan
Kumar of Karnataka High court observed that in exercise
of discretion, the disciplinary authority should not act like
a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and
understanding. It was assess each case on its own merit
and each set of fact should be decided with reference to
the evidence recording the allegation, which should be
basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may
be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity
to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of
punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the
bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss
of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was
held that the punishment was too harsh and
disproportionate to the act of misconduct.
20. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the
jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with
the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed
by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act
of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the
misconduct is proved , it may still hold that the punishment
is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is
such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or
dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of
discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or
without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any
other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in
lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the
case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in
Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab. I.C.817). The discretion to award
punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or
dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal
can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment
imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to
the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be
made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar [1994 (II)
LLJ 332]. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now
jurisdiction and power of substituting its own measure of
punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is
satisfied that the order of discharge of dismissal is not
justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case,
Section 11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers
to the Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of
appeal against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer
in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence
and the conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost
importance, is the power of reappraisal of quantum of
punishment.
21.Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal
and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is
not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised
only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge
or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the
Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.
It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to
various circumstances like nature of delinquency committed
by the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency
on employer’s business, besides length of service rendered
by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether
the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only
after taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal
can upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The
quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without
recording specific findings on points referred above. No
indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of
grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of
employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference
cannot be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa
[1995 (1) LLJ 960].
22.As facts of the controversy project, the claimant
absented himself from his duties for a considerable long
period in an unauthorized manner. An employee is under
an obligation not to absent himself from work without good
cause. Absence without leave is misconduct in industrial
employment, warranting disciplinary punishment. Habitual
absence from duty without leave has been made a
misconduct under Model Standing Orders, framed under
Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946. Likewise,
industrial employers also include “absence from duty”,
without leave in the list of misconduct in their standing
orders. Sanction of leave can be a significant defence to
misconduct of absence without leave. No employee can
claim leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining
absent without leave will constitute violation of discipline.
The fact that the claimant was continuously absent from
work without leave, on account of his detention in jail for
an offence, will not give an immunity to the claimant and
the employer will be justified in discharging him from
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5749
services, announces the Apex Court in Burn & Company,
[1959 (1) L.L.J. 450].
23.In Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. [1958 (1)
L.L.J.260] the Apex Court was confronted with a proposition
as to whether provisions in the standing orders authorizing
the employer to terminate services of its employee on
account of absence without leave was an inflexible rule. In
that matter seven workmen were absent without leave for
14 consecutive days, as they were in police custody. During
police custody they applied for leave which were refused
by the company and services of the workmen were
terminated under relevant standing order for remaining
absent without leave. The Industrial Tribunal took a view
that the relevant standing order was not an inflexible rule
and mere application for leave was sufficient to arrest the
operation of the standing order. In appeal, though the
Labour Appellate Tribunal did not maintain the award of
the Tribunal on that count, yet it held that in view of the
circumstances that the workmen were in custody, the
company was not justified in refusing leave. When the
matter reached the Apex Court, it set aside the order of the
Labour Appellate Tribunal, relying its precedent in Burn &
Company Ltd. (supra) and ruled thus:—
“It is true that the arrested men were not in a position
to come to their work, because they had been arrested
by the police. This may be unfortunate for them, but
it would be unjust to hold that in such circumstances
the company must always give leave when an
application for leave is made. If a large number of
workmen are arrested by the authorities in charge of
law and order by raising of their questionable
activities in connection with a labour dispute (as in
this case), the work of the company will be paralysed
if the company is forced to give leave to all of them
for more or less indefinite period. Such a principle
will not be just, nor will it restore harmony between
labour and capital or ensure normal flow of
production. It is immaterial whether the charges on
which the workmen are arrested by the police are
ultimately proved or not in a court of law. The
company must carry on its work and may find it
impossible to do so if a large number of workmen are
absent. Whether in such circumstances leave should
be granted or not must be left to the discretion of the
employer. It may be rightly accepted that if the
workmen are arrested at the instance of the company
for the purpose of victimization and in order to get
rid of them on the ostensible pretext of continued
absence, the position will be different. It will then be
a colorable or malafide exercise of power under the
relevant standing order, that however, is not the case
here.”
24. Defence open to an employee, against charge of
absence without leave, is that the absence was on account
of circumstances beyond his control. For instance, where
absence of a workman was on account of his sudden or
serious illness or serious illness of a relation that would be
an extenuating circumstance which the employer will have
to take into consideration. However, if a workman feigns
sickness in order to avoid duty by producing a false medical
certificate, this would itself be a serious act of misconduct.
In Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd., [1990
(1) LLJ 403] the Patna High Court was addressed to a
proposition where workman absented himself without leave
or permission for a considerable period. After about
20 days of his absence, a memo and charge sheet was
issued, notifying that a domestic enquiry would be held in
the matter. The workman failed to appear in a domestic
enquiry and the Enquiry Officer conducted the proceedings
ex-parte. On consideration of the report of the Enquiry
Officer, the Disciplinary Authority discharged him from
service. Later on workman informed the management that
he was arrested by the police in connection with a murder
case and requested to allow him to join duty. On refusal,
an industrial dispute was raised. A High Court placed
reliance on the precedent in Indian Iron & Steel Company
(supra) and Burn & Company (supra) and ruled that the
discharge of the workman was valid and justified for
continuous absence without permission or leave.
25. Absence without leave constitutes a misconduct
justifying disciplinary action against the delinquent
workman. Punishment can only be imposed either by
complying with the procedure prescribed by the standing
orders of the establishment, if any, or the rules of natural
justice. Normally punishment should be inflicted after the
workman has been found guilty of the misconduct, after
holding a domestic enquiry. Reference can be made to
Mufatlal Narain Dass Barot [1966 (1) LLJ 437] and Kalika
Prasad Srivastava (1987 Lab.I.C. 307). Quantum of
punishment in case of misconduct for absence from duty
without leave would depend upon the facts of each case.
In order to justify the extreme penalty of discharge or
dismissal, it is to be proved that the workman remained
absent without leave for an inordinate long period. In
Bokaro Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2007 L.L.R.
238) removal of workman from service who remained
unauthorisedly absent for a period of three months was
held to be justified. In Sushil Kumar (2007 L.L.R. 45) it was
ruled that absence, which is continuous for a long period,
amounts to serious misconduct to justify dismissal from
service. In Borman (2003 L.L.R. 364) 62 days absence of
workman was held to be justified for his dismissal from
service.
26. Now, question for consideration would be as to
what punishment would be appropriate to the misconduct,
committed by the claimant. An employee is under an
obligation not to absent himself from work place without
good cause. Absence without leave is misconduct in
industrial employment warranting disciplinary punishment.
5750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Habitual absence from duty without leave has also been
made misconduct under CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. When
an employee absents himself, he must have applied for and
obtained leave from the employer. No employee can claim
leave of absence as a matter of right and remaining absent
without leave will constitute violation of discipline.
Quantum of punishment for such cases would depend upon
facts of each case. In order to justify extreme penalty of
discharge or dismissal it is to be proved that the employee
remained absent without leave for an inordinate long period
or has habituated to absent himself from duty. Here in the
case the Institute has been able to project that the claimant
remained absent for more than six and half months, without
moving any application for leave. When letter dated
27.4.2006 was sent, advising him to join duties, he opted
not to respond to it. Show cause notice dated 29.5.2006
was also not replied by him. He opted note to make a written
statement of his defence, when charge-sheet was served
upon him. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer on first
date of hearing and thereafter abstained from the enquiry
proceedings. He never explained reasons for his absence
from duties. All these facts make it clear that his absence
from duties was without any justification. Such an employee
has no right to remain in service. Hence punishment,
awarded to the claimant is found to be proportionate to his
misconduct. Issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the
Institute and against the claimant. His removal from service
would be justified, on account of his inordinate long
absence without leave.
Issue No. 3
27.In view of the foregoing discussion it is evident
that removal/termination from service of the claimant, on
account of his long unauthorized absence, is found to be
in consonance with law and principles of natural justice.
The claimant is not entitled to any relief. His claim statement
is liable to be discarded, being devoid of merits.
Consequently his claim statement is discarded. An award
is passed against the claimant and in favour of the Institute.
It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 12-7-2013
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2127-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsØsVjh] bULVhV~;wV
vkWQ pkVZMZ vdkamVsaV~l vkWQ bf.M;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 ua-&2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 28-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@73@1999&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]
lkse ukFk] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th August, 2013
S.O. 2127.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial dispute between The Secretary, Institute of
Chartered Accountants of India and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 23.08.2013.
[No. L-42011/73/1999-IR(DU)]
SOM NATH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 57/2011
Sh.Pradeep Singh Rawat,
R/o D-1, 83, Gali No.8,
Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi - 110092, and nine others.
....Applicants
Versus
The Secretary,
Institute of Chartered Accountants of India,
Indraprastha Marg,
New Delhi - 110092.
....Respondent
AWARD
Manpower was outsourced by Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India (in short the Institute) for doing jobs
of Lower Division Clerks and Peons. Services of Always
Placement Agency (in short the contractor) were taken by
the Institute for outsourcing manpower. Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat, Ms. Anita Rawat, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta,
Shri Bhagabata Rout, Shri Suresh Chand, Shri Chander
Prakash Mehra, Shri Dilwan Singh, Shri Trilok Chand and
Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari were sent by the contractor
to the Institute to work as Lower Division Clerks, besides
Shri Gautam Kumar, who was sent to work as peon. They
worked with the Institute for a considerable period. Their
services were dispensed with from 31.07.1997. The contract
employees approached High Court of Delhi by way of Writ
Petition No.5597 of 1997 seeking reinstatement in service
of the Institute. Writ petition was dismissed by High Court
with liberty to the contract employees to approach
authorities under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short
the Act) for redressal of their grievance. Thereafter, the
contract employees approached the Conciliation Officer.
Since their claim was contested by the Institute, conciliation
proceedings ended into failure. On consideration of failure
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5751
report submitted by the Conciliation officer, the appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication, vide order No. L-42011/73/99-IR(DU),
New Delhi dated 27.01.2000 with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of the
Secretary, Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India, New Delhi, in verbally stopping from services
of Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat, LDC with effect from
30.06.1997 and nine other workmen Ms. Anita Rawat,
LDC, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, LDC, Shri Bhagabata
Rout, LDC, Shri Suresh Chand, LDC, Shri Chander
Prakesh Mehra, LDC, Shri Dilwan Singh, LDC,
Shri Trilok Chand, LDC, Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari,
LDC and Shri Gautam Kumar, Peon with effect from
31.07.1997 instead of regularizing their services is
valid, legal and justified? If not, to what relief they
are entitled?"
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat, Ms. Anita Rawat, Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta,
Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari, Shri Trilok Chand and Shri
Suresh Chand pleading therein that the Institute is a
professional body of Chartered Accounts, which has been
formed with the objective of regulating the profession of
Chartered Accountants. It lays down standards of
education for Chartered Accounts and regulates the code
of conduct for them. The Institute has been constituted
under the statute, enacted by the Parliament. The Central
Government has power to direct alteration to be made and
overrule regulations made by the Institute from time to
time. As such, the Central Government has overall control
over the Institute.
3. It has been pleaded that the Institute is their
employer, which exploited them by not giving benefits of
regular employee. Claimants were treated by the Institute
as daily wage labours. Though they have worked for
periods ranging from 1-4 years, yet their services were not
regularized. It has been claimed that Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat joined services of the Institute on 23.02.1993 as Lower
Division Clerk on daily wages. He was selected by the
Institute after holding interview. He rendered continuous
service with some artificial breaks. He completed 240 days
continuous service in every calendar year. He made a
request for regularization of his job. However, his services
were arbitrarily dispensed with on 30.06.1997, without
assigning any reason. His entry inside the Institute was
stopped.
4. Ms. Anita Rawat joined services of the Institute in
March, 1996 as Lower Division Clerk. She also performed
continuous service with some artificial breaks. Her services
were dispensed with in July, 1997. No opportunity of being
heard was granted to her. Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta joined
services in 1994 as Lower Division Clerk. Except for some
artificial breaks, he had also rendered continuous service
with the Institute. He performed more than 240 days
continuous service, required for regularization of his job.
However, his entry was abruptly stopped inside the premise
on 31.07.1997.
5. In February 1995, Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari
joined the Institute as an LDC. He had also rendered
continuous service with some artificial breaks. Services
required for regularization of his job was also rendered by
him. He was made to leave the job on 04.03.1997.
Shri Trilok Chand joined the Institute in May, 1996. He
also completed 240 days continuous service, required for
regularization of his job. However, some artificial breaks
were given by the Institute. He was also made to leave on
31.07.1997 in an illegal manner. Shri Suresh Chand joined
services of the Institute in January, 1995 as a Lower Division
Clerk. Continuous service of 240 days was rendered by
him. However some artificial breaks in his service were
given by the Institute. He was also bade farewell on
31.07.1997 in an illegal manner.
6. Claimants plead that except Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat, they were engaged by the Institute through the
contractor. The contractor used to charge his fee for
providing employment to the Institute. Claimants used to
mark their attendance in a register kept by the Institute.
The contractor changed from time to time but they
continued to work for the Institute. They used to work
under control and supervision of the Institute, who used
to pay their wages. Action of termination of their services
is unjustified. They claim that an award may be passed in
their favour, reinstating them in service with continuity
with full back wages, besides regularization of their services
with the Institute.
7. Claim was demurred by the Institute pleading that
the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute,
since the appropriate Government is the State Government.
Since the claimants were engaged by the contractor, hence
no relationship of employer and employee ever existed
between them and the Institute. Contractor has not been
added in arrays of respondents and as such, claim is bad
for non-joinder of parties. Though the reference projects
that there were ten claimants, yet claim statement has been
filed on behalf of six claimants only. The Institute projects
that no dispute award may be passed against remaining
four claimants.
8. The Institute projects that the claimants were never
engaged by it. They were engaged by the contractor(s)
and as such they have no claim for reinstatement or
regularization in service against the Institute. It has been
disputed that Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat joined services of
the Institute on 23.02.1993. He was never selected by the
Institute for rendering his services, as claimed by him. He
was not in continuous service of the Institute with artificial
breaks. Since he was engaged by the contractor, payment
of his wages and provisions relating to other facilities were
areas between him and the contractor. Entire records, relating
5752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to his engagement, is in possession of the contractor. It
has been disputed that his services were illegally dispensed
with effect from 30.06.1997 or 31.07.1997. The Institute
disputes that Shri Rawat rendered continuous service of
240 days, as alleged by him.
9. Claim to this effect that Ms. Anita Rawat joined
services with the Institute has been disputed. It has been
claimed that she was also an employee of the contractor.
There was no occasion for her to render continuous service
of 240 days with the Institute from March, 1996 to
July, 1997. It has been disputed that her services were
illegally dispensed with by the Institute, as alleged in the
claim statement. Denial has been made to the effect that
Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta joined services of the Institute
in 1994. The Institute disputes that he has been
continuously served for 240 days, with some artificial
breaks. Being his employer, records relating to number of
days for which he worked and salary etc. may be available
with the contractor. His services were not dispensed with
by the Institute on 31.07.1997, as claimed.
10. Misconceived claim has been presented to the
effect that Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari joined services of
the Institute in February, 1995. He was never employed by
the Institute, hence there cannot be any question of his
rendering continuous service of more than 240 days in a
calendar year. there was no occasion for the Institute to
give artificial breaks in his service. Being employee of the
contractor, his service record is not in possession of the
Institute. Wrong claim has been made that his services
were illegally dispensed with by the Institute. Joining of
service in May, 1996 by Shri Trilok Chand is wrong assertion
of facts, pleads the institute. He was an employee of the
contractor. Hence there was no case for him to render
continuous service for 240 days with the Institute.
Allegations to the effect that artificial breaks were given in
his service, are false. The Institute has no concern with
termination of his services, effected by the contractor.
11. Claim to the effect that Suresh Chand joined
services of the Institute in January, 1995 is false. There was
no occasion for him to render continuous service of 240
days, despite artificial breaks. His services were dispensed
with by the contractor, who was his employer. The Institute
has no role to play in the matter. It has been projected that
the claim put forth by him is also misconceived. Since there
was no relationship of employer and employee between
the parties to the dispute, the Institute is not aware about
any arrangement between the contractor and the claimants.
Claimants were never paid any wages by the Institute. It
does not lie in their mouth to assert that they are entitled to
be regularized in the services of the Institute. Claim
presented by them is liable to be dismissed, being devoid
of merits.
12. On pleadings of the parties, followings issues
were settled by my learned predecessor:
(1)
Whether there exists any relationship of
employer and employee between the claimants
and the management?
(2)
As in terms of reference.
13. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007/IR(C-II), New Delhi,
dated 11.2.2008 the case was transferred by the appropriate
Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II,
New Delhi, for adjudication. Vide order No. Z-22019/6/2007-
IR (C-II), New Delhi, dated 30.3.2011, the case was
re-transferred to this Tribunal for adjudication, by the
appropriate Government for adjudication.
14. Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat (WW1), Shri Kundan
Singh Bhandari (WW2), Shri Ashok Sajhwan (WW3),
Shri D.S. Bhisht (WW4) were examined on behalf of the
claimants. Shri K. Tulsiani entered the witness box to testify
facts on behalf of the Institute.
15. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S.S. Lingwal,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the claimants. Shri Rakesh Aggarwal, authorised
representative, raised submissions on behalf of the Institute.
I have given my careful considerations to the arguments
advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:—
16. At the outset, an incidental question was raised
by Shri Aggarwal to the effect that the appropriate
Government was the State Government. He presents that
since Central Government was not concerned with the
dispute hence it has no power to refer it for adjudication.
Claim has been made that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to
articulate the dispute, since the appropriate Government is
the State Government. Shri Lingwal dispels submissions
made by Shri Aggarwal.
17. For an answer to the above question, the term
'appropriate Government' is to be considered. Appropriate
Government has been defined by clause (a) of section 2 of
the Act, which definition is extracted thus:
"2(a) "appropriate Government" means —
(i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning
any industry carried on by or under the authority
of the Central Government or by a railway
company or concerning any such controlled
industry as may be specified in this behalf by the
Central Government or in relation to an industrial
dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board
established under section 5A of the Dock Workers
(Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948),
or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India
Limited formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956) or the Employees'
State Insurance Corporation established under
section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5753
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or the Board of Trustees
and the State Board of Trustees section 5A and
section 5B, respectively, of the Employees'
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or the Life Insurance
Corporation of India established under section 3
of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 (31of
1956), or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956
(1 of 1956), or the Deposit Insurance and Credit
Guarantee Corporation established under section 3
of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or the Central
Warehousing Corporation established under
section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations
Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or the Unit Trust of India
established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of
India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food
Corporation of India established under section 3,
or a Board of Management established for two or
more contiguous States under section 16, of the
Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or the
Airports Authority of India constituted under
section 3 of the Airports Authority of India
Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or a Regional Rural Bank
established under section 3 of the Regional Rural
Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit
and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the
Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India
Limited, the National Housing Bank established
under section 3 of the National Housing Bank
Act, 1987 (53 of 1987) or the Banking Service
Commission Act 1975 or an air transport service,
or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an
oil field, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, an
company in which not less than fifty one per cent
of the paid up share capital is held by the Central
Government, or any Corporation, not being a
Corporation referred to in this clause, established
by or under any law made by Parliament, or the
Central public sector undertaking, subsidiary
companies set up by the principal undertaking
and autonomous bodies owned or controlled by
the Central Government, the Central Government,
and
(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute, the State
public sector undertaking, subsidiary companies
set up by the principal undertaking and
autonomous bodies owned or controlled by the
State Government, the State Government :
Provided that in case of a dispute between a
contractor and the contract labour employed through the
contractor in any industrial establishment where such
dispute first arose, the appropriate Government shall be
the Central Government or the Stated Government, as the
case may be, which has control over such industrial
establishment.
18. In relation to an industrial dispute, appropriate
Government can either mean the Central Government or
the State Government. The Central Government has been
defined under section 3(8) and the State Government under
section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In relation
to an industrial dispute concerning—
1.
an industry carried on or under the authority of
the Central Government, or a railway company
or
2.
an such controlled industry as may be specified
in this behalf by the Central Government, or
3.
a Dock Labour Board established under section
5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act, 1948 (9 of 1948), or
4.
the Industrial Finance Corporation of India
Limited formed and registered under the
Companies Act, 1956, or
5.
the Employees' State Insurance Corporation
established under section 3 of the Employees'
State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), or
6.
the Board of Trustees constituted under section
3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 ( 46 of
1948), or
7.
the Central Board of Trustees and the State
Boards of Trustees constituted under section
5A and section 5B, respectively, of the
Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or
8.
the Life Insurance Corporation of India
established under section 3 of the Life Insurance
Corporation Act, 1956 (31 of 1956), or
9.
the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited
registered under the Companies Act, 1956, or
10. the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation established under section 3 of the
Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee
Corporation Act, 1961 (47 of 1961), or
11. the Central Warehousing Corporation
established under section 3 of the Warehousing
Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962), or
12. the Unit Trust of India established under section 3
of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963),
or
13. the Food Corporation of India established under
section 3 of the Food Corporation Act, 1964 (37
of 1964), or
5754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
14. a Board of Management established for two or
more contiguous States under section 16 of the
Food Corporations Act, 1964 (37 of 1964), or
15. the Airports Authority of India constituted
under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India
Act, 1994 (55 of 1994), or
16. a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3
of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of
1976), or
17. the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation
Limited, or
18. the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India
Limited, or
19. the National Housing Bank established under
section 3 of the National Housing Bank
Act, 1987 (53 of 1987), or
20. an air transport service, or
21. a banking company, or
22. an insurance company, or
23. a mine, or
24. an oil-field, or
25. a Cantonment Board, or
26. a "major port, or
27. any company in which not less than fifty-one
per cent of the paid-up share capital is held by
the Central Government, or
28. any corporation, not being a corporation
referred to in this clause, established by or under
any law made by Parliament, or
29. the Central public sector undertaking, or
30. subsidiary companies set up by the principal
undertaking and autonomous bodies owned or
controlled by the Central Government, the
appropriate Government would mean the Central
Government".
19. In relation to an industrial dispute appropriate
Government can either mean Central Government or State
Government. In relation to any industrial dispute, other
than those specified in sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of section 2
of the Act, appropriate Government would be State
Government. In other words, all industrial disputes which
are outside the purview of sub-clause (i) are concern of the
State Government under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of
Section 2 of the Act. Thus, the general rule is that an
industrial dispute raised between employer and his
employee would be referred for adjudication by the State
Government, except in cases falling under section 2(a)(i) of
the Act. Consequently, where industrial dispute which does
not fall within the ambit of section 2(a)(i) of the Act,
appropriate Government cannot be the Central Government.
20. Now, it would be ascertained as to whether the
Institute falls within the ambit of section 2(a)(i) of the Act
so that the Central Government may exercise functions of
the appropriate Government in the controversy. For an
answer to this proposition, it would be taken note of as to
whether the Institute is an industry carried on or under the
authority of the Central Government or a controlled industry
as specified in this behalf by the Central Government. For
an industry to be carried on under the authority of the
Central Government, it is to be shown that the industry
belongs to the Central Government. The expression 'carried
on by or under the authority of the Central Government'
involves direct nexus with the industry through servants
or agents of the Central Government. It is to be brought
over the record that industry is being carried on pursuant
to the authority of the Central Government. For that
purpose, it should be an industry carried on directly by the
Central Government.
21. Provisions of Chartered Accountants Act, 1949
are to be looked into to ascertain as to whether activities of
the Institute are being carried on directly by the Central
Government. As provisions of the aforesaid Act highlights,
the Act was enacted by the Parliament to make provisions
for regulation of profession of Chartered Accounts and for
that purpose to establish the Institute. As section 3 of the
said Act speaks, that the Institute is a body corporate which
has perpetual succession and common seal. It has powers
to acquire, hold and dispose off property, both movable as
well as immovable and shall be by its name sue or be sued.
Members of the Institute shall be divided into two classes,
designated as associates and fellows, who shall be know
as Chartered Accountants. Functions of the Institute shall
be discharged by a Council composed of not more than
30 members, out of whom six shall be nominated by the
Central Government. Members other than the nominated
members shall be elected by the members of the Instituted
from amongst fellows in such a manner and from such
regional constituencies as may be specified by the Central
Government. The Council, at first meeting, shall elect its
President and Vice President. The President shall be the
Chief Executive authority of the Council. President or the
Vice President shall hold office for a period of one year and
shall be eligible for re-election.
22. Section 15 of the aforesaid Act enacts that duty
to carry out provisions of the Act shall vest in the Council.
Sub-section (1) of the said section stipulates that duty to
carry out provisions of the Act shall be vested in the
Council. Sub-section (2) enlists duties of the Council, which
are detailed as follows:
"(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing powers, the duties of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5755
Council shall include —
(a) the examination of candidates for enrolment and
the prescribing of fees therefor;
(b) the regulation of the engagement and training
of articled and audit assistants;
(c) the prescribing of qualifications for entry in the
Register;
(d) the recognition of foreign qualifications and
training for the purposes of enrolment;
(e) the granting or refusal of certificates of practice
under this Act;
(f)
the maintenance and publication of a Register
of persons qualified to practice as chartered
accountants;
(g) the levy and collection of fees from members,
examinees and other persons;
(h) the removal of names from the Register and the
restoration to the Register of names which have
been removed;
(i)
the regulation and maintenance of the status
and standard of professional qualifications of
members of the Institute;
(j)
the carrying out, by granting financial assistance
to persons other than members of the Council
or in any other manner of research in
accountancy;
(k) the maintenance of a library and publication of
books and periodicals relating to accountancy;
(l)
the exercise of disciplinary powers conferred by
this Act.
23. The Council shall constitute, from amongst its
members, standing committees, namely, (1) Executive
Committee (ii) Examination Committee, and (iii) Disciplinary
Committee. A fund shall established, under the management
and control of the Council. The Council shall keep accounts
of all the funds, may invest any money or fund in any
Government security or may borrow funds from scheduled
banks, as defined by Reserve Bank of India. The Council
may remove name of any member from the register of the
Institute, as enacted by section 20 of the said Act. On a
complaint made to the Council, the Disciplinary Committee
may initiate action against a member when he commits
professional misconduct. Appeal against order passed
under sub-section (4) of section 21 relating to his reprimand
or removal of name from the register, may be made to the
High Court.
24. The Council may make regulation for the purpose
of carrying out objects in the said Act. Thus regulations
may provide for all or any of the following matters:
"In particular, and without prejudice to the generality
of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide
for all or any of the following matters:—
(a) the standard and conduct of examinations under
this Act;
(b) the qualifications for the entry of the name of
any person in the register as a member of the
Institute;
(c) the conditions under which any examination or
training may be treated as equivalent to the
examination and training prescribed for members
of the Institute;
(d) the conditions under which any foreign
qualification may be recognized;
(e) the manner in which and the conditions subject
to which applications for entry in the Register
may be made;
(f)
the fees payable for membership of the Institute
and the annual fees payable by associates and
fellows of the Institute in respect of their
certificates;
(g) the manner in which elections to the Council
and the Regional Councils may be held;
(h) the particulars to be entered in the Register;
(i)
the functions of Regional Councils;
(j)
the training of articled and audit clerks, the
fixation of limits within which premia may be
charged from articled clerks and the cancellation
of articles and termination of audit service for
misconduct or for any other sufficient cause;.
(k) the regulation and maintenance of the status
and standard of professional qualifications of
members of the Institute;
(l)
the carrying out of research in accountancy;
(m) the maintenance of a library and publication of
books and periodicals on accountancy;
(n) the management of the property of the Council
and the maintenance and audit of its accounts;
(o) the summoning and holding of meetings of the
Council, the times and places of such meetings,
the conduct of business thereat and the number
of members necessary to form a quorum;
(p) the powers, duties and functions of the
President and the Vice- President of the Council;
(q) the functions of the standing and other
committees and the conditions subject to which
such functions shall be discharged;
5756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(r)
the terms of office, and the powers, duties and
functions of the Secretary and other officers and
servants of the Council;
(s) the exercise of disciplinary powers conferred by
this Act; and
(t)
any other matter which is required to be or may
be prescribed under this Act."
25. Section 30-A of the said Act empowers the Central
Government to direct the council to make any regulation or
to amend or revoke any regulation already made. When
the Council fails to make a regulation or amend or revoke a
regulation already made, the Central Government is
empowered to amend or revoke such regulations.
Regulations made are to be laid before each House of
Parliament, as enacted by section 30-B of the said Act.
26. In the light of the above facts, it would be
ascertained as to whether the Institute acts under directions
or control of the Central Government. At the cost of
repetition, it is pointed out that only 6 members are
nominated to the Council by the Central Government, while
24 members are to be elected by the members from amongst
themselves. The Council elects its President and the Vice
President. 6 nominated members themselves cannot take
decisive role to elect President or Vice President. Thus, it is
evident that constitution of the Council or election of
President and the Vice President are not directed or
regulated directly by the Central Government.
27. Power of the Central Government to direct the
Council to make any regulation or amend or revoke such
regulation, already made, would not highlight that the
Central Government has complete control over the Council.
These reasons persuade me to comment that it has not
been brought over the record that activities of the Institute
are being carried on directly by the Central Government. It
would be wrong to conclude that the Institute is an industry
carried on or under the authority of the Central Government.
28. However, there is other facet of the coin. As the
aforesaid Act declares, the Institute is a body corporate
having perpetual succession and common seal. It has
power to acquire, hold and dispose off property, both
movable and immovable and shall by its name sue or be
sued. A corporation aggregate has been defined as a
collection of individuals united into one body under a
special denomination, having perpetual succession under
an artificial form, and vested by the policy of law with the
capacity of acting in several respects as an individual,
particularly of taking and granting property, of contracting
obligations and of suing and being sued of enjoying
previleges and immunities in common, and of exercising a
variety of political rights, more or less extensive, according
to the decision of its institutions or the powers conferred
upon it, either at the time of its creation or at any subsequent
period of its existence. See Halsbury's Law of England (3rd
Edition, Vol. 9, pp. 4). As detailed above, all these attributes
are therein the Institute. The Institute acts as an
independent organization, established by the aforesaid Act.
Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Institute answers all
characteristics of a corporation, which has been established
under the aforesaid Act, enacted by the Parliament. This
brings it to the light of the day that the Institute is a
corporation established by law made by the Parliament
and in respect of it, appropriate Government is the Central
Government. Resultantly, it is announced that the objection
taken by the Institute that the appropriate Government is
the State Government is uncalled for.
29. Assuming, though not admitting, that the Central
Government is not the appropriate Government for the
dispute under reference, in such a situation question would
be as to who shall be the appropriate Government for the
dispute? Answer has been provided in clause (a)(ii) of
section 2 of the Act, which contemplates that in relation to
any other industrial dispute the State Government is the
appropriate Government. However, this Tribunal is not
oblivious of the proposition that Union Territory of Delhi
enjoins a special status under the Constitution. Delhi is a
Union Territory having some special provisions with
respect to its administration. Article 239 of the Constitution
speaks that every Union Territory shall be administered by
the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through
an administrator to be appointed by him with such
designation as he may specify. Article 239AA makes special
provisions with respect to Delhi, detailing therein that the
Union Territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital
Territory of Delhi and the administrator thereof appointed
in article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor.
There shall be Legislative Assembly, and provisions of
article 324 to 327 and 329 shall apply in relation the
Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of
Delhi as they apply in relation to a State. The Legislative
Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or
any part of the National Capital Territory with respect to
the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent
List except the matters with respect to entries 1, 2 and 18 of
the State List and entries 64, 65 and 66 of that list, in so for
they relate to the said entries 1, 2 and 18. The Council of
Ministers shall be headed by the Chief Minister to aid and
advise the Lt. Governor in exercise of his functions in
relation of the matters with respect to which the Legislative
Assembly has power to make laws. In case difference of
opinion between Lt. Governor and his ministers on any
matter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the President for
decision and act according to the decision given thereon
by the President and pending such decision the Lt.
Governor is competent to take action in urgent matters.
The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the President
and Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the
advise of the Chief Minister. Therefore, it is evident that
though a Legislative Assembly is there in National Capital
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5757
Territory of Delhi, yet it is a union territory administered by
the President through the Administrator appointed by him.
In case of difference of opinion between the Administrator
and the Ministers, it is the decision of the President that
prevails. Consequently the State Government merges with
the Centre when Lt. Governor administer the Union
Territory or in case of difference of opinion the President
decides the issue.
30. High Court of Delhi was confronted with such a
proposition in M.K. Jain (1981 Lab. I.C.62) wherein it was
laid as follows:
"The award was sought to be voided, inter alia, on
the ground that by virtue of the constitution and
composition of the Corporation, Central Government
was the only authority competent to make a reference
of the dispute to the Industrial Court and that the
reference by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was,
therefore, in excess of powers. Even otherwise no
exception could be taken to the order of reference,
even if it be assumed that Central Government was
the appropriate Government, in as much as the
distinction between the Central and the State
Government in relation to the Union Territory in our
constitutional framework is rendered illusory, Union
Territory is administered by the President of India
under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, acting
to such extent as he thinks fit. Therefore the
Administrator, to be appointed by him, in the case of
Union Territory, there is an amalgamation of the
constitutional classification of legislative and
executive powers between the Centre and the States.
According to section 3(60) of the General Clauses
Act, the "Central Government "in relation to the
administration of Union Territory means the
Administrator acting within the scope of authority
given to him under article 239 of the Constitution of
India and in terms of section 3(60) of the General
Clauses Act, "State Government" as respects
anything done or to be done in the Union Territory
means the Central Government. In the case of Union
Territory, therefore, the Central and State
Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an
order of reference is made by one or the other. This
contention must, therefore, fail".
31. Again in Mahavir [97 (2002) DLT 922] the High
Court was confronted with the same proposition. Relying
the precedent in M.K. Jain (supra) with profit it was ruled
that reference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi
was not bad despite the fact that appropriate Government
was the Central Government. Difference of State
Government and Central Government goes to the brink of
abolition when State Government has been defined as the
Central Government by clause (60) of section 3 of the
General Clauses Act and Delhi is being administered by
the President through the Administrator appointed by him.
Therefore, the aforesaid precedents make it clear that a
status of Union Territory of Delhi can be termed as Central
Government in certain matters. In such a situation, reference
of the dispute made by the Central Government would not
make any difference. Objections raised by the Institute is
to be discarded on this count too. Resultantly, it is
concluded that the Central Government was the appropriate
Government, competent to make a reference of the dispute
to this Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly invoked its
jurisdiction under sub-section (4) of section 10 of the Act
to adjudicate it.
Issue No.1
32. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,
Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat unfolds that he joined the Institute
as Lower Division Clerk on 23.02.1993. He was selected by
the Institute after holding an interview. He was in
continuous service of the Institute. His attendance was
being recorded in an attendance register maintained by the
Institute. During the course of cross examination, he
concedes that no interview letter was issued in his favour
by the Institute. He further admits that there is no
documents in his possession to show that his salary was
ever paid by the Institute. However, he disputes the
proposition that he was engaged by the contractor. Shri
Kundan Singh Bhandari concedes in his affidavit Ex.WW2/A
that he was employed as Lower Division Clerk by the
contractor. He also makes a candid admission that his
wages were paid to him by the contractor.
33. Shri Tulsiani details in his affidavit Ex.MW1/A
that the claimants were engaged by the contractor. The
contractors used to pay their wages. There was no
relationship of employer and employee between the
claimants and the Institute. Contractor was outsourcing
manpower for the Institute since 1993-94.
34. When facts unfolded by Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat, Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari and Shri Tulsiani are
appreciated, it came to light that the claimants depose that
they were employees of the Institute. However Shri Rawat
admits that there was no document in his possession to
project that his wages were ever paid to him by the Institute.
Shri Bhandari makes an admission to the effect that he was
engaged by the contractor. He also does not dispute that
his wages were paid to him by the contractor. To
substantiate the claim put forth by the Institute, Shri
Tulsiani presents that claimants were employees of the
contractor, who used to pay their wages.
35. Question for consideration would be as to how
relationship of employer and employee is created? For an
answer to this proposition, it is to be taken note of as to
how a contract of service is entered into. The relationship
of employer and employee is constituted by a contract,
express or implied between employer and employee. A
5758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to
serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the
scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment
may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that
such a contract was intended although never expressed
and when there has, in fact, been employment of the kind
usually performed by the employees. Any such inference,
however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation
between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing
or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of
a limited company which employed no staff. While the
employee, at the time, when his services were engaged,
need not have known the identity of his employer, there
must have been some act or contract by which the parties
recognized one another as master or servant.
36. Whether claimants could establish above
parameters? As detailed above, ocular facts are brought
over the record to establish that the claimants were engaged
by the Institute. Shri Bhandari admits his engagement by
the contractor. However ample evidence came over the
record to conclude that the contractor acted as an agent of
the Institute in that regard. Shri Rawat claims that he was
enaged by the Institute, which testimony remained
uncorroborated since no appointment letter or wage slip
was produced by this witness. On the other hand Shri
Tulsiani asserts that they were employed by the contractor
to whom work of supply of manpower was awarded by the
Institute.
37. Shri Tulsiani, highlights that there was no written
agreement between the contractor and the Institute.
According to him, contractor used to provide 25-30
employees to the Institute in pursuance of oral agreement
between the parties. In such a situation, the Tribunal had
to examine the ocular facts deposed by the parties to
ascertain as to whether the parole agreement was genuine
one. When facts unfolded by Shri Tulsiani are scanned, it
came to my notice that he concedes that attendance register
Ex.WW1/1 contains names of regular employees of the
Institute, besides the daily wagers. When Ex.WW1/1 is
perused, it emerged that names of the claimants are also
recorded therein besides regular employees of the Institute.
Ex.WW1/1 is an attendance register, which document
purports to have been maintained by the Institute.
Attendance of the claimants were recorded by the Institute
to keep not only record of their presence at place of work
but to exercise control over them. When their names were
entered in the register, alongwith the regular employees,
the Institute attempted to exercise administrative control
over them.
38. There is a candid admission by Shri Tulsiani to
the effect that the employees sent by the contractor were
interviewed by the Institute. He further concedes that
educational qualifications of these employees were
scrutinized by the Institute and thereafter, they were
engaged on job. From these facts, it creeps over the record
that the contractor had sent a few persons to the Institute,
whose suitability and eligibility were assessed by the
Institute before engaging them on job. It was the Institute
who had interviewed them and on being satisfied about
their eligibility to perform the job, they were engaged. Their
educational qualifications were also scanned. Procedure
adopted by the Institute was analogous of recruitment of
an employee. Consequently, I am of the considered view
that the contractor acted as an agent, when he sent certain
persons to the Institute and the Institute examined their
eligibility and suitability as an employer. Thus, it is apparent
that the claimants were engaged/appointed by the Institute
and not by the contractor.
40. Ex.WW1/2 is an office note recorded by the
Assistant Secretary. Proposal was made by the Assistant
Secretary in the said note to the effect that services of
Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat may not be terminated since he
was engaged on important work of fee adjustment/fee
payment entry/fee filing job, which job was highly technical
in nature. Ex.WW1/3 is other note initiated by the Section
Officer, wherein he highlights that Shri Pradeep Singh
Rawat, Anand Bhardwaj and Shri Bhagat Singh Rawat, were
doing work relating to fee receipts, removal of names,
fellowship and dispatching of letters. It was suggested
therein that suitable breaks be given in services of Shri
Pradeep Singh Rawat, Anand Bhardwaj and Shri Bhagat
Singh Rawat since they were doing important work as
referred above. It was requested that their services may be
retained after minimum breaks. Ex.WW1/4 is another office
note initiated by the Deputy Secretary wherein he presents
that Shri Anand Bhardwaj and Pradeep Singh Rawat are
given work in NRO(Member Section) for which no
replacement would be possible. Therefore, these documents
make it apparent that it was the Institute who was taking a
decision for continuity of service of the daily wagers. Their
suitability and valuable experience were taken into account
and further extensions were given in their service after
minimum breaks. It stood established that the Institute
exercised functions of an employer when services of the
aforesaid persons were extended from time to time.
Administrative, managerial, disciplinary and financial
powers were exercised by the Institute in respect of service
rendered by the daily wagers. Device of making payment
of their wages through the contractor was adopted by the
Institute with a view to evade beneficial labour legislation.
It is absolutely clear the contractor was an agent of the
Institute who used to send person for engagement by the
latter to work as Lower Divisional Clerks and Peon. In fact
they were engaged by the Institute and not by the
contractor. Relationship of employer and employee existed
between the Institute and daily wagers, so engaged.
Issue No. 2.
41. Now, it would be ascertained as to whether
claimants rendered continuous service of more than 240
days in preceding 12 months from termination of their
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5759
services. For an answer to this proposition, it is expedient
to know what term "continuous service" means. Term
"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
"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.
42. 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 25B 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".
43. 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 regularization 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 workmen 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 workmen 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.
44. Except Pradeep Singh Rawat and Kundan Singh
Bhandari other claimants have not come forward to depose
facts to establish that they rendered continuous service of
240 days in a calendar year with the Institute. It was
incumbent on them to lead evidence to show that they had
in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding their
termination of service. Onus lies on a workman to establish
that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in the
year preceding termination of his service, to avail benefit
of the provisions of section 25-F read with section 25-B of
the Act. Since no evidence has been adduced, hence it is
concluded that the claimants, other than those who entered
the witness box, failed to establish that they had rendered
continuous service of 240 days in preceding one year from
the date of termination of their services. They are not
entitled to any benefit under the provisions of section
25-F of the Act.
5760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
45. Shri Kundan Singh Bhandari details self serving
words in his affidavit Ex.WW2/A to the effect that he
rendered continuous service of 240 days to the Institute
from February 1995 onwards. He had relied documents
Ex.WW2/1 to Ex.WW2/9 in support of his case. These
documents do not project that Shri Bhandari rendered
service of 240 days with the institute in any calendar year.
Certain documents, obtained under Right to Information
Act 2005, were put to Shri Tulsiani during the course of his
cross-examination. When these documents are scanned, it
came to light that Shri Bhandari worked with the Institute
for 21 days in March 95, 16 days in April 1995, 21 days in
May, 1995 and 22 days in June, 1995, as emerge out of
Ex.MW1/6, Ex.MW1/23 and Ex.MW1/26. He worked for
20 days in Feb. 1996, 19 days in March, 1996 and 4 days in
April 1996, as peep out of Ex.MW1/W37, Ex.MW1/W28
and Ex.MW1/W29. Except the days, referred above, no
other period came to light for which Shri Bhandari worked
with the Institute. On the other hand, he admitted that he
worked as a contractor for the Institute, who stitched
uniform for its employees. These facts make me to comment
that Shri Bhandari could not establish by cogent evidence
that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in the
preceding year from the date of termination of his service
by the Institute. He cannot avail benefit of the provisions
of section 25-F of the Act.
46. Shri Pradeep Singh Rawat also detailed self
serving words in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A. Shri Ashok
Sajwan and Shri D.S.Bist could not establish his case, in
the matter of his rendering continuous for 240 days in any
of the calendar year. Shri Bist tried to speak by his memory
in that regard, which facts cannot substantiate his claim.
Documents, put to Shri Tulsiani in his cross-examination,
when scanned highlight that Shri Rawat worked for 169 days
from February, 1993 to December, 1993, worked for 91 days
upto 30 June, 1994, 26 days in March and April 1995,
66 days from July to October 1996 and 91 days from April
1997 to June 1997. As projected on his behalf, during the
course of arguments, he rendered 222 days continuous
service with effect from 23 February, 1993 till
December 1993. Thus it is crystal clear that Shri Rawat had
failed to discharge onus to prove that he rendered
continuous service of 240 days in the preceding year from
the date of termination of his service.
47. The word "retrenchment" has been defined in
the Act in very wide sense. Termination of service of an
employee for whatsoever reasons, other than the
exceptions provided in clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act,
would amount to retrenchment. When an employee renders
continuous of one year, as contemplated by the provisions
of section 25-B of the Act, condition pre-requisite to
retrenchment of the workman are enacted in section 25-F
of the Act. But in the case in hand, none of the claimants
could establish that they rendered continuous service of
240 days in the preceding year from the date of their
retrenchment. Hence they are not entitled to benefit/
protection of section 25-F of the Act.
48. No evidence has been adduced by the claimants
to the effect that any junior to them was retained by the
Institute, when their services were terminated on 31.7.1997.
There is absolute vacuum of evidence on the issue as to
whether the Institute recruited some other persons, after
termination of services of the claimants. Hence provisions
of section 25-G and 25-H of the Act do not come into play.
In view of the foregoing reasons it is clear that retrenchment
of the claimants do not offend the provisions of the Act.
No reasons are there to say that the claimants had a case
for regularization of their services. Resultantly, the claimants
could not show any illegality or unjustifiability in the action
of the Institute. Their claim is brushed aside. An award is
passed in favour of the Institute and against the claimants.
It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 5-7-2013
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 30 vxLr] 2013
dkñvkñ 2128-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½] dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ VªLV
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;] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@100@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 25-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&31011@05@2005&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 30th August, 2013
S.O. 2128.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-2/
100 of 2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour
Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 25.07.2013.
[No. L-31011/05/2005-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2,
MUMBAI
Present : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
Reference No. CGIT-2/100 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST
The Chairman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5761
Mumbai Port Trust
Port Bhavan
Ballard Estate
Mumbai-400038.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Secretary
Mumbai Port Trust Dock & General Employees Union
Port Trust Kamgar Sadan
Nawab Tank Road Mazgaon
Mumbai 400 010.
Appearances:
FOR THE EMPLOYER :
Mr. Umesh Nabar, Advocate.
FOR THE WORKMEN :
Mr. J. H. Sawant, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 1st July, 2013
AWARD PART-I
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No.L-31011/5/2005 -IR (B-II) dated
22.08.2005 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 action of the management of Mumbai
Port Trust by imposing the punishment of reducing
the pay by five stages in respect of Shri M.K.
Raghuvansh, Security Guard is justified? If not, what
relief the workman Shri M. K. Raghuvansh is entitled
to ?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-7.
According to the second party he is working with first
party since 1982 as Security Guard. It is contended that on
15th/16th January 2000 the workman was on duty at Red
Gate Victoria Dock (inside). During night shift dated 15th/
16th January 2000 a theft took place at Orange Gate Princess
Dock. A container sped away without showing any
documents at the said gate. The security guard and the
staff posted on the gate tried to stop the said container,
but in vain. However, surprisingly the concerned officer,
Mr. Almeida lodged a complaint with Yellow Gate Police
Station after 3 days i.e. on 19/1/2000. At the relevant time
the workman was performing his duty at Red Gate Victoria
Dock. At the behest of some security officers of MbPT,
and with the help of Yellow Gate Police Station, the workman
was falsely implicated in this case. Departmental inquiry
was initiated against the workman and others by the
management. Workman was dismissed from service by
order dt. 14.07.2003. Workman preferred an appeal against
the said order before the Ld. Chair Person who vide her
order dt. 22.1.2004 set aside the order of dismissal and
imposed punishment to reduce the pay of the workman by
five stages. Meanwhile the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
vide order dt. 6.10.2003 passed in CR. 3/2000 acquitted the
workman. Therefore workman filed industrial dispute before
the ALC (C). On the failure report of ALC (C), Ministry sent
the reference to this Tribunal.
3. It is further contended that the inquiry proceedings
were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice
and to the provision of MBPT employees (Classification,
Control and Appeal) i.e. Complete Regulation, 1976. The
IO has not taken into account the entire evidence on record
and gave findings without application of mind and ignoring
the documents produced by the defence side. IO acquitted
another security guard Shri S.G.Singh who was also arrested
by the police and acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate
Court. However gave findings against the workman.
Therefore he prays to set aside the order dated 22.1.2004,
and to treat the period of suspension preceding the date of
dismissal order and the period between date of dismissal
order and the date of reinstatement as on duty and all
consequential benefits.
4. The first party management resisted the statement
of claim of the workman vide their written statement at
Ex-8. According to it the averments and submissions of
the workman in the statement of claim are false. The claim
of the second party is misconceived, malafied and not
maintainable. The second party workman had intentionally
violated rules of discipline repeatedly and had undergone
punishment for the same. He took it casually and did not
show any improvement. On the other hand he had shown
total disregard towards his work and duty. The punishment
was imposed on him for serious misconduct.
5. According to the first party the second party
workman was appointed as a Security Guard since
July 1982. During his tenure he committed misconduct such
as threatening superiors, picking up altercations with
colleagues, sleeping while on duty, playing cards while on
duty and absconding from duty point. For these
misconducts four minor penalties were imposed upon the
workman and he was warned several times to mend his
ways and improve his conduct. The workman and 12 other
employees were charge-sheeted for speeding away with
trailer loaded with a container and theft of its contents.
Complaint was lodged with Yellow Gate Police Station.
Police sent the charge sheet to M.M. Court. The
disciplinary action was initiated against the employees
including the second party. The Inquiry officer was
appointed. The copies of the charge sheet were served on
him. The IO has given him fair and sufficient opportunity
to defend himself. In the departmental inquiry the second
party workman was found guilty and he was dismissed
from service w.e.f. 14/07/2003. In appeal, the Appellate
Authority considered the fact that in criminal case the
5762
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
workman was acquitted thus took lenient view and modified
the order of dismissal and reinstated the workman in service
and imposed punishment of reducing his pay by five
increments with prejudice to his future increments. The
inquiry was just and proper and the findings are based on
the evidence on record. They are consistent to the facts,
circumstances and evidence. The Punishment is reduced
by the Appellate Authority and it is not shockingly
disproportionate. Therefore they pray that, the reference
be rejected.
6. The workman filed rejoinder at Ex-9. He denied the
allegations and contents in the written statement and
reiterated his averments in the statement of claim.
7. Following are the two preliminary issues for my
determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons
to follow:
Sr.
Issues
Findings
No.
1.
Is inquiry fair and proper?
Yes.
2.
If findings perverse?
No.
REASONS
Issue No.1 :
8. In this respect the Id. adv. for the first party at the
outset submitted that it is vaguely contended in the
statement of claim and affidavit that there was violation of
principles of natural justice and fair and proper opportunity
was not given to the workman to defend himself before the
Inquiry Officer. However there is no specific pleading as to
how there was violation of principle of natural justice. On
the other hand the Id. adv. pointed out that there is no
dispute that the workman and 13 others were served with
charge sheet. The workman has admitted in his cross
examination at Ex-15 that he was represented by their union
leader Mr. Apraj. He also admitted that the IO has taken on
record all their objections. He has also admitted that copies
of documents produced by management were given to
them. He also admitted in his cross that his defence
representative cross examined all the witnesses in the
inquiry proceeding and he was present on all the dates and
had participated in the inquiry proceeding. It shows that
inquiry officer has given him full and fair opportunity to
defend himself. The workman has not pointed out
specifically the fault in the inquiry proceeding. In the
circumstances such a vague allegation of violation of
principles of natural justice are not sufficient to set aside
the inquiry. On the other hand after perusing the cross
examination of the workman at Ex-15 it is revealed that the
inquiry officer had given fair and proper opportunity to the
workman to defend himself through his defence
representative, Mr. Apraj. On the point Apex Court ruling
can be resorted to in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd.
Vs. Their Workmen 1963 II LLJ 367 wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court laid down the following conditions for fair and
proper domestic inquiry. They are:
(1) The employee proceeded against has been
informed clearly of the charges levelled against him;
(2) The witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the
presence of the employee in respect of the charges;
(3) The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross
examine witnesses;
(4) He is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses
including himself in his defence if he so wishes on
any relevant matter; and
(5) The inquiry officer records his findings with
reasons for the same in his report.
9. As per the aforesaid guidelines of the Apex Court
all the points were complied with. The workman was
informed clearly the charges levelled against him. The
inquiry was conducted in presence and all the witnesses
were examined in his presence. Copies of all the documents
were given to him. He was given fair and proper opportunity
to cross examine all the witnesses. He was given fair
opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his
defence and the Inquiry Officer has recorded his findings
with reasons for the same in his report. In this backdrop I
come to the conclusion that the inquiry was fair and proper.
Accordingly I decide this issue no.1 in the affirmative.
Issue No.2:
10. In respect of the findings of the Inquiry Officer it
is vaguely contended that they are perverse. However
details thereof are not given as to how they are perverse.
On the other hand the findings of the IO are based on and
are in consonance with the evidence on record. All the
witnesses were examined in presence of the workman and
they were thoroughly cross examined by the defence
representative of the workman. However nothing adverse
was revealed. The evidence on record indicates the guilt of
the workman. In this respect the Id. adv. for the second
party mainly relied upon the fact that the workman was
acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the criminal
case in respect of the same incident and on the basis of
same evidence which was before Inquiry Officer. Therefore
he submitted that the findings of the IO are perverse as
they are contrary to the findings recorded by the Criminal
Court. In this respect it was rightly pointed out by the Id.
adv. of the first party that, the law on the point is well
settled that in criminal trial the standard of proof is very
high. The charge therein is required to be proved beyond
all reasonable doubts. Whereas in the domestic inquiry
standard of proof is not that high as like in criminal trials
and preponderance of probability suffice the purpose.
Therefore though the workman was acquitted in the
criminal trial it need not affect the verdict and the findings
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5763
of the IO as there is difference in standard of proof as
observed above. On the point Apex Court ruling can be
resorted to in Suresh Pathrela Vs. Orient Bank of Commerce
2007 2 SCT 715 wherein Apex Court observed that;
"It is well settled principle of law that the yardstick
and standard of proof in criminal case is different
from the disciplinary proceeding. While the standard
of proof in a criminal case is a proof beyond all
reasonable doubt, the proof in departmental
proceeding is preponderance of probability. "
11. The findings of the Inquiry Officer which are
based on the evidence on record and consistent thereto
thus the same cannot be called perverse merely as the
workman is acquitted in the criminal case. In this respect I
would also like to point out that, the Tribunal is not sitting
as an appellate court to scrutinize the findings which are
prima facie based on the evidence on record. On the point
Apex Court ruling can be resorted to in US State Road
Transport Corporation & Ors Vs. Musais Ram & Ors. 1999
(83) FLR 226 (SC) wherein on the point Hon'ble Court
observed that:
"The Court does not sit in appeal over the findings
of the Inquiry Officer. If the findings are based on
uncontroverted material placed before the IO, it
cannot be said that these findings are perverse."
12. In short, as the findings of the Inquiry Officer are
based on evidence before him and are not contrary to the
evidence on record thus the same cannot be called
perverse. In the circumstances I hold that the findings of
the IO are not perverse. Accordingly I decide this issue
no.2 in the negative and proceed to pass the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The inquiry is held fair and proper.
(ii) Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse.
(iii) The parties are directed to argue/lead evidence
on the point of quantum of punishment.
Dated : 1-7-2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding officer
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2129-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku 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;] dksgykiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-06-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@19@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2129.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2001)
of the Labour Court, Kolhapur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of Corporation Bank and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 20.06.2013.
[No. L-12012/19/2001-IR (B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. 1,
KOLHAPUR
( Before Shri. B.C. Kamble )
Reference No. 37/2001
Exh. No.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Corporation Bank, Head Office,
Mangaladevi Temple Road, P.B.No.88,
Mangalore -575 001.
..First Party
Vs.
Kundan Dattatraya Satpute,
61 -B, Subhash Nagar,
Kolhapur -416 002.
..Second Party
APPEARANCES : Adv. Shri. U.B. Jadhav for first party.
Adv. Shri. D.S. Joshi for second party.
AWARD
(Date: 17-05-2013)
This is a reference referred by Central Government
of India under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act.
2. Brief facts of reference are as under—
It is averred by Second party that he was temporary/
daily wages employee and thereafter he was regularized as
peon from 22-12-1982 in the employment of the first party.
on 10.04.1995
Royal Stores Kolhapur has made complaint
to the first party bank that they have not received amounts
of the material purchased by the bank for the period from
11-01-1994 to 17-02-1995. On 14-09-1995 the owner of Royal
Stores Kolhapur has informed to the first party bank that
they have received due amount from the bank and that
they have issued receipt to the bank. Inspite of this fact
the first party bank issued charge-sheet to the second party
and suspended him by an order dated 09-11-1995 alleging
5764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
therein that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6082/-
They have conducted departmental enquiry against him.
They have not followed principles of natural justice in the
enquiry. The findings of the Enquiry officer are perverse.
They have not considered his past unblemished service
record. On 30-12-1996 they have illegally terminated his
service. He has filed first & second departmental appeal
but both appeals are rejected. Punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. He is sole bread earner of his family.
Lastly, he has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of
service and full back wages.
3. In pursuance of notice first party appeared and
filed their W.S. at Exh. C-16. They have resisted and denied
contentions by second party in statement of claim. They
have stated that second party has committed
misappropriation of an amount of Rs. 6082/-. They have
given charge-sheet to the second party. Second party
workman has taken participation in enquiry. They have
followed principles of natural justice. They have given
proper opportunity to second party to lead his evidence-
Enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the
second party has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6082/-
and committed misconduct. Departmental first and second
appeal are dismissed. Punishment is legal and proper. Lastly
they have prayed for dismissal of reference with costs.
4. Second party workman has not filed any document
in a reference.
5. First party has submitted documents with list at
Exh. C-24, C-36, C-40 and C-42.
6. Second party workman Shri. Kundan Dattatraya
Satpute examined himself at Exh. U-46 and filed evidence
close purshis at Exh. U-48.
7. First party has examined witnesses Shri Prakash
Khemchand Shah, Shri. V. Suryanarayan and Ashok Bajirao
Patil at Exh. C-35, C-38 and C-41 respectively. Inspite of
given sufficient opportunity first party has failed to adduce
evidence in a reference. Their evidence is closed vide order
passed below Exh. U-9 on 23-07-2009.
8. Following issues are framed at Exh. O-17 and I
have recorded my findings against them for the reasons
stated below.
ISSUES
FINDINGS
01)
Whether enquiry conducted against
.Redundant
second party is fair and proper?
02)
Whether finding of Enquiry officer
.Redundant
is perverse?
03)
Whether termination of service of
.No.
second party is illegal?
04)
Whether second party is entitled for
.No.
reinstatement with full back wages
as prayed for?
05)
What order?
..As per
final order.
REASONS
9. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 :— It appears that on 16-02-2009
Court has held that enquiry conducted against second
party is illegal and finding of enquiry officer is perverse.
Therefore Issue Nos. 1 and 2 would be redundant.
Accordingly, I record my finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2.
10. Issue Nos. 3 & 4:— As per contention of second
party that he was temporary/daily wages employee and
thereafter he was regularized as peon from 22-12-1982 in
the employment of the first party. On 10-04-1995 Royal
Stores Kolhapur has made complaint to the first party bank
that they have not received amount of the material
purchased by the bank for the from 11-01-1994 to
17-02-1995. On 14-09-1995 the owner of Royal Stores
Kolhapur has informed to the first party bank that they
have received due amount from the bank and that they
have issued receipt to the bank. Inspite of this fact the first
party bank issued charge-sheet to the second party and
suspended him by an order dated 09-11-1995 alleging
therein that he has misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6082.
They have conducted departmental enquiry against him.
They have not followed principles of natural justice in the
enquiry. The findings of the Enquiry officer are perverse.
They have not considered his past unblemished service
record. On 30-12-1996 they have illegally terminated his
service. He has filed first & second departmental appeal
but both appeals are rejected. Punishment is shockingly
disproportionate. While first party have stated that second
party has committed misappropriation of an amount of
Rs. 6082/-. They have given charge- sheet to the second
party. Second party workman has taken participation in
enquiry. They have followed principles of natural justice.
They have given proper opportunity to second party to
lead his evidence. Enquiry officer has rightly come to the
conclusion that the second party has misappropriated an
amount of Rs. 6082 and committed misconduct.
Departmental first and second appeal are dismissed.
Punishment is legal and proper. Now it has to be seen to
termination of service of second party is illegal.
11. Ld. Advocate for second party has submitted as
under—
(1)
That, second party was working as peon with
first party.
(2)
That, on 14-09-1995 the owner of Royal Stores
Kolhapur has informed to first party bank that
they have received due amount from bank.
(3)
That, on 10-04-1995 Royal Stores Kolhapur has
given inadvertently letter to first party bank.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5765
(4)
That, second party has not misappropriated an
amount of Rs. 6082.
(5)
That, first party has not considered his past
unblemished service record.
(6)
That, first party have illegally terminated his
service.
(7)
That,
punishment
is
shockingly
disproportionate.
(8)
That, second party is entitled for relief as prayed
for.
12. Ld. Advocate for first party has submitted as
under and in support of his contention he has filed citation
thereunder—
(1)
That, on 10-04-1995 Royal Stores Kolhapur has
given letter contending that sum of Rs. 6287 is
due from bank.
(2)
That, second party has misappropriated an
amount of Rs. 6082 and the management has
lost faith in such employee.
2010 III C.L.R. Pg. No. 526, Beerth Rau Ke
Co- op.. .. & Anr. Vs. Presiding Officer & Ors.
(3)
That, charges against second party are not
casual in nature and are serious.
2005 I C.L.R. Pq.No. 821, Damoh Panna Sagar
Rural Regional Bank & Ors. Vs. Munna Lal
Jain
(4)
That, departmental first and second appeals are
dismissed.
(5)
That, punishment is legal and proper.
(6)
That, second party is not entitled for relief as
prayed for.
13. On perusal proceeding and documents placed on
record it appears that second party has stated that he was
working as peon with first party bank. He has regularly
paid an amount in respect of stationary supplied by Royal
Stores Kolhapur. Shri Prakash Khemchand Shah —
proprietor Royal Stores, Kolahpur has disposed before
Enquiry Officer that he has received money of bills entirely.
They have used to receive bill amount regularly as and
when stationary was supplied and credit memos were issued
to the bank, because they keep on changing clerks, new
clerks could not maintain cash received record correctly,
hence they wrote above mentioned letters i.e. letters dated
and 10-04-1995 and 19.04.1995 to the bank. Second party
has further stated that he has not misappropriated an
amount of Rs. 6082. Bank has not considered his past not
unblemished service record. They have illegally terminated
his service.
14. First party has examined to Shri Prakash
Khemchand Shah. He has stated that second party was
taking out stationary from their shop. He was paying an
amount to them. They were giving receipts to him. On
10-04-1995 they have issued letter to first party bank
contending that they have not received amount of Rs. 6287
for materials purchased by bank for period from 11-01-1994
to 17-02-1995. On 19-04-1995 they have received an amount
of material supplied to bank.
15. It has come in evidence of management witness
Shri. V. Suryanarayan that the bank use to purchase the
stationary material from Royal Stores, Kolhapur. The said
material was purchased through sub staff Shri. Kundan
Satpute i.e. second party. The bank received compalint
from M/s. Royal Stores dated 10-04-1995. Said complaint is
on record at Exh. C-35 Sr.No. 1. As per said complaint
M/s. Royal Stores communicated to the bank that the amount
of Rs. 6287 were dues to the Royal Stores from the bank.
When said, complaint was received by the Bank he
immediately asked Mr. Kiran Mane and Shri Ashok Patil to
go to the Royal Stores and to find out the details of the
complaint. He asked to Royal Stores to submit the details
of the due amount. Accordingly, M/s. Royal Stores
submitted the details of due amount as per the letter dated
19-04-1995. Along with said letter M/s. Royal Stores has
send the zerox copies of the bills to the bank. Said letter
and the copies of the bills are at Exh. C-35 Sr.No. 2. As per
the said bills the material was supplied to the Bank through
second party. There are signature of Shri Kundan Satpute
on the said bills as the receiver of the material from Royal
Stores. When the complaint was received by him from the
Royal Stores, the bank came to know that the amount was
not paid to the Royal Stores by second party. When the
material was purchased from Royal Stores and the bill was
brought by the second party and submitted to hlm, he
verified the bill and the material which was purchased from
Royal Stores during his period. After verifying the material
he had made remark and also signed on the back of the bill
and sent the said bills for the preparation of the cash debit
vouchers. The amount of the bill was paid to the second
party by cash debit vouchers. The said cash debit vouchers
are on the record at Exh. C-35 Sr.No. 4. As per the said
vouchers the amount was actually paid to second party to
make payment to M/s. Royal Stores. It was the duty of
second party to pay said amount to Royal Stores
immediately. He further stated that there are signatures of
second party on the back side of the vouchers. As per said
vouchers the payment was made to second party, but he
has not paid the same to Royal Stores. He has
misappropriated an amount of Rs. 6287.
16. Management witness Ashok Bajirao Patil has
stated before Court that second party was working as peon
with first party bank. He was purchasing stationary for
bank from Royal Stores Kolhapur. He was submitting bills
5766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
to bank. He was taking an amount for bills through
vouchers. On 10-04-1995 Royal Stores Kolhapur sent letter
contending that they have not received Rs. 6082/- from
Bank. Second party has misappropriated an amount of
Rs. 6082/-. On 19-04-1995 he has paid misappropriate
amount to Royal Stores.
17. It appears that management witness Prakash
Khemchand Shah has stated before Enquiry Officer that
he has received money of bills entirely. They have used to
receive bill amount regularly as and when stationary was
supplied and credit memos were issued to the bank, because
they keep on changing clerks, new clerks could not maintain
cash received record correctly, hence they wrote above
mentioned letters i.e. letters dated 10-04- 1995 and
19-04-1995 to the bank. He has merely stated in his cross-
examination before Court that letter dated 15-11-1995 filed
in enquiry. It's contents are correct. It bears his signature
and seal. Letter dated 15.11.1995 is not placed on record
before Court. On 19.04.1995 second party has paid Rs.
6257/- to Royal Stores Kolhapur. Payment receipt is placed
on record. Hence documentary evidence shall prevail than
oral statement given by him in his cross-examination before
Enquiry Officer.
18. It further appears that on 09-11-1995 first party
has issued charge-sheet to second party. The allegations/
charge levelled against him are as follows. That during the
period from 11-01-1994 to 17-02-1995 M/s. Royal Stores,
Kolhapur had supplied through the second party various
stationary items of stock for amounts aggregating Rs. 6082/-
to Kolhapur Branch under their various credit bills. That
the amounts payable in respect of the said bills were debited
at the branch either on the dates of the bills or on
subsequent dates and the said amounts had been entrusted
to the second party against his acknowledgment on the
reverse of the relative cash debit slips, for making payment
to the party as detail below:
Sr.
Bill No. and date of
Amount Rs.
Date of payment at the
No. Royal Stores Kolhapur
branch/date of receipt
of amount by the
employee
1
2
3
4
1.
16004 dated 11.01.1994
172.50
11.01.1994
2.
16354 dated 12.02.1994
77.00
12.02.1994
3.
16479 dated 23.02.1994
89.00
24.02.1994
4.
16569 dated 05.03.1994
255.00
07.03.1994
5.
16570 dated 07.03.1994
255.00
07.03.1994
6.
17248 dated 04.05.1994
425.00
04.05.1994
7.
17421 dated 21.05.1994
75.00
21.05.1994
8.
17578 dated 17.06.1994
493.00
17.06.1994
9.
17743 dated 16.07.1994
485.00
18.07.1994
10. 18144 dated 24.08.1994
298.00
24.08.1994
11. 18292 dated 12.09.1994
156.00
12.09.1994
12. 18293 dated 12.09.1994
625.00
12.09.1994
13. 18296 dated 12.09.1994
91.00
12.09.1994
14. 18710 dated 25.10.1994
325.00
25.10.1994
15. 18814 dated 01.11.1994
123.00
10.11.1994
16. 18908 dated 23.11.1994
399.00
23.11.1994
17. 19039 dated 07.12.1994
372.00
08.12.1994
18. 19195 dated 23.12.1994
236.00
23.12.1994
19. 19500 dated 24.12.1994
291.00
25.01.1995
20. 19560 dated 31.01.1995
625.00
31.01.1995
21. 19561 dated 31.01.1995
83.00
31.01.1995
22. 19697 dated 17.02.1995
131.00
17.02.1995
Total:
6082.00
19. It appears that the second party failed to pay the
aforesaid amount aggregating of Rs. 6082/- to Royal Stores
Kolhapur on the respective dates of receipt of amounts by
him from the bank. After receiving complaint dated
10-04-1995 he has paid Rs. 6082/- to M/s. Royal stores on
19-04-1995. Thus, it appears that second party has
temporarily misappropriated the various amounts dates of
debit of the respective amounts at the branch till 19-04-
1995. He can not be allowed to continue in service as the
management loses faith in such employee. His departmental
first and second appeals are dismissed. Punishment is legal
and proper. In such circumstances I do not find any
substance in contention raised by second party and his
advocate.
20. As per aforesaid discussion and considering
principles laid down in above citations, it appears that
termination of service of second party is legal and due to
that he is not entitled for reinstatement with full backwages
as prayed for. Hence I record my findings on Issue No.3 &
4 in the negative.
21. Issue No. 5 :- In view of negative finding on
Issue Nos. 3 and 4 that termination of service of second
party is legal and due to that he is not entitled for
reinstatement with full back wages as prayed for. In the
result I proceed to pass following order.
AWARD
(1)Reference is answered in the negative.
(2)Demand of second party is hereby rejected.
(3)No order as to costs.
(4)Inform to the Government of India.
(5)Award be published accordingly.
Place : Kolhapur.
B.C. KAMBLE, Presiding Officer
Date: 17-05-2013
ubZ fnYyh] 3 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2130-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k
1
2
3
4
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5767
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;] iVuk ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03¼lh½@2009½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-08-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@19@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 3rd September, 2013
S.O. 2130.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 03 (C)
of 2009) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court
Patna 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 20.08.2013.
[No. L-12012/19/2009-IR(B-II)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL, PATNA
Referenge Case No.: 03 (C) of 2009
Between The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal
Office, Punkaj Market, Suraiya Ganj, Muzaffarpur and Shri
Vinay Prakash, Villlage-Belbanwa, Shivpuri, P.O. & Distt.
Motihari Distt. East Champaran ( Bihar ).
For the management : Shree Binay Bihari Sharan,
Advocate.
For the workman :
Shree Rakesh Kumar Tiwairy,
Advocate.
Present :
Harish Chandra Singh,
Presiding Officer,
Industrial Tribunal, Patna.
AWARD
Patna, dated 7th December, 2012
By adjudication order No. L-12012/19/2009-IR(B-II)
dated 01.07.2009 the Central Government (Government of
India) Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi
referred under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
2(A) of section 10 of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter to be referred as' the Act') the following dispute
between the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office,
Punkaj Market, Suraiya Ganj, Muzaffarpur and their
workman Vinay Prakash for adjudication to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Patna
(Bihar).
SCHEDULE
"(A) Whether the action of the managmenet of Bank
of India, Zonal Office, Muzaffarpur Zone in
terminating of the services of the casual worker, Sri
Vinay Prakash without complying section 25 (F) of
I.D. Act is legal & justified? (B) Whether the
management is justifed in not regularising the service
of Sh. Vinay Prakash, casual worker? What relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. The case of the workman as stated in statement of
claim is that he was taken into employment in Bank of
India, Motihari Branch in the year 1988 as daily rated peon,
Grade-IV staff. In the year-1988 he was paid wages @
Rs. 15/- per day which was subsequently raised to Rs. 20/-,
then to Rs. 45/- then to Rs. 60/- and lastly to Rs 70/- per
day. Work assigned to him was perennial in nature. He
continuously worked at Motihari Branch till 02.01.2008.
The duty assigned to him was to supply water, tea etc. to
Bank staff, he carried documents, ledgers, cheques and
pay-in-slip, vouchers and other documents from one desk
to another and also kept them at proper place. He worked
under the full and direct control/supervision of officials of
the bank. The case of workman is that if his service are
discontinued, the bank shall have to appoint another person
for these duties. Upto year 1993 he was paid wages against
vouchers duly signed by him. Thereafter, bank officials
started a new mode of payment in cash by the Branch
Manager but the vouchers were signed and cash withdrawn
by the Branch Manager showing "Coolie" payment. The
workman has repeatedly stated in his statement of claim
that the nature of duty assigned of him were permanent
and required through out the year. Services of person like
him for such duty were required by the Bank on permanent
basis but his legitimate right to be considered to be made
permanent was denied by the Bank. The workman has
further stated in his pleadings that in his place another
person Pawan Hazara was appointed as a peon where as
the workman was senior to Pawan Hazara. Further the case
of the workman is that at the time of his appointment he
was assured by the Branch Manager that his service will
be made permanent. Similar assurance was given by the
successor also. Recognised union of workmen raised this
matter relating to regularisation with management on
number of occassions but the management did not even
discuss. On 02.01.2008 the service of workman Vinay
Prakash were terminated orally without stating any reason
and without tendering any retrenchment compensation or
pay in lieu of notice as per section-25-F of the I.D. Act. The
workman has repeatedly stated in his statement of claim
that he rendered continuous service to bank since 1988 to
02.01.2008. He worked for more than 240 days within
12 calendar month's immediatly preceding the date of his
termination. Action of the management of orally terminating
service of workman with effect from 02.01.2008 is illegal,
unjustified and arbitrary and the workman is entitled to
5768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
reinstatement in the service with full back wages and
consequential benefits. After his termination the workman
raised an Industrial Dispute through statement of demand
dated 18.07.2008 and after failures of conciliation
proceeding this reference has been made.
3. The case of the management has been stated in
their written statement dated 22.01.2010. The management
did not dispute the statement made in 1 to 6 of the statement
of claim of the workman stating that these are matters of
records. However, the case of the management is that the
workman was never appointed in the service of Bank and
as such the question of termination of his service did not
arise. It has also been denied that the workman
continuously worked upto 02.01.2008. The case of the
management is that the workman was engaged as casual
worker to work in the Branch as per requirement of the
Bank from time to time. He never worked 240 days in any
calendar year. He used to be engaged for casual work as a
casual employee for the particular days and as such
termination of his service used to come at the end of the
day. It is also denied the workman handled the Bank Register
and documents of the Branch. He was engaged as a
"coolie" of the Branch for cleaning and sweeping as per
requirement availability of the work. He was never paid
wages on monthly basis. There are many branches of the
bank were is no peon is working. There was no need of any
peon at Motihari Branch also. His services were not
required on the permanent basis and work performed by
him were not of permanent nature. There is no provision of
regularisation of casual workers in the Bank service. If at
all there is any vacancies, the bank being a Govt.
undertaking is bound to advertise the vacancies for equal
opportunity for all eligible candidates. In such cases the
bank is bound to follow certain set of procedure for,
recruitment/selection/appointment. The workman never
worked continuously for 20 years in the branch and he was
never given assurance to be made permanent. Casual worker
is not indispensible to the Bank. It has been stated
repeatedly that the workman Vinay Prakash never completed
240 days within twelve calendar months immediately
preceding the date of his termination. He is not entitled to
protection of U/S- 25- F of the I.D. Act.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following
question arise for determination in the reference:—
(i) "Whether Vinay Prakash is a "workman" as
defined in the I.D. Act and whether for that
purpose he has proved that the worked for 240
days or more within 12 calendar months
immediately preceding the date of termination?"
(ii) "Whether the action of the management
terminating his service is legal and justified?"
(iii) "Whether the management is justified is not
regularising the service of Vinay Prakash?"
(iv) "To what relief the workman is entitled to?"
FINDINGS
5. Issue No. (i):— The case of the workman is that he
was taken into employment in the year 1988 as a daily rated
peon Grade-IV staff in Motihari Branch Bank of India. He
worked continuously till 02.01.2008. On that date his
services were terminated. In the beginning i.e. in the year
1988 he was paid @ Rs 15/- per day which was increased
from time to time to Rs. 20/-, Rs.45/-, Rs. 60/- and lastly to
Rs. 70/- per day. Upto 1993 he was paid through Vouchers
duly signed by him. After 1993 the management devised a
new method of payment to him. In this new method the
Branch Manager obtained payment on the basis of
vouchers signed by him and paid cash to the workman
without obtain his signature on any vouchers. This was
called "coolie" payment. The management has denied that
the workman Vinay Prakash worked continuously and
regularly but this much has been admitted that his services
were taken as casual worker as and when required. He
never completed continuously 240 days working within 12
calendar months immediately preceding the date of his
alleged termination.
It is well settled that the onus to prove that he worked
for 240 days within 12 calendar months immediately
preceding the date of his termination is on the workman. In
this regard it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of R.M. Yellatty V. Assistant Executive Engineer
(2006 ) 1 SCC 106.
"However, applying general principles and on reading
the aforesaid judgements, we find that this Court,
has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of
proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked
for 240 days in a given year. This burden is
discharged only upon the workman stepping up in
the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the
workman adducing cogent evidence both oral and
documentry. In cases of termination of services of
daily-wages earners, there will be no letter of
appointment of termination. There will also be no
receipt of proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the
workman (the claimant) can only call upon the
employer to produce before the Court the nominal
muster roll for the given period, the letter of
appointment of termination, if any, the wage register,
the attendence register, etc. Drawing of adverse
inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the
facts of each case."
Again in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal
Division Vs. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda. AIR 2010 SCC
1236 aforesaid preposition of law was quoted with approval
and applied. It was held that:—
"Applying the principles laid down in the above case
by this court, the evidence produced by the
appellants has not been consistent. The appellants
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5769
claim that the respondent did not work for 240 days.
The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage
basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in
the above case that he would have difficulty in
having access to all the official documents, muster
rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come
forward and deposed, so in opinion the burden of
proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove that
he did not complete 240 days of service in the
requisite period to constitute continuouss service.
It is the contention of the appellant that the service
of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The
witness produced by the appellant stated that the
respondend stopped coming to work from February,
1988. The documentary evidence produced by the
appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows
that the respondent was working during February,
1989 also. It has also been observed by the High
Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not
completely produced. The appellants have
inexplicably failed to produced the complete records
and muster roll from 1985 to 1991, in spite of the
direction issued by the Labour Court to produced
the same. In fact there has been practically no
challenge to the deposition of the respondent during
cross-examination. In this regard. It would be
pertinent to mention the observation of three-Judge
Bench of this court in the case of Municipal
Corporation, Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas [(2004) 8 SCC
195]: (2004 AIR SCW 5184). Where it is observed.
" A Court of law even in a case where provision of
the Indian Evidence Act apply, may presume or may
not presume that if a party despite possession of the
best evidence had not produced the same, it would
have gone against this contention. The matter,
however, would be different where despite direction
by a court the evidence is withheld."
Facts of the present case are very much similar. In
this case also the workman has discharged his onus by
stepping in witness box and stating that he worked in
Motihari Branch, Bank of India from 1988 to 02.01.2008
continuously. Initially he was paid wages at the rate of
Rs. 15 per day, then it was raised to Rs. 20, then to Rs. 45
and to Rs. 60. Lastly at the time of termination he was
getting Rs. 70 per day. Initially he was paid through
vouchers duly signed by him. This system of payment of
wages was continuing upto 1993. Thereafter Bank officials
started a new system. Branch Manager withdrew cash
against vouchers signed by himself and made cash
payment to the workman as payment of "coolie ". Workman
filed photo copy of registers showing payment to him in
1991 and 1992. Pages of this register are Exts.- W/6, W/7,
W/8, W/9, W/10, W/11 ,W/12, W/13, W/14, W/15, W/16
and W/18. He has further stated that within 12 calendar
month immediately preceding the termination he worked
continuously more than 240 days. Now onus shifts to the
management to prove otherwise particularly when it is
admitted in the pleading as well as in the evidence i.e.
witness of the management that the workman Vinay Prakash
was engaged as casual worker to perform certain work at
Motihari Branch, Bank of India. This statement has been
qualified only to the extent that he did not work
continuously and his services were taken as and when
required. M.W-1 Raj Kishore Prasad has stated that he was
posted at Motihari Branch, Bank of India from 1984 to 2004.
Presently he is working as Branch Manager of another
branch. He has admitted in his cross-examination that Vinay
Prakash some time worked as casual worker during the
period of his posting at Motihari Branch. About the
procedure of payment to casual worker he has admitted
that branch managner drew money for Misc. charges and
the same was paid to the casual labourer. This payment
was made through profit and loss vouchers. He has also
admitted payment register of Bank of India for the period
1991-92 Ext.- W/6 to W/18 discussed above. Another
witness M.W-2 (Ajay Kumar Sinha) has also admitted that
he worked with Vinay Prakash on some occassions. He
was posted at Motihari Branch in 1989 and Saw Vinay
Prakash working of daily wages "Collie". The workman
examined an independent witness W.W. 2 ( Manoj Kumar)
who claims to be consumer of Motihari Branch of Bank of
India. He has stated that he Saw Vinay Prakash working in
the Bank continuously since 1996 to January, 2008. Vinay
Prakash was removed from service in his presence. Ext.-W/1
is a certificiate dt. 26.10.1991 given by Branch Manager of
Motihari Branch of Bank of India to the effect that Vinay
Prakash had been working purely of casual basis since
1988. Ext.W/2 and W/3 are letters from the bank addressed
to the Assistant Labour Commissioner in which it has been
stated that Sri Vinay Prakash was daily wages worker/coolie
whose service were used by the branch as per their
requirement.
Incourse of proceedings before this tribunal the
workman filed a petition on 08.02.2010 making a prayer to
call for following documents from the management so that
the evidence of his working in the bank and payment to
him by the bank may be available.
(i) P/L analysis book, 1988 to January, 2008.
(ii) Vouchers from 1988 to January, 2008.
(iii) Duty register, payment register from 1988 to
January, 2008.
Vide order sheet dated 13.04.2010 the management
was directed to produce these document on the next date
fixed. Thereafter on 03.05.2010 the order was modifide to
the extent that management would produce firstly the
document relating to the year 1988 and for the period from
January, 2007 to January 2008. It was made clear that the
management may be required in future to produce the
5770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
documents for remaining period, if feet to be necessary by
the tribunal. But the management did not produce these
documents relating to period 2007-08. Attendance register
of permanent employees for 1988 Ext. M/1 was filed. Photo
copy of attendence register of permanent employees in the
year 2007 was filed which is Ext.-M/2. Photo copy of
attendence register of permanent employee for the year
2008 was also filed which is Ext. M/3. Photo copy of salary
sheet of permanent employee was filed which is Ext. 4 & 5
series. These documents are not at all related with the
workman Vinay Prakash. Admittedly he was, engaged and
worked in Motihari branch of the bank on daily wages for
which he has been paid. The bank in all their fairness were
required to produce vouchers showing the payment to
Vinay Prakash either signed by Vinay Prakash himself or
signed by Branch Manager and then paid to Vinay Prakash.
It is obvious that the bank has deliberately withheld these
document. No explanation came forward from the bank as
to why these documents were not produced. Therefore in
this case having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case there are sufficient reasons to draw adverse
inference against the bank. Thus having taken into
consideration the evidance of the workman W.W. 1 and
witness examined by the workman W.W. 2, evidence of
M.W. 1 and M.W. 2 and also having considered the
documents Exts. W/6 to W/18, W/1, W/2, W/3 and also
documents filed on behalf of the management and also
having regard to the adverse inference which may be
against the management I am of the view that there are
sufficient reasons to believe that the Vinay Prakash worked
for more than 240 days continuously within 12 calendar
month's immediately preceding the date of termination of
his service and therefore he is a workman.
Issue No. (ii):—In the foregoing paragraph my
finding is that Vinay Prakash is a workman as defined in the
Industrial Dispute Act. Therefore, he is entitled to
protection u/s-25-F of the I.D. Act. Admittedly section 25-
F of the I.D. Act has not been complied with. No notice, or
salary in lieu of notice or compensation has been given to
the workman. It may be noted that non-continuation of a
daily wager workman is retrenchment and termination.
Therefore, compliance of section-25 of the I.D. Act and
payment of compensation was necessary therefore,
termination of his service without compliance of the I.D.
Act is illegally and unjustified.
Issue No. (iii):—The government has referred the
dispute regarding regularisation of service of Sri Vinay
Prakash to this tribunal for adjudication in these words:—
"whether the management is justified in not regularising
the service of Sri Vinay Prakash casual worker?" I have
already held in to foregoing going paragraphs that Vinay
Prakash was a casual worker working in Motihari Branch
of Bank of India. The workman in his oral evidence as well
as in his pleadings has stated that he was engaged on
daily wages basis against a permanent post. Admittedly he
was engaged on daily wages basis. The case of the
management is that there is no permanent post of peon in
Motihari Branch. Again the case of the workman is that the
work done by him was perinnial in nature. He made several
requests for regularisation of service but he was not
regularised. The workman has not produced any document
to show that any demand was raised prior to termination
for regularisation of his service. No such demand was made
either by the workman himself or by any union of workmen.
There was no demand of regularisation of service of Vinay
Prakash. Therefore, there was no question of regularisation
or service of Vinay Prakash and can not be any Industrial
Dispute in this regard. Moreover, he was daily wages
employee on the daily wages as casual labour and there is
nothing on record to show that he was working against
any sanctioned post. Therefore, the stand of the bank that
his service could not be regularised is correct and the bank
is justified in not regularising the service of Vinay Prakash.
Issue No.(iv):—I have already held that the workman
Vinay Prakash was removed from service without
compliance of provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
The workman has made a prayer for reinstatement with
back wages. Admittedly he was daily wager. Recent trend
of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court is not in favour of
re-instatement of daily wagers. In case of Jagbir Singh Vs.
Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and another
(2009 ) 15 SCC 327: (AIR 2009 SCC 3004: 2009 AIR SCW
4824) it was held that:—
"It is true that the earlier view of this court articulated
in many decisions reflected the legal position that if
the termination of an employee was found to be
illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages
would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past,
there has been a shift in the legal position and in a
long line of cases, this court has consistently taken
the view that relief by way of reinstatement with back
wages is not automatic and may be wholly
inappropriate in a given fact-situation even though
the termination of an employee is in contravention
of the prescribed procedure. Compensation instead
of has been held to meet the ends of justice.
* * * * * * *
"It would be, thus, seen that by a catena of decision
in recent time, this court has clearly laid down that
an order of retrenchment passed in violation of
Section-25F although may be set aside but an award
of reinstatement should not, however, be
automatically passed. The awad of reinstatement with
full back wages in a case where the workman has
completed 240 days of work in a year preceding the
date of termination, particularly, daily wagers has
not been found to be proper by this court and instead
compensation has been awarded. This court has
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5771
distinguished between a daily wager who does not
hold post and a permanent employee."
In this case I am of the view that inspite of my findings
that termination of service of Sri Vinay Prakash is illegal
and not just because of violation of provisions of section
25-F of the I.D. Act, the relief of reinstatement with back
wages will not follow automatically. In my considered
opinion monetary compensation will meet the ends of
justice. In this case the workman has worked for about 20
years as a daily wager. He worked for the bank from 1988 to
January 2008.
Having regard to facts and circumstances of the case
I am of the view that the monetary compensation of
Rs. 1,25,000 (Rs. One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) only
will be meet of ends of justice. The management of Bank of
India is directed to pay of Rs. 1,25,000 (Rs. One Lakh Twenty
Five Thousand) only as monetary compensation to Vinay
Prakash within one month from the date of publication of
this award.
And this is my award accordingly.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
HARISH CHANDRA SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2131-—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 281@2003½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 05@09@2013 dks izkir
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@224@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2131.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 281/
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-22012/224/2003-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 /281/2003
Dated: 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 Shankar Shriram Sarode, for adjudication,
as per letter No. L-22012/224/2003-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 Shankar Shriram Sarode, 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 Shankar
Shriram Sarode ('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 01.11.1992 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
5772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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 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 day of work in a year as alleged and
as the workman was engaged by the Security Contractor,
there was no relationship 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 violations 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
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5773
security agency and he ever 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 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 direction 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 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 contrtact 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 there
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 Gudrds, 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.
5774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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. l 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. l
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. 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. l 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. l 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5775
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 petiti'on 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 qf 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 Apex Court reported in Appeal (Civil)
7038/2002 (Mis. Essen Deinki Vs.. Rajiv Kmmar)) 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 principle 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 of the order passed by
the Hon'ble High Court on 29.7.2002 in the said writ petition,
it is found that and otehrs 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 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 to abolish the contract
labour system in FCI and directed to give employment to
contract labours engaged by the management and Party
No, I 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
5776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 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
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 amentities 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5777
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 all
together, the policy of the Act is that the working
conditions of the contract labour should be 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 BHELWorkers' 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 labour
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
emplyee 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)
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
5778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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 discribes 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 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 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. Threfore 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 in implementation, or substituting remedy
or benefits for the 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
permissible.
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 techriical
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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5779
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. l 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. 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 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.
5780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2132-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k iwoZ jsyos
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]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 172@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@40@96&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2132.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 172/97)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of South Eastern Railway and
there workmen received by the Central Government on
09.09.2013.
[No. L-41012/40/96-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/172/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri W.E.Manual,
S/o Shri E.Manual, Ex.Diesel Driver,
Tarbaahar, Kamla Niwas,
Near primary School, Bilaspur
....Workman
Versus
The Divisional Mechanical Engineer,
South Eastern Railway,
Bilaspur (MP)
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 14th day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 23-6-99 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-41012/
40/96-IR(B). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of
S.E.Railway, Bilaspur in removing Shri E.Manual, Ex-
Diesel Driver from service w.e.f. 28-6-96 vide order
No. M/D&A/4260/WEM/DRV/L/BSP dated 28-6-93
is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. However Ist party workman failed to submit
Statement of claim. On 22-8-07, the reference is proceeded
exparte against workman. The management filed exparte
Written Statement.
3. The case submitted by lInd party management is
that on 8-10-92, the workman was functioning as Driver of
Train No. 4260 Down Sarnath Express from Katni to
Bilaspur. That he was found to have consumed Alcohol.
When he was checked at Umaria by Senior L.I. Shri
B.N.Singh with electronic breath alcohol analyzer
instrument and indicated Visual Flesh simultaneously with
audio buzzer which proved that alcohol content in the
breath exceeds the safe limit. That the workman was also
examined by AME/SDL and Sr. DMO/SDL on arrival of
4260 Dn at Shahdol and found workman breath smelled of
alcohol. That the workman contravened the provision of
Rule 2(I)(iii) and 22 of RS Conduct Rules 1966 and Rule
2.09 Indian (OL) General Rules 1976 and thereby rendered
himself liable for Disciplinary action in terms of RS(D&A)
Rule 1968. The charge sheet was issued to workman for
major penalty on 9-11-1992. Shri S.K.Paithandy, Senior F.I
Bilaspur was appointed as Enquiry officer. He conducted
enquiry and collected available records and evidence. The
written report was submitted on 9-10-92. The case sheet
for examination of drunker WE Manual, Driver at Shahdol
was issued by SR.DMO/SDL on 8-10-1992. That as per
findings of the Enquiry Officer, misconduct was proved.
Punishment of removal was imposed on 28-6-93. The
punishment was challenged by filing appeal. The appeal
was decided on 21-11-94. The punishment was upheld.
lInd party submitted that for proved misconduct, workman
is not entitled to relief prayed by him.
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 S.E. Railway,
Bilaspur in removing
Shri E.Manual, Ex-Diesel
Driver from service w.e.f.
28-6-96 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5781
REASONS
5. Though reference is about legality of removal of
workman from service, he has not filed statement of claim
neither he has adduced any evidence. Management
submitted exparte Written Statement. It is submitted that
the workman had consumed alcohol. The departmental
enquiry was held and misconduct was proved. The affidavit
of evidence of Shri R.Shankaran, S/o V.Ramaseshan is filed.
The witness has stated in affidavit that the workman was
found drunk while functioning as Driver in Train No. 4260
Dm. Sarnath Express Katni to Bilaspur. Enquiry was held
and misconduct was supported by evidence. The record
of Enquiry proceeding is produced. The evidence of
management's witness remained unchallenged. As 1st Party
workman failed to substantiate his claim about illegality of
removal from duty, I record my finding on Point No.1 in
Negative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(i) The action of the management of S.E.Railway,
Bilaspur in removing Shri E.Manual, Ex-Diesel
Driver from service w.e.f. 28-6-96 is legal.
(ii) Relief claim by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2133-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jsyos bySDVªhf'k;u
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]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 97@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@108@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2133.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Railway Electrification and
there workmen, received by the Central Government on
09.09.2013.
[No. L-41012/108/98-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/97/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B.PATLE
Shri Amar Singh,
S/o Badaria,
C/o Shri Sudhakar Tiwari, Khalasi,
Under lOW, Rly. Electrification,
Bilaspur
....Workman
Versus
Dy. Chief Project Manager,
Railway Electrification,
Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 21st day of June, 2013
1. As per letter dated 24-2-99 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-41012/
108/98-IR (B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
" Whether the action of the management of Dy.Chief
Project Manager, RE, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Amar Singh S/o Badaria w.e.f. 24-2-
97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Even after notice, workman did not appeared.
Workman is proceeded exparte on 21-12-2006. Management
was directed to file exparte Written, Statement. The
management failed to file exparte Written Statement.
Management was also given opportunity to file evidence.
Management failed to adduce evidence.
3. It appears that both parties are not interested for
adjudication of the reference, hence No Dispute Award is
passed.
R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2134-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSd
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] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@271@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2134.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2004)
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 State Bank of India
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09.09.2013.
[No. L-12012/271/2003-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
5782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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(I)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE No. 45 OF 2004.
Parties:
Sri Padmalochan Mahato Agrico, Jamshedpur
Vs. .Br. Manager, S.B.I., Govindpur Branch, Jamshedpur
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman:
Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management:
Mr. R. N. Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate
State : JHARKHAND
Industry: Banking
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th July" 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in
exercise of the powers conferred on then under Sec. 10(I)(d)
of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to
this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L-12012/
271/2003-IR(B-I) dt.22.3.2004.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the non regularization of services of Shri
Padmalochan Mahato and termination of his services
by the Management of State Bank of India is justified.
It not to what remedies available for".
2. The case of the workman Padmalochan Mahato is
that he was appointed as a Messenger/Coolie in the service
of the State Bank of India,Chhota Govindpur Branch,
Jamshedpur w.e.f. 23.2.2995. He continuously worked up
to 21.2.1997 there sincerely. Though it was initially his
temporary service, he had completed 541 days at the Bank
Branch, so he should be legally treated as permanent
employee of the Bank. But he ws illegally motivatedly and
against the principle of natural justice terminated w.e.f.
22.02.1991. The termination amounts retrenchment u/s 2(00)
of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 there sincerely. Though
it was initially his temporary service, he had completed 541
days at the Bank Branch, so he should be legally treated as
a permanent employee of the Bank. But he was illegally,
motivatedly and against the principle of natural justice
terminated w.e.f. 22.2.1997. The termination amounts to
retrenchment u/s 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
His termination was without one month's notice or
compensation for it under the provision of the Act. It was
his victimization and unfair labour practice by the Bank. At
his approach to the Bank Authority and the Recognized
Union in respect of his termination and retrenchment in the
service without back wages or settlement the Bank
authorities as well as its officials assured of considering
his case.
3. Justifying the maintainability of the Reference u/s
2(a) of the Act, the workman in its rejoinder with specific
denials has stated that fundamental right confer on him to
claim, as he served more than 240 days, the Branch has
power to appoint a person in exigency against permanent
vacancies existent in the Branch. His working for 240 days
confers on him a right to be absorbed in the post. No
retrenchment rules override the enacted law. Thus the plea
of the management is lame excuse for its misdeed. The post
of the messenger in a Banks is permanent. The mode of
payment of wages through vouchers' was under the control
of the Bank Manager.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the reference
being vague and beyond the purview of the I.D. Act is
legally unmaintainable, as the person concerned is not an
employee of the State Bank of India. There is no employer-
employee relationship between the management and him.
He was never appointed in any capacity anywhere. Any
vacancy, if any, in any post in the Bank is filled up as per
the recruitment rules/regulations of the Bank, but no Branch
of the Bank has power to appoint/employ any person in
violation of the Rules against the fundamental right of the
others. Since the person was never appointed by the Bank
as per recruitment Rules, the question of his regularization,
or of termination does not arise. At times, the Branches of
the Bank need help of some outsiders to perform certain
jobs of highly casual, not of permanent in nature, and they
are paid through petty cash vouchers at the end of each
job. The performance of such job of casual nature by the
person as a coolie of a legal right for his regularization as
regular employee of the Bank. The Bank has no post of
coolie; so the claim of Sri Mahato is baseless. The instant
dispute is mere attempt by an outsider to get into the regular
employment of the bank through litigatation. lt is the settled
law that a person entering as a daily wager without following
the selection procedure cannot be regularized or an
appointment made in contravention of the rules and in
ignorance essential, qualification is illegal. The Bank has
no such existent rule to regularize such casual or daily
person.
5. In its rejoinder, categorically denying the
allegations of the workman, the O.P./Management has
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5783
stated that merely for occasionally engagement of the
person as a coolie by the Bank for casual works in exigencies
he is not entitled to any relief. Remuneration of a temporary
or regular employee of the Bank is not paid through
vouchers. The local Implementation Committee of the
Branch also utilized the service of the person concerned as
a canteen boy in the canteen run by the Local
Implementation Committee, so he is not an employee of the
Bank.
FINDING WITH THE REASON
6. In this reference, WW1 Padmalochan Mahato the
workman for himself, and MW1 Shree Jaishree, the Branch
Manager, the SBI Branch, Chhota Govindpur, Singhbhum
for the O.P./Management have been examined respectively.
The oral statement of WW1 Padmalochin Mahato,
the workman for himself, reveals his engagement as a
messenger in place of Subodh Kumar Bera by the
Management w.e.f. 23.2.1995 at SBI Chhota Govindpur
Branch where he worked up to 21.2.1997 by putting his
attendance for more than 240 days in a year and aforesaid
Kumar Bera, who was being seriously ill, died subsequently.
But the fact of his engagement in place of foresaid Subodh
Kumar Bera, a messenger who died of serious illness is
unpleaded, so it is inadmissible excepting the Certificate
(Marked X for identification) and Recommendation Letter
of the Branch Manager to the Higher Authority (the
photocopy- Ext.W.l). The workman has no document to
show his working for his 240 days preceding to his stoppage
from working. It is indisputable that neither he got any
appointment letter to work as a messenger nor his name
was called for from the Employment Exchange nor there
was any advertisement to fill up the vacancy of messenger.
Besides, the alleged Certificate (Marked for X for
identification) issued by the Branch Manager concerned
in favour of the workman itself though contradictory to his
statement yet proves his working intermittently as
messenger for three years. Likewise the photocopy of the
Recommendation Letter of the Branch Manager (Ext.W.l)
discloses his working for 341 days, but none of his both
documents specifically affirms the period of his working.
Both are his vague documents as his pleaded evidence.
The recommendation letter asserts his presently working
as Canteen Boy at the Branch.
7. Whereas as per the statement of M.W.I, SBI Branch,
Shree Haishree, Chhota Govindpur, Singhbhum for the O.P./
management the workman was neither engaged nor paid
any wages by the Bank during his tenure (Since 25th Oct.,
2010) rather he worked around the year 1997 in the canteen
on daily wages, which were paid by the Local
Implementation Committee which is an independent body,
a separate entity and a private organization of the staff and
workmen at the Branch formed for the welfare activities; at
times the workman which temporarily working as a canteen
"Boy" in the year 1997 on daily wages under the said
independent committee performed the job of Box Lifting
etc. for the Bank Branch on daily wages, there was no
Employer-employee relationship between the Bank and the
workman, so his claim for regularization just as his alleged
termination is totally unjustified. According to the
Management witness (MWI) since the Bank has not any
documents, it has no verification of it related to the period
of Feb, 1995 to Feb. 1997, and the B.K. Singh, the Branch
Manager, had recommended for absorption of the workman
as a messenger/coolie, stating about his intermittently work.
8. As per written argument, it is argued on behalf of
the workman that since the workman worked as a messenger
in place of Subodh Kr. Bera in the State Bank of India,
Chotta Govindpur Branch, Jamshedpur for more than 240
days from 25.2.1995 until he was stopped from working
since 21.2.1997 as evident from the recommendation letter
of the Branch Manager concerned (Ext.W.l,) so his
termination was illegal; hence he is entitled to reinstatement
in his service with full back wages. Whereas the contention
on behalf of the O.P./Management as per its written
argument is that merely because the workman was
occasionally engaged for casual work as a coolie on daily
wages, he cannot be entitled to any relief against the Bank
in this respect.
9. On the perusal and consideration of the materials
available on the concerned, I find the facts as under:
(i) In the face of the admission of the workman that
he has not got any appointment letter for the post
of a messenger against any permanent vacancy
and has no paper except the Certificate dt.1.10.97
of the Branch Manager, Chhota Govindpur
(Ext.W.1) to show his working as a messenger for
more than 240 days. His Certificate is not an official
letter.
(ii) His aforesaid Certificate (Ext. W-.1) clearly
indicates his two facts -firstly working
"intermittently", and "for a period of exceeding 3
years "The period of three years both these facts
rebut his oral statement of his alleged continuous
working from 23.2.95 to 21.2.97 which is lesser
than two years. The stand of the workman is
contradictory highly. His intermittent working
cannot be his regular continuous service even
for any single year.
(iii) ln case of admitted intermittent casual work of the
workman, no question of his alleged termination/
retrenchment as under Sec, 25 F of the I.D. Act.
1947 arises.
Under these circumstances, it is hereby, in the terms
of the Reference:
5784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDERED
That the Award be and the same is passed that the
non-regularization of service of Shri Padmalochan Mahato
by the Management of the State Bank of India is quite
legally justified. But in view of the status of the workman
as intermittent messenger for his contradictory periods, he
was surely a casual worker on daily wages, the question
about his alleged termination from alleged service by the
said management neither arises nor applicable to the present
reference, as there is no continuous service of the Workman.
So the workman is not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2135-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947] 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jsyos bU'kVhV~;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
gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 3@2011 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@19@2009&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2135.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 3/2011)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
dispute between the Management of Railway Institute and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
09/09/2013.
[No. L-41012/19/2009-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 18th day of April, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 3/2011
Between:
Sri Ch. Venkateswarlu,
Ex-Gardener-cum-Watchman,
Railway Institute, Vadlapudi:
D. No. 49-10-18, Lalitha Nagar,
Visakhapatnam.
...............Petitioner
AND
The Secretary,
Railway Institute,
Vadlapudi, East Coast Railway,
Visakhapatnam.
...............Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : None
For the Respondent : Sri Y.V. Sanyasi Rao, Advocate
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-41012/19/2009-IR(B.I.) dated 6.1.2011 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of East Coast Railway and their workman.
The reference is:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Railway
Institute, Vadlapudi, East Coast Railway, Vadlapudi,
Visakhapatnam in terminating the services of Sh. Ch.
Venkateswarlu, ex-Gardner-cum-Watchman is
justified? To what relief the workman is entitled?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 3/2011 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. The case stands posted for appearance of
Petitioner and for filing of claim statement and documents.
Petitioner called absent and there is no representation since
long time. Inspite of fair opportunity claim statement not
filed by the Petitioner. In the circumstances, taking that
Petitioner is not interested in the proceedings, petition is
dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 18th
day of April, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5785
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 9 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2136-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj oS'; cSd fyñ 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 caxykSj
ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 129@2007 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 08@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@215@2002&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2013
S.O. 2136.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.129/2007) of
the Cent. Govt. Indust. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
BANGALORE as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Vysya Bank Limited
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
08/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/215/2002-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-
LABOUR COURT YESWANTHPUR,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
5th June, 2013
Present
:
Shri S.N. NAVALGUND,
Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 129/2007
I Party
II Party
Sh. R. Nagaraja,
The Chairman,
39/3, 5th Main Road,
INY Vysya Bank Limited,
Palace Gutahalli,
No. 72, St. Marks Road,
BANGALORE-560003
BANGALORE-560001.
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Shri C.N. Krishna Reddy
Advocate
II Party
:
Shri B.C. Prabhakar
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government which had declined to
refer the matter for adjudication by issuing an endorsement
on 20.09.2002 observing that the dispute raised by the
workman is not maintainable under Section 2A of ID Act,
1947 as it is a case of voluntary resignation and more over
it has been raised belatedly after a lapse of 11 years without
any valid reasons, later being directed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in W P No. 6448/2005 made this
reference in exercise of the power conferred of by Clause
(d) of Sub-section 1 and Sub-section 2A Section 10 of the
ID Act, 1947 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Vysya
Bank Ltd. in denying family pension benefits to Shri
R. Nagaraj S/o Late Sri Parathasarathy, is fair and
justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled."
2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in
CR 129/2007 when notices were issued to both sides they
entered their appearance through their respective
advocates and I Party filed his claim statement on 30.11.2007
whereas the II party its counter statement on 07.12.2010.
3. When the II party was called upon to lead evidence
justifying its action of denying family pension benefits to
the I party its learned advocate while filing the affidavit of
Subramanya Gupta, Process Lead Trust Manager of the II
party Bank reiterating the counter statement examined him
on oath as MW 1 got exhibited the Resignation letter of I
Party dated 21.07.1990; copy of the order accepting the
resignation dated 23.07.1990; relieving order dated
29.07.1990; office copy of letters dated 28.08.1990 issued
by the II party to the trustees Vysya Bank staff Gratuity
Fund to settle the gratuity amount and Provident Fund of
the I party; the letter of I party seeking payment of pension
dated 27.05.1997; office copy of the reply dated 03.06.1997
of the II party; the legal notice dated 18.02.2000 received
from the I party; office copy of the reply by the II Party
dated 28.04.2000; copy of ING Vysya Bank Employees
Pension Regulations 1995 as Ex M-1 to Ex M-10 respectively
and closed his side, Inter alia, the learned advocate
appearing for the party while filing the affidavit of I party
reiterating the claim statement examining him on oath as
WW 1 did not get any documents exhibited.
4. After close of the evidence of both the sides when
the matter was posted for arugments the learned advocate
appearing for the I party filed his written aruguments and
in support of his arguments cited the decisions reported in
AIR 1998 Page 1747 SC (Dhan Raj and others v. State of
Jammu & Kashmir and others) and AIR 1983 Page 130 SC
5786
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(D S Nakara and others v. Union of India) whereas the
learned advocate appearing for the II pary addressed his
oral arguments.
5. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides
in the light of the arguments put forward by the advocates
appearing for both sides, I have arrived at conclusion the
action of the management of Vysya Bank in denying family
pension benefits to Sh. Nagaraj is legal and justified and
that he is not entitle for any benefits for the following
reasons:
REASONS
6. The I Party in his claim statement alleging that he
rendered 29 years of service as a sub-staff in the II party
Bank till 21.07.1990 took voluntary retirement but the
management took his signatures on many blank papers
and registers amongst which some of them were affixed
with revenue stamps and misused the said papers to create
evidence as if he resigned from the job and was not retired
and as inspite of his several requests to include his name
for the membership of the family pension scheme it was
not responded to he got issued legal notice dated
18.02.2000 and as a reply was given denying his request on
the ground that he has resigned and not retired to entitle
for inclusion of his name for family pension he constrained
to raise this dispute. Inter alia, in the counter statement
filed by the II Party without disputing I Party having served
as its sub-staff for a period of 29 years till 21.09.1990; it is
contended that on 21.07.1990 he tendered resignation on
personal grounds with a specific request for waiving off
the required notice the same being accepted and informed
vide letter dated 23.07.1990 by waiving of the notice period
as a special case and relieving him of duties from 23.07.1990
and thereafter settled his terminal benefits including PF
and gratuity and thereafter with a gap of seven years on
27.05.1997 he asked for inclusion of his name for family
pension which was aptly replied by letter dated 03.06.1997
and thereafter keeping quite for three years on 18.02.2000
he got issued notice through his advocate calling upon to
include him in the family pension scheme and that was also
aptly replied on 28.04.2000 clarifying that he is not entitle
to be included in the family pension scheme having resigned
and not retired, he approached the conciliation officer and
as he submitted a failure report the Central Government
gave an endorsement to him on 20.09.2002 declining to
refer the matter for adjudication with observations that
dispute raised by him is not maintainable under Section 2A
of the ID act, 1947 as it is a case of voluntary resignation
and moreover it is raised after a lapse of 11 years without
any valid reasons and subsequently when he approached
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W P No. 6448/2005
and an order was made to the Central Government for
making this reference, the CG is compelled to make this
reference for adjudication. It is also contended since it is
not a case of termination, dismissal, retrenchment or
discharge the I Party cannot invoke the provisions of
Section 2A of the ID Act for adjudication of his grievance
without the intervention of any Union as such also the
reference is not maintainable and is to be rejected.
7. The documentary evidence produced by the II
Party at Ex M-1 to Ex M-5 do clearly indicate/suggest the I
Party having submitted a letter of resignation dated
21.07.1990 with a request to accept the same with immediate
effect by waving required prior notice and to consider his
daughter R N Indira for job who is studying in Final Year B
Com and same being accepted and Order has been served
on him on 23.07.1990 and he has received the PF and
Gratuity, he who has admittedly put in a service of 29 years
would not have simply put his signatures to blank papers
and registers as alleged by him in Para 2 of the claim
statement enabling the II Party to create evidence as if he
has resigned. In this regard except the allegations in the
claim statement and his swearing affidavit evidence
absolutely there is nothing on record as a direct of
circumstantial evidence to believe his case of putting his
signatures on blank papers and registers. Moreover, he
who was relieved of his post on 23.07.1990 since kept quite
for over a period of seven years i.e., till 27.05.1997 the date
on which for first time he sought for payment of family
pension this in itself suggest that he who had voluntarily
resigned from his post with after thought started claiming
payment of family pension claiming that he had retired and
not resigned. Since as per regulation No. 3(1) (a) of the
Vysya Bank Employees Pension Regulatioin, 1995 an
employee who was in the service of the Bank on or after
the first day of January 1986 but had retired before the first
day of November 1993 is eligible for applying and receiving
benefits, the II Party is fair and justified in its action in
denying family pension benefits to the I party.
8. Moreover as contended by the II party to invoke
the provisions of Section 2A of the ID Act the impugned
action should be discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
otherwise termination from the service and in the absence
of such things no workman can individually without the
intervention of any union entitle to raise a industrial dispute
as such on that ground also the reference is liable to be
rejected. In the result, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is rejected holding the action of the
Vysya Bank Limited in denying family pension benefits to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5787
Shri R. Nagaraj S/o late Sri Parathasarathy, is fair and justified
and that he is entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 5th June 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2137-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoksZÙkj 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]
y[kuÅ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼35@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@17@2008&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013
S.O. 2137.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.35/2008) of
the Cent. Govt. Indust. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Purvottar Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/09/2013.
[No. L-41011/17/2008-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Dr. MANJU NIGAM,
Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 35/2008
BETWEEN
Mandal Sanghatan Mantri,
Purvottar Railway Shramik Sangh
283/63 KH, Garhi Kannora
Premvati Nagar, PO: Manak Nagar
Lucknow
AND
A.E.N.
Purvottar Railway
Bahraich
Sr. D.P.O.
Purvottar Railway Mandal Rail Prabhandak Karyalya
Ashok Marg
Lucknow
ORDER
1. By order No. L- 41011/17/2008-IR(B-I) dated
30.05.2008, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Mandal Sanghatan Mantri,
Purvottar Railway Shramik Sangh, 283/63 KH, Garhi
Kannora,Premvati Nagar, PO: Manak Lucknow (espousing
cause of Mohd Yusuf S/o Late Mohd. Yasin) A.E.N.
Purvottar Railway, Bahraich and Sr. DPO, Purvottar Railway
Mandal Rail Prabhandak Karyalya, Ashok Marg, Lucknow
for adjudication.
1. The reference under adjudication is:
"Kiya Purvottar Railway Prabhandtantra Ke Patra
29.06.2004 Ke Anusar Sansodhan Karke Use Dey Dhanrashi
Rs. 60,143/ Ka Bhugtan Sevanivrat Modh. Yusuf S/o Mohd
Yasin, Carpanter Ko Kiya Gaya, Kintu Es Rashi Par Bayaj
Na Diya Jana Niyaochit Evm Vaidh Hai? Karmkar Kis Rahat
Ko Panne Ka Adhikari Hai"?
2. The case of the workman Mohd. Yusuf, in brief, is
that he was employed as Carpanter, PWI, Purvottar Railway,
Bharaich and retired on 30.09.2001. The workman union
alleged that management withheld Rs. 60143/- from retrial
amount but in the year 2004 the management paid the same
amount to the workman. The workman union alleged that
Mohd Yusuf pay scale was considered Rs. 6200/- in place
of Rs. 6500/- due to malafide intention of the management.
The workman union prayed that Tribunal to order the
management to pay 18% interest on the withheld amount.
Case proceed exparte against management on 27.05.2009
next date i.e. 25.06.2009 workman filed his evidence on
affidavit W-8 Opposite party filed application to recall the
order to precede exparte dated 27.05.2009.The exparte order
was set aside vide order dated 07.04.2010.
3. The opposite party filed written statement stating
therein that the workman was paid all the retrial dues at the
time of retirement as per rule but Mohd. Yusuf was on
deputation in Iraq and his service on deputation was not
counted at the time of retirement. The opposite party stated
that when approval was received for counting the services
of deputation so his scale was upgraded from Rs. 6200/- to
Rs. 6500/- and arrear was paid to him. It was further pleaded
that as per Railway Services & Pension 1993 Chapter VI
5788
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
rule 87 (4) no interest on the arrears of gratuity shall be
paid. The Rule reproduced below;
"If as a result of Government's decision taken
subsequent to the retirement of a railway servant,
the amount of gratuity already paid on his retirement
is enhanced on account of;
(a) grant of emplouments higher than the emoluments
on which gratuity already paid was determined, or
(b) liberalization in the provisions of these rules from
a date of retirement of the railway servant concerned,
no interest on the arrears of gratuity shall be paid."
4. The workman filed its rejoinder; wherein he has
not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the
averments already made by him in his statement of claim.
The rejoinder was filed by workman on 07.07.2010 thereafter
the case was fixed for filing documents and evidence of
workman. Authorized representative of workman informed
that workman evidence on affidavit has already been filed
on 25.06.2009. No fresh evidence is to be filed.
5. The workman was cross examined on 27.09.2011
wherein he stated that letter no. E/TT/PC/Mohd.Yusuf/
carpenter/Engg. Dated 29.06.2004 was received by him
alongwith 3 cheques but has no knowledge of the rules.
Thereafter case was fixed for opposite party evidence w.e.f.
11.11.2011 but the evidence was not filed by opposite party.
On 10.01.2012, 29.02.2012, 11.04.2012, 10.05.2012 thereafter
the case fixed for argument. In this case the workman has
demanded 18% interest on the withheld amount of Rs.
60,143/- w.e.f. 01.10.2001 to 31.03.2006. It was submitted
that non payment of interest on withheld amount is not
only against the rules of Railway Board, but also violative
to provisions of I.D. Act. It was pleaded by the management
that as per Railway Services rule the applicant is not entitled
for the interest on the revised scale. Hence it is necessary
to quote the Railway Service & Pension Rule 1993 Chapter-
VII rule 87 (4) which is as under:
"If as a result of Government's decision taken
subsequent to the retirement of a railway servant,
the amount of gratuity already paid on his retirement
is enhanced on account of;
(a) grant of empoluments higher than the emoluments
on which gratuity already paid was determined, or
(b) liberalization in the provisions of these rules from
a date of retirement of the railway servant concerned,
no interest on the arrears of gratuity shall be paid."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances and the
Railway rules. I come to the conclusion that workman is
not entitled to interest as claimed by him. As such the
reference is answered in negative. Workman is not entitled
to the relief claimed.
7. Award as above.
Lucknow
Dated : 18.3.2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 10 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2138-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iwoZ e/; jsyos
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] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼175@2001½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@92@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 10th September, 2013
S.O. 2138.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 175/2001)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Western Central Railway and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
10/09/2013.
[No. L-41012/92/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/175/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R. B. PATLE
Smt. Sumanbai,
W/o Late Shri Devisingh,
Vill-Shrawada, Post Gadarwada,
Tehsil Piparia,
Distt. Hoshangabad
Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Western Central Railway,
Jabalpur (MP)
Management
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 15-11-2001 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5789
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-41012/
92/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Railway Manager, Western Central Railway, Jabalpur
(MP) is not giving family pension to Smt. Suman Bai,
widow of deceased workman Devi Singh, MRCL
working under PWI, Damoh after death of her
husband on 19-9-92 is legal and justified? If not to
what relief Smt. Suman Bai is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party widow of deceased workman filed her
statement of claim at Page 5/1 to 5/2. The case of Ist party
is that she is widow of Late Devi Singh, MRCL under PWI
(Damoh). Her husband died on 19-9-92. That she received
compensation Rs. 76202/- under Workman Compensation
Act. That she was repeatedly approaching Railway
authorities for family pension. Her request was not
considered. That after failure of conciliation proceedings,
the dispute has been referred. She submits that her husband
was working as monthly rated casual labour enjoying
temporary status as provided under Railway Establishment
Manual Para 2501, 2311(3b). That as per Para 801 of Railway
Pension Rules, the management of IInd party is bound to
pay family pension to her. On such grounds, she prays for
grant of family pension and arrears with interest.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing the
claim. Preliminary objection is raised that the reference is
initiated after lapse of 6 years. The records are preserved
for a period of 5 years. The records are destroyed after
prescribed period. Therefore the claim of Ist party is not
tenable. The IInd party did not dispute that the husband of
Ist Party was working as MRCL. However it is denied that
Ist party is entitled to family pension. That her claim is not
tenable is not covered under Para 801 of Railway Service
Pension Rules 1973. The widow of deceased MRCL is not
entitled to pension. On such ground, management prays
for rejection of claim of Ist party.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder reiterating her contentions
in statement of claim. That her claim for pension is tenable
under the Rules.
5. Considering pleadings of 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 widow of
In Negative
deceased workman
Devi Singh, MRCL
working under PWI,
Damoh is entitled to
family pension after
death of her husband
on 19-9-94?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
Ist party is rejected.
REASONS
6. Is party widow of deceased MRCL is claiming family
pension in support of her claim. She has filed evidence on
affidavit. That after death of her husband, she received
compensation Rs. 76202/-. She has submitted application
for family pension. In her cross-examination, she admits
that her husband was not regularized in service. Full
Compensation amount was paid to her. She claims
ignorance whether family pension is paid to the regular
employees.
7. Management filed affidavit of witness of Shri
Gyanand Shukla denying claim for family pension. In his
cross-examination, management's witness says deceased
MRCL was not working under him. He is working on present
post from July 2011. IInd party denies claim for family
pension of the workman. MRCL paid monetary wages. He
was not concerned with working in Engineering section.
He deposed as per record. Copy of family pension Scheme
for Railway employees 1961 is produced. Para 801 of those
rules does not include employee working as MRCL.
8. Counsel for Ist party in support of the claim on
family pension relies on ratio held in case of.
"Divisional Suptd. Eastern Railway versus Presiding
Officer reported in 1986-LIC-36. His Lordship dealing
with Para 2501 to 2311 of Railway Establishment
Manual held construction unit of Railway is
permanent unit and not a project. Casual employees
working continuously for six months conferred
temporary status on him. The management is bound
to give family pension."
9. On the point of demand of family pension, counsel
for IInd party Mr. Shashi relies on ratio held in case of.
"General Manager North Western Railway versus
Chanda Devi reported in 2008(2) - SC-108. His
Lordship of the Apex Court held Railway rules make
distinction between casual labourer having
temporary status which protects only casual
employee's service. Hence widow of casual labour is
not entitled to family pension."
5790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In para 23 of the judgment, their Lordship have
elaborately discussed the family pension Scheme 1964.
Their Lordship observed in all these cases though some of
them have been screened, yet appointments were not given
since the temporary posts obviously were not available or
in some cases, they were not even eligible for screening
because the posts become available after death. Under
these circumstances, the respondent widow are not eligible
for family pension."
The ratio held in above cited case relied by IInd party
holds the field. The judgment by Supreme Court needs to
be followed instead of the judgment in 1986-LIC-36.
10. For above reasons, I hold that the widow of
deceased MRCL is not entitled to family pension therefore
I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management in refusing pension
to widow of deceased MRCL Devi Singh is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by widow is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2139-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj 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]
tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 81@2003 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@297@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 2139.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 81/2003) 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 Indore and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 11/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/297/2002-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/81/2003
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Daily wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwer Road,
Ujjain
...Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of Indore, Head Office,
5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore (MP)
...Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 28-3-2003 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/
297/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager(O), State Bank of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Mohan Raikwar w.e.f. 6-10-99 and
not regularizing him is justified? If not, what relief
the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman through Secretary of Daily Wage
Bank Employees Union filed statement of claim to Page 2/
1 to 2/7. Case of workman is that Branch Manager Shri
Hemant Lehane on administrative exigency engaged Ist
party workman for cleaning work on wages Rs. 40/- per day
from 10-9-96. That he was paid wages after deducting wages
for holidays. He was required to perform different works.
His wages were paid preparing bills. The vouchers for
payment of wages were prepared in names of different
persons. That one of the voucher for Rs. 800/- was prepared
in the name of Shri Raju, Radhakrishna, Koshore Kumar.
That he was continuously working in the bank till 6-10-99.
His services were terminated without notice or paying
retrenchment compensation. He was continuously working
for more than 240 days and as such covered under Section
25-B of I.D. Act. That his services are terminated in violation
of Section 25-F, G N of I.D. Act. Principles of last come first
go was not followed. The wages were paid in different
heads. He was paid bonus for the year 96 to 99. On such
grounds, Ist party workman prays for his reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
3. Written Statement is filed at page 5/1 to 5/6. The
claim for Ist party workman is denied. That workman was
never employee of the Bank. Reference is vague. The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5791
reference is not tenable. That for appointment of sub-staff,
there is recruitment process. No public notice was issued
for appointment, the name of workman was not sponsored
through employment Exchange. The recruitment process
was not followed. Workman did not complete 240 days
continuous service. IInd party Bank never engaged or
appointed workman. That utilizing services for few hours
in a week for fetching drinking water does not give right of
an employee to the workman. That provisions of I.D. Act
are not applicable in the matter as there is no employee
employer relationship. On such ground, IInd party prays
for rejection of relief prayed by workman.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 13/1 to 13/3.
The workman has reiterated that his services are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He was paid bonus
for 1996. He had completed 240 days continuous 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:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of General
Manager(O), State Bank
of Indore in terminating
the services of
Shri Mohan Raikwar
w.e.f. 6-10-99 and not
regularizing him is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. Before dealing with other contentions, I make it
clear that the objections filed under Section 36 of I.D. Act
about locus of Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary of Union
and for engaging Advocate were not pressed.
7. The workman is challenging termination of his
services. He also prays for regularization of his services
contending that he completed 240 days services during
each year. His services were terminated in violation of
Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act. IInd party denied all contentions.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering most of
his contentions in statement of claim. That he had
completed 240 days continuous service. On his demand
for bonus, his services were terminated without paying
bonus or retrenchment compensation. Workman has also
stated that his wages were paid in name of Maheshwari
book. Santosh electrical etc. preparing bonus bills. In his
cross-examination, workman says appointment letter was
not given to him. No order of termination of services was
issued. There are rules for recruitment in the Bank. The
appointments are made after Written Test and interview.
He had not appeared in Written test. That the Manager
had taken interview but its result was not informed. No
exam was conducted having candidates 50 to 100. That
zerox copies of documents were supplied to him by Manager
but he was unable to tell from which registers those copies
were issue to him. Workman has produced documents
Exhibit W-1 copy of circular issued by General manager
regarding engagement of the casual employees should be
avoided. Exhibit W-2, W-3 is document about payment of
Rs. 350 for the work of filling water in coolers. Exhibit W-4
is copy of invitation on transfer of Manager Lahane. Exhibit
W-5 is copy of invitation of Rang Panchami. Exhibit W-6 is
copy of invitation is for sender on transfer of Mr. Ramesh
Dubey. W-7 is notice about programme organized on
transfer of the officer. Exhibit W-8 is also copy of invitation
of programme on transfer. All those documents have not
bearing about the work on workman in the Bank. The
documents Exhibit W-9, 10 to 14 are difficult to understand
what is written in those documents. Exhibit W-15 is copy
of settlement dated 13-7-93.
8. Workman has not examined any co-employee, any
employee in the Bank about payment of salary to him. The
evidence of workman that he received wages under the
bogus bills prepared in name of different persons cannot
be legalized. Any of those persons are not examined as
witness. The evidence adduced by workman is not
sufficient to prove that the workman was working for more
than 240 days preceding 12 months of his termination of
service.
9. The evidence of management's witness Shri Abhay
Joshi is filed. Affidavit of said witness is devoted that
workman was continuously working from 10-9-96 to October
99. That for cleaning work, the services of workman were
engaged, he was to work one hour in the morning and one
hour in the evening. As per exigency the wages were paid.
In his cross-examination, management witness say that he
was not working in the Bank during the relevant period. He
had inquired from branch managers on telephone. His
suggestion is denied that workman had worked for 300
days in a year.
10. Reliance is placed in ratio held in case of
"Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Versus Mohammed
Rafi reported in 2009(11) Supreme Court Cases 522.
Their Lordship of the Apex Court held burden of
proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous
work in a year lies on the aggrieved workman."
5792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
In case of State of Haryana versus Ramesh Kumar
reported in 2008(11) Supreme Court Cases 435. Their
Lordship dealing with Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) and Section
25-F held burden of proof that workman had worked for
240 days as prescribed in Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) and therefore
completed one year's service required under Section 25-F
burden is on the workman.
Though the evidence of management's witness is
not corroborated from documents or any other witness
that workman was working only in morning and evening,
the burden lies on the workman to prove that he completed
240 days continuous service. The evidence of workman
himself is that he has received wages under the bonus bills
prepared in the name of other persons cannot be relied
upon that he had actually received payment therefore
workman has failed to prove that he was continuously
working for more than 240 days preceding his termination.
Therefore workman is not entitled to protection of Section
25-F of I.D. Act.
11. The evidence of workman is not clear who is
employed after termination of his service, therefore
violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act cannot be
established. The ratio relied by Shri Ram Nagwanshi in
case of Samishta Dube and City Board Etawah and another
reported in 1999(81) FLR 746 cannot be applied to the case
at hand.
12. For reasons discussed above, action of the
management terminating service of workman cannot be
said illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Affirmative.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of General Manager(O),
State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of
Shri Mohan Raikwar w.e.f. 6-10-99 and not
regularizing him is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2140-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
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]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@168@98&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 2140.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/1999)
of the Central Government Industrial 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
11.09.2013.
[No. L-12012/168/1998-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/80/99
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Daily Wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwar Road, Ujjain (MP)
.......Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations)
State Bank of India,
Head Office, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
......Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August 2013
1. As per letter dated 29.1.1999 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/
168/98-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore in terminating the services of Shri Suraj
Kumar Pawar w.e.f. 28.3.1997 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the said workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman through Daily Wage Bank's
Union filed Statement of Claim at Page 3 to 6. Case of Ist
party workman is that he was working in Nimadkhedi branch
of the Bank as safaiwala. From 1.5.92, he was paid wages
Rs. 20 per day. He was working from 10.30 AM to 6 PM
every day. He rendered services satisfactorily. His wages
were increased to Rs. 40. In January 94, he was required to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5793
work at Rajgarh Branch, he was paid wages Rs. 40 per day.
He was doing cleaning, dusting etc. works. He was also
required to do work of taking entries in token book, log
book, ledger, supply of drinking water to staff and
customers. He was required to purchase articles and
distribute dak. He was stitching bundles of notes.
3. On April, 1995, Shri Kantilal died. Other guards
Shri Ram Singh has retired on August, 1996. Ist party desired
his appointment on regular basis. A note was also submitted
by Branch Office to the General Manager. That order was
also issued on 2.1.1997 for payment of half of the pay scale
to him. From January 1997 to March 1997 Ist party was paid
wages by cheque. He had completed 240 days continuous
service as provided under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. His
services were illegally terminated from 28.3.1997. He was
not served with notice for retrenchment. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation, junior employees were
continued. He was not given opportunity of re-employment,
termination of his services is in violation of Section 25-F, G,
H of I.D. Act. On such grounds, Ist party prayed for
reinstatement with back wages.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 15/1 to
15/8. IInd party totally denied claim of workman. II party
submitted that Ist party was not appointed on permanent
or temporary post. The Union had no locus to file statement
of claim on behalf of the workman as the workman was not
its member. The Union was not party to the conciliation
proceeding before ALC, therefore it has no locus to
represent the workman.
5. IInd party denied contentions of workman that he
was working from 8 AM to 8 PM every day from 1.5.1992. It
is denied that the workman rendered his services
satisfactorily. It is denied that workman was paid wages
Rs. 20 were increased to Rs. 40 per day. According to IInd
party workman was engaged for cleaning and dusting work
when any other regular employee was absent. The workman
was not working for whole day. He was paid wages at the
rate for the wage workman had worked. All other contentions
of the workman are denied. It is submitted that as workman
is not appointed by the Bank, there is no employer employee
relationship. The workman is not entitled to relief prayed
by him. The workman was not appointed following selection
procedure. Therefore, he is not entitled to regularization.
On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of claim of
Ist party workman.
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 Indore in terminating
the services of
Shri Suraj Kumar Pawar
w.e.f. 38.3.1997 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Before dealing with other contentions, I make it
clear that the objections filed under Section 36 of I.D. Act
about locus of Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary of Union
and for engaging Advocate were not pressed.
8. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his services. The workman submits that he was
continuously working with the Bank from 1.5.1992 to
28.3.1998. From 18.1.1994, the workman was working at
Rajgarh branch. After death of Kantilal, peon and retirement
of Guard Ram Singh, he has requested for regular
appointment, it was refused. His services are terminated
without issuing notice or retrenchment compensation,
juniors were continued. All such contentions of workman
are denied by the management. The documents are admitted
by the management. Exhibit W-1 is letter issued by General
Manager directing the Managers of all the branches not to
engage employees on daily wages for cleaning etc. work.
All other documents produced by workman are denied.
9. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
all contentions in Statement of Claim that he was working
on daily wages in the Bank from 1.5.1992 and his services
were terminated without issuing notice of without paying
retrenchment compensation. Termination of his service is
illegal. That he had completed 240 days continuous service
prior to his discontinuation. He was paid half of the pay
scale for January 97 to March 97. In his cross-examination,
workman says that he was casual labour on daily wages.
Wages at the rate of 25, 25 per day are paid to the casual
labours. His name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. He admits that peons, security guard are
appointed following rules. He had not appeared for
examination for post of peon. He was not given appoitment
letter. He was unable to tell how much salary was paid to
the regular peon. That he was casually paid wages Rs. 20
per day was increased to Rs. 40 per day. In his entire cross-
examination, IInd party has not challenged that workman
had worked for more than 240 days. Thus, the workman is
covered under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act.
10. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri
Jitendra Kumar supporting contentions of management in
5794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Written Statement that the workman was working as casual
employee on daily wages but he was not continuously
working from 10.30 AM to 6 P.M. All other contentions of
the workman are denied by said witness. In his affidavit,
management's witness has stated that Ist party workman
was not employee of the Bank. There was no employer
employee relationship, there was no question of his
completing 240 days service. Workman was required to
work for one hour in morning and one hour in evening. In
his cross-examination, witness of the management says
that affidavit of evidence is based on the record. Those
documents are not produced on record. He had not enquired
from the Branch Manager working at the relevant period.
11. If evidence of the workman and management's
witness is tested on probability, the evidence of
management's witness are based on office record. Those
documents are not produced. On the other hand in evidence
of workman, management has not challenged that he was
working for continuous 240 days during 12 calendar months
of his termination. Management's witness was not working
at the relevant time when Ist party workman was working
in the Bank. The Bank has admitted working of workman. It
was disputed that the workman was not working from 10.30
to 6 P.M. He was working for only one hour in morning and
one hour in the evening. This fact is not substantiated by
any kind of evidence by IInd party. Therefore, evidence of
workman deserves to be accepted. The evidence of
management's witness is silent about issuing notice or
payment of retrenchement compensation. The evidence is
clear that the services of Ist party workman are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act as such illegal.
Therefore, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
12. Point No. 2 — In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled.
The pleadings and evidence on record are clear that name
of workman was not sponsored through employment
Exchange. He was working on daily wages from 1992 to
1997. On this point, reliance is placed in case of
"Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Versus Ashok
Ranghba Ambre reported in 2008 (2) Supreme Court
cases 717. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing
with setting aside of illegal termination as violative
of Section 25-F held does not necessarily follow that
workman is entitled to status of permanency and
claim of regular pay scales and other benefits based
on permanency. The work "regular" and
"regularization" do not connote "permanence".
The ratio held in the case does not support the claim
of workman for regularization or reinstatement in service.
Next reliance was placed in ratio held in case of
Mahboob Deepak Versus Nagar Panchayat Gajraula and
another reported in 2008 (1) Supreme Court Cases 575. Their
Lordship dealing with termination of daily wage labour
having completed 240 days of continuous service in a year
held services terminated on grounds of misconduct for
financial irregularities without complying with Section 6-N
U.P. Industrial Dispute Act. The appellant's claim for
regularization held not sustainable."
Case of Ist party workman is not comparable and he
is not terminated on ground of any kind of misconduct of
financial irregularities. The ratio cannot be applied to said
case. However as the workman was not appointed
following selection process, he was working on daily
wages, his appointment was not against sanctioned post
therefore the workman is not entitled for regularization.
13. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement
with back wages as the appointment of workman was not
made after following selection process, he was working on
daily wages, however, his services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, reinstatement of
workman would not be appropriate. Considering facts and
evidence on record, in my considered view compensation
of Rs. 25,000 would be proper and meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly I hold and record my finding in Point No. 2.
14. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of Indore
in terminating the services of Shri Suraj Kumar Pawar
w.e.f. 28.3.1997 is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay Compensation
Rs. 25,000 to the Ist party workman.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of dafault, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 11 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2141-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ
bankSj 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]
tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 23@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@278@2001&vkbZvkj¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5795
New Delhi, the 11th September, 2013
S.O. 2141.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 23/2002)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of State Bank of Indore
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11.09. 2013.
[No. L-12012/278/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/23/2002
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Dy. General Secretary,
Dainik Vetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
9, Sanwar Road, Hardeo Niwas,
Ujjain (MP)
.......Workman/Union
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of India,
5, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
......Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 8.1.2002 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/
278/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore, Indore (M.P.) in terminating the services
of Shri Ashok Kumar Dangad after completion of 2
years service and not regularising him is justified? If
not, what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
through Secretary of Daily Wages Bank Employees Union.
The case of Ist party is that he was working as permanent
peon in the bank. He was paid wages Rs. 35/- per day. He
was doing cleaning etc. work. He was doing service with
honesty, devotion. His wages were increased to Rs. 65/-
per day. He had completed 240 days continuous service.
When he requested for appointment on permanent post
and bonus, his services were terminated from 10-9-97. His
services were terminated without issuing notice or paying
retrenchment compensation. He further submits that he
was paid bonus Rs.100/- for the year 94-95 and 95-96. The
termination of his service is in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. That junior employees were continued. Principles
of last come first go was not followed. Section 25-G, N of
I.D. Act was violated. He has completed 240 continuous
service. He was not called employment when other
employee were engaged by the bank. On such ground, 1st
party prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at page 11/1 to
11/8. The case of IInd party is that Bank has rules and
regulations for appointment of sub-staff. The Branch
Manager has no power for appointment. The 1st party
workman was not appointed following recruitment process,
his name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. Workman was engaged as daily rated casual
labour for 2-3 hours. Objection is also raised by IInd party
that there was no employer employee relationship between
parties therefore reference of dispute is not proper and
legal. That Shri Ram Nagwanshi a dismissed employee
claims to be General Secretary of the Union as per ratio
held in AIR SC 1865, he cannot represent the workman.
The workman is not entitled to regularization as per ratio
held in various cases by the Apex Court. On such grounds,
IInd party prays for rejection of the relief prayed by workman.
4. 1st party filed rejoinder at Page 15. It is submitted
by 1st party that after disengagement of 1st party workman,
IInd party has employed Shri Kishore Kumar on wages
Rs. 60 per day. The services of workman are terminated
without notice or paying retrenchment compensation.
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 Negative
management of State Bank
of Indore, Indore (MP) in
terminating the services
of Shri Ashok Kumar Dangad
after completion of
2 years service and not
regularising him is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Before dealing with other contentions, I make it
clear that the objections filed under Section 36 of I.D. Act
about locus of Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary of Union
and for engaging Advocate were not pressed.
7. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
his services under Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act. The
management has denied almost all contentions of workman.
The affidavit of evidence of workman is filed covering most
5796
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of his contentions that he was working in the Bank from
9-3-95. His services were terminated on 10.9.1997. He was
initially paid wages Rs. 35 per day. Wages were increased
to Rs. 65 per day. He has completed 240 days continuous
service. His services were terminated without issuing notice
or paying retrenchment compensation. He has received
bonus Rs. 100 each in 1995-96. In his cross-examination,
workman says no appointment letter was given to him. He
had not appeared for exam for post of peon. He had not
submitted any application for such examination. That he
was working as daily wage employee. He has no certificate
about working on daily wages. That he was paid wages
Rs. 35, 65 per day as agreed. Nothing is due against the
Bank towards his wages. After his termination on 10.9.1997,
he did not receive any order in writing that he has not
produced certificate about working more than 250 days.
However there was no denial in cross-examination of
workman that he had not completed 240 days continuous
service claimed by him.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of his
witness Shri Ashutosh Bhargave supporting contention
of the management that workman was working for 2-3 days
and agreed wages were paid to him. No recruitment process
was followed before workman was engaged. The
engagement of 1st party was as per exigency. That working
for 2-3 hours cannot be said appointment on regular basis.
In his cross-examination, management witness says that
name of worker was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange, no record was available in that regard. Regular
appointment are made following the rules. No permission
of competent authority was obtained for appointment of
workman. The witness said that the Branch Manager himself
was competent authority and no permission was required.
He claims ignorance about letters dated 9.3.1995 for
payment of bonus. The documents Exhibit W-1, W-2 about
payment of bonus are admitted in evidence. Merely
payment of bonus in exhibit W -1 & 2 cannot establish
that workman was continuously working for 240 days
preceding his termination. At the same time, it needs to be
noted that evidence of workman on this point in his affidavit
was not challenged. Therefore, I do not find reason to
disbelieve his evidence on record. Though the
management's witness has stated in his affidavit of evidence
that workman was working for 2-3 hours a day, in his cross-
examination, he says that he was not working in Shyamgarh
branch during the period 9.3.1995 to Sept., 1997. The
witness has no personal knowledge about working in the
branch. The cross-examination of management's witness
that his evidence is not based on documents, documents
are not produced, he was not working at that time. He was
not having personal knowledge about the workman.
Therefore the unchallenged evidence of workman deserves
to be accepted. Workman has completed 240 days
continuous service. His services were terminated without
notice or without paying retrenchment compensation.
Therefore it amounts to illegal retrenchment. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2— In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises to what relief the workman is entitled.
Workman was not appointed following selection process,
he had not appeared in exam for appointment of peon, his
name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.
As appointment was not against sanctioned post, therefore
the workman is not entitled for regularization or
reinstatement with back wages. Considering the workman
was working on daily wages in the Bank from 9-3-95 to
10-9-97 for about 2 1/2 years compensation Rs. 20,000/-
would be reasonable. Accordingly I hold and record my
finding in Point No. 2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of
Indore, Indore (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Ashok Kumar Dangad after completion of 2
years service and not regularising him is illegal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 20,000 to the 1st party workman.
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] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2142-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj e/; jsyos izca/
kra= 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@117@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2142.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 78/
2000) 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
12/09/2013.
[No. L-41012/117/99 - IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5797
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/78/2000
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Khushilal,
S/o Shri Amar Singh,
Vill Panajara,
Near Bankheri,
Tehsil Sohagpur, .
Distt. Hoshangabad (MP)
... Workman
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur
... Management
AWARD
Passed on this 8th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 4-4-2000 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/
117/99-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the termination of services of
Shri Khushilal, Khalasi by the management of Central
Railway Jabalpur (MP) is justified? If not, to what
relief is the workman entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 3/1 to 3/3. The case of 1st party is that he had worked
under PWI construction, Central Railway at Lonawala,
thereafter at PWI Harda, PWI, Gadarwara, Burhanpur,
IOS(W) Bhopal during different period from 29-12-83 to
18-1-89. The different period are given in para-1 of the
statement of claim. That he was treated as monthly rated
casual labour. He was medically examined on 23-1-89 at
Railway Hospital, Jabalpur. He was found fit in B-2 as per
Certificate. After medical examination, his services were to
be regularized as required employee. However his services
were terminated from 24-4-89 illegally. That as per procedure
and rules on completion of 3 months service, he was entitled
for temporary status. That Discipline appeal Rules are
applicable to them. However his services were terminated
without notice is illegal. On such grounds, he prays for
reinstatement with back wages.
3. Management of IInd party filed Written Statement
at Page 9/1 to 9/2. Preliminary objection is raised that
workman was declared unfit on medical examination by
DMO, Jabalpur. He was found fit as B-2 and not for B-1
therefore the workman was not entitled for posting. The
Railway Administration appointed one Inspector for
enquiry regarding the casual work place. The report was
submitted by Inspector was adverse. The claim of the
workman is based on documents. That he was appointed
as monthly rated khalasi, PWI Narsinghpur is false. All
other contentions of workman are denied. IInd party prayed
for rejection of claim.
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 termination
In Affirmative
of services of
Shri Khushilal, Khalasi
by the management of
Central Railway Jabalpur
(MP) is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. 1st party is challenging termination of his service
by the management of IInd party. He claims that he was
working from 1983 to 1989 under different PWIs. In support
of his clim, he filed affidavit of his evidence. The workman
had stated that he was working under PWI, Harda,
Gadarwara, Burhanpur during 1984 to 1986. Again he was
working under PWI Gadarwara from 86 to 88 and PWI
Narsinghpur from 89. His services are terminated without
notice in violation of law. In his cross-examination, workman
says during 83- 84, he was engaged on work, he was unable
to tell dates, 83-84 he worked for 8 months regular work
was allowed to him. The work was provided on his request.
He worked last in 1989 for 4 months. He was unable to tell
the months he was working during said period. On his
request to provide work he was assured by PWI to provide
work when available. That on medical examination, he was
found fit in B-2 category and he admits that B-2 category
persons is not provided work. In B-1 category, light job is
provided.
6. Management filed affidavit witness of
Shri Mahendra Kumar Bamnotiya. The witness supported
the contentions of management that workman did not work
for 120/240 days without break. The reference is initiated
after gap of more than 10 years. The document are not
preserved for such long period. The claim of workman that
he was continuously working for 240 days preceding 12
months of his termination is not supported by the
document. Casual Labour Card finds entry of work from 3-
6-88 to 18-6-88 and 19-9-88 to 18-10-88. As per document
Exhibit M-l produced by the management, the details of
working days were supplied. As per Exhibit M-2 working
days of workman in 85-86 are less than 240 days. The
evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that workman
5798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
was continuously working for more than 240 days
preceding 12 months of termination of his services therefore
workman is not entitled for protection under Section 25-F
of I.D. Act. The notice under Section 25-F was not
necessary. For above reasons. I record my finding in Point
No.1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The termination of services of Shri Khushilal,
Khalasi by the management of Central Railway
Jabalpur (MP) is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2143-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos
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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 25@2010 dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12025@01@2013&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2143.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2010)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of South Central Railway
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
12.09.2013.
[No. L-12025/01/2013-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT
Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 19th day of July, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. NO. 25/2010
Between:
Sri N. Laxmaiah,
S/o Narsaiah,
R/o Pochammawada, Alir.
C/o M/s. G. Ravi Mohan,
16-9-749/41, Race Course Road,
Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
..... Petitioner
AND
1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
South Central Railway,
Kurnool Town, Kurnool District.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Works),
South Central Railway,
Hyderabad Division,
Secunderabad.
.... Respondents
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan, Vikas Sharma
and K. Bhaskar, Advocates
For the Respondent :
Sri J.T. Sastry, Advocate
AWARD
Sri N. Laxmaiah, the Petitioner who worked as
Gangman in the Respondent's organization has filed this
petition under Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 against the Respondents South Central Railway
seeking for declaring the removal order dated 2.3.2007
issued by the Respondent No. 1 as illegal, arbitrary and to
set aside the same consequently directing the Respondent
to reinstate the Petitioner into service duly granting all the
consequential benefits such as continuity of service, back
wages and all other attendant benefits etc., and such other
reliefs as this court may deems fit.
2. The Respondents filed counter stating that the
prayer of the Petitioner to set aside the termination order of
the Respondent has no substance and no relevance to the
facts of the case. Moreover, it is submitted that vide letter
No. YW/42/WIV/DAR dated 18.9.2007, the reviewing
authority had earlier considered the appeal of the Petitioner
and reduced the penalty of removal from service and
ordered that he be taken back in the initial grade of
appointment in scale Rs. 2610-3540 fixing his pay at
Rs. 2610 till he is found suitable for higher grade of
Rs. 2650-4000 by competent authority and that the
intervening period from date of removal to date of rejoining
duty is treated as Dies Non, and the employee is now in
service and as such, the petition may be dismissed.
3. Case stands posted for evidence of Petitioner.
Petitioner called absent and there is no representation for
him. Inspite of giving fair opportunity Petitioner is not taking
interest in the proceedings. Respondent's counsel reported
that Petitioner is already reinstated into service as revealed
by him in his counter. Therefore, in the given circumstances,
taking that Petitioner has got no interest in the proceedings,
petition is dismissed.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5799
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 19th day of
July, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for
the Petitioner
the Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2144-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
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;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 13@2008½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@169@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2144.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2008)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow 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
12/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/169/2007 - IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
I. D. No. 13/2008
Ref. No. L-12012/169/2007-IR(B-I)
Dated: 07.02.2008
Between:
Sri Inder Singh S/o Late Sri Mathura Singh
Village & PO : Sehatwar
Distt.-Ballia (UP)
AND
1.
The Manager
State Bank of India
Moti Mehal Marg, Hazratganj
Lucknow
2.
The Regional Manager
State Bank of India
Anchalik Karyalaya Region-3
Varanasi (UP)
AWARD
1. By order No. L-12012/169/2007-IR(B-I) dated
09.02.2008 the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-seciton (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this
industrial dispute between Sri Inder Singh S/o Late
Sri Mathura Singh, Village & PO: Sehatwar, Distt. - Ballia
(UP) and the Manager, State Bank of India, Moti Mehal
Marg, Hazratganj, Lucknow and the Regional Manager,
State Bank of India, Anchalik Karyalaya, Region-3, Varanasi
for adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
“Whether the action of the Management of State
Bank of India, Lucknow Balia in terminating the
services of Shri Inder Singh S/o Late Shri Mathura
Singh w.e.f. 01/05/1997 is legal and justified? If not,
what relief he is entitled to?”
3. The case of the workman, Inder Singh, in brief, is
that he had been engaged as Badli Guard with the opposite
party Bank w.e.f. 15.11.73 and worked as such till 30.04.1997
with notional breaks at different branches of the Bank. It
has been submitted by the workman that he worked for 240
days' continues services even then his services have been
terminated without complying with the provisions of Section
25F of the I.D. Act. The workman has alleged that after
terminating his services the management has engaged new
hands. He has further submitted that the Bank vide letter
dated 26.08.1977 called him for interview on 31.08.77 for his
absorption in service; but did not absorbed him.
Accordingly the workman has prayed that his termination
w.e.f. 01.05.1997 be set aside and he be reinstated with all
consequential benefits, including back wages.
4. The management of the Bank has controverted
the claim of the workman by filing its written statement;
wherein it has submitted that the workman had never been
appointed by the Bank, as the Branch Manager has no
5800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
authority to appoint any person in any capacity; moreover
he was engaged as temporary Badli Guard at Sahatwar
branch, Balia. The management has stated that the
workman's name was neither sponsored by the
Employment Exchange nor his appointment was as per
prescribed procedure for the regular appointees, therefore,
he cannot claim for regularization; moreover, he was found
not suitable for absorption on interview. As regard non-
compliance of section 25 F of the Act, it is stated that the
workman had been engaged as per need for some time,
therefore, there is no question to give notice or
retrenchment compensation etc. Accordingly, the
management has prayed that the claim of the workman be
rejected as devoid of any merit.
5. The workman has filed his rejoinder to the written
statement whereby he has introduced nothing new apart
from repeating the averment already made in the statement
of claim.
6. The partied filed documentary evidence in support
of their claim. The workman examined himself whereas the
management examined Shri Narendera Kumar Srivastava,
Branch Manager in support of their respective stands.
Parties availed the opportunity to cross-examine the
witnesses of each other and forwarded oral arguments also.
7. Heard the authorized representative of the parties
and perused entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
argued that the workman had been in the continues
employment of the Bank for more than 240 days', therefore,
it was mandatory for the management to comply with the
provisions of Section 25 F of the Act before terminating
the services of the workman. Since the management has
not observed the statutory provisions of the Act, the
workman is entitled for reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
9. In rebuttal the management's authorized
representative has contended that the claim of the workman
is liable to be rejected out rightly, being stale one as the
same has been raised after more than 10 years. He has also
contended that the workman had been engaged as Badli
Guard with the Bank, therefore, not entitled for any relief as
the Badli Guard are not covered with the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been argued that the
workman has not filed any evidence in support of his alleged
working with the Bank, which weakens his case as the
onus to prove the continuous working for 240 days in a
calander year lies on the workman. Furthermore, it is also
contended that the workman attained the age of
superannuation when he filed the statement of claim before
this Tribunal, therefore, his prayer for reinstatement suffers
with vice; hence not maintainable.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival contentions of the parties and scanned the evidence
available on file in light thereof.
11. The case of the workman in his statement of claim
has pleaded that he had been engaged as Guard w.e.f.
15.11.1973 and worked as such till 30.04.1997 with some
notional breaks. It is also the case of the workman that
having complied 240 days of continuous services the
management was duty bound to comply with the provisions
of Section 25 F of the Act before terminating his services.
The schedule of reference is regarding validity of
the termination of services of the workman w.e.f. 01.05.1997.
The workman has pleaded that be had been engaged as
Guard with the Bank; but has not field any appointment
letter or any documentary evidence regarding his working
with the Bank. He has also pleaded that his services have
been terminated w.e.f. 01.05.97 and in support thereto he
has filed a letter dated 01.05.97, stating that he had been
appointed as temporary Badli Guard from 24.06.97 to
01.05.97 on the bank working days only and now his
services are being terminated w.e.f. 01.05.97.
Per contra the management has filed photocopy of
Register of Attendance & Wages, Paper No. 15/4 to 15/7,
which goes to show that the workman had worked from
04.06.97 to18.08.98. Also, the workman himself in his cross-
examination has stated that he has worked from 1996 to
1998 as Badli Guard at Shatwar Branch, making it clear that
there was no termination on 01.05.97 and the reference
order itself is bad in the eye of law.
12. The authorized representative has contended that
the claim of the workman is stale one and has relied on
Assistant Engineer, CAD Kota v. Dhan Kunwar 2006 LAB.
I. C. 3046; wherein Hon'ble Apex Court observed that relief
should not be granted by the Labour Court as there was
delay of about eight years in seeking the reference.
The workman has not rebutted this contention of
the management either in the pleadings or in the evidence.
He has not given any explanation as to what prevented
him to adopt legal recourse promptly.
13. The workman has pleaded that he worked for
more than 240 days and accordingly, was entitled for
compliance of provisions contained in Section 25 F of the
Act. In rebuttal the management has argued that the
workman failed to prove this by cogent evidence. In
Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai
Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble Apex
Court came to the conclusion that where the workman failed
to prove that he had been in employment with the employer
for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he not entitled to
protection in compliance of section 25 -F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the scope of the enquiry before the Labour Court
was confined only to 12 months preceding the date of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5801
termination to decide the question of the continuous service
for the purpose of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as
under:
"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not
produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or
wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or
engagement for that year to show that he has worked
with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit
under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days
in a year preceding his termination."
In view of the facts and case law cited above, I find
substance in the contention of the management that the
factum to prove continuous working for 240 days with the
management was on the workman and the workman utterly
failed to prove that.
14. The workman has pleaded that he was engaged
as Guard; but in rebuttal management has contended that
the workman was engaged as Badli Guard, therefore, he is
not covered with the Industrial Disputes Act. It has relied
on Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation vs.
T.V. Anandappa 2009 LAB I.C. 3161; wherein it has been
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a Badli worker, is
not entitled to any protection under Act.
15. In view of the discussion made hereinabove and
legal position, I am of the considered opinion that the action
of the management of State Bank of India, Lucknow, Balia
in terminating the services of Shri Inder Singh w.e.f.
01.05.1997 is neither illegal nor unjustified; and accordingly,
the workman is not entitled for any relief.
18. Award as above.
Lucknow
19th July, 2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2145-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 1947
dk 14 dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkWQ
bankSj 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 189@2001½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@286@2001&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2145.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 189/
2001) 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 Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
12/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/286/2001-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/189/2001
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Dainik Wetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari Sangathan,
9, Sanwar Road, Hardeo Niwas,
Ujjain (MP)
…Workman/Union
Versus
Dy. General Manager (I),
State Bank of India,
Head Office, Kanchan Bag,
Indore
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August 2013
1. As per letter dated 7-12-2001 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/
286/2001-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of Indore, Indore (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Devendra Verma without giving any notice or
compensation is justified? If not, what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim
through Secretary Dainik Wetan Bhogi Bank Karmchari
Sangathan. The case of Ist party workman is that he was
working as permanent peon in bank from 20-10-89 for
cleaning, dusting etc. work. He was initially paid wages Rs. 20
per day, wages were increased to Rs. 25, 30, 35 per day. He
was discharging his duties honestly. His services were
transferred to MY Hospital Branch, Indore In October 1995,
wages Rs. 35 per day were paid to him. That he was paid
wages preparing bogus bills of Rickshaw charge in name
of regular employees. The services were terminated from
June 1997. In his place, Shri Dharmendra was engaged by
the Branch Manager. He was continuously working in
service of Bank for 8 years. He had completed 240 days
continuous service during each year. His services were
5802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
terminated without notice or paying retrenchment
compensation. He was paid bonus for the period 1998 to
2000. When he requested for regularization of his service,
he was illegally terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of
I.D.Act. On such grounds, workman prays for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/7. IInd party denies claim of workman that Shri Ram
Nagwanshi , Secretary of Union is not employee of Bank.
He is dismissed from bank. He cannot represent the
workman. IInd party denied that workman was engaged for
cleaning, dusting etc. work in 1989 on wages of Rs.25 per
day. All other contentions of workman are denied. It is
denied that workman is eligible for regular appointment. It
is denied that workman is covered under Section 25B of
I.D.Act. IInd party further submits that Bank has rules for
recruitment of sub staff. Workman has not been appointed
following selection process. He has not completed 240 days
service. On such grounds, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to 11/2
reiterating his contentions that he had completed 8 years
service. His services were terminated without notice, no
retrenchment compensation was paid.
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 State Bank
of Indore, Indore (MP)
in terminating the services
of Shri Devendra Verma
without giving any notice
or compensation is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?’’
workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. Before dealing with other contentions, I make it
clear that the objections filed under Section 36 of I.D. Act
about locus of Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary of Union
and for engaging Advocate were not pressed.
7. Workman is challenging termination of his service
for violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. IInd party has
denied all those contentions of workman.
8. Workman filed affidavit of evidence. He has stated
that he was engaged as permanent peon from 20-10-89, he
was paid wages initially Rs. 20 per day which were increased
to Rs. 25, 30, 35 per day. The wages were paid under voucher,
his signatures were obtained. That the Branch Manager
was shown payment in name of different persons who were
not in existence. Payments in bogus names were obtained.
In case of his denial, he was threatened to be removed from
service. That bogus bill in name of MY Hospital Branch,
Indore was prepared. When he refused, his services were
terminated without notice. In his cross-examination,
workman says that he has produced certificate about
working of 72 days. He was working under different
Managers. That he had appeared for the Bank Exam. He
was paid wages Rs. 30 per day in 1997. His evidence about
his wages paid under bogus voucher remained
unchallenged. He has not examined any of those persons,
no other persons of the Bank is examined by the workman.
9. The management filed affidavit of evidence of
Smt.Varsha Umat. She has supported contentions of
management that workman was working for one hour in
the morning and one hour in the evening. He was paid
wages for the said period. In her cross-examination, witness
says that workman was working one hour in morning and
one hour in the evening in MY Hospital branch. She claims
ignorance about payment of remuneration to the workman.
Appointment letter was not given to him. She had talk with
staff members about the workman.
10. Reliance is placed in ratio held in case of—
"Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. Versus Mohammed
Raft reported in 2009(11) Supreme Court Cases 522.
Their Lordship of the Apex Court held burden of
proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous
work in a year lies on the aggrieved workman."
In case of State of Haryana versus Ramesh Kumar
reported in 2008(11) Supreme Court Cases 435. Their
Lordship dealing with Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) and Section
25-F held burden of proof that workman had worked for
240 days as prescribed in Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) and therefore
completed one year's service required under Section 25-F
burden is on the workman.
The burden of proof lies on the workman. The
evidence adduced by workman that he continuously
worked from 20-10-89 is not cogent. No co-employee is
examined. The evidence of workman that he has been paid
wages by bogus bill in name of those persons are not
examined. Therefore evidence of workman cannot be
accepted. The workman has failed to prove that he was
continuously worked for 240 days preceding his
termination. Therefore he is not entitled to protection under
Section 25-F of I.D.Act. Termination of services of workman
cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of State Bank of lndore,
lndore (MP) in terminating the services of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5803
Shri Devendra Verma without giving any notice or
compensation is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2146-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fn cukjl LVsV
c®d vkQ bafM;k fyñ 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 21@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@195@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2146.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/99)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the Management of Benaras State Bank Limited,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
12/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/195/98-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING
OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 21/99
Between
Sri Dhruv Kumar son of Sri Khaderan Ram
C/o Sri D S Saxena,
HIG 303, Scheme 1, Kailash Vihar,
Awas Vikas, Kalyanpur, Kanpur.
And
The General Manager,
The Benaras State Bank of India Limited,
Head Office, S-20/52, AK Varun Wing, Varanasi.
AWARD
1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi by notification No.
L-12012/195/98-IR(B-I) dated 21.01.99, has referred the
following dispute to this tribunal for adjudication—
2. Whether the action of the management of Benaras
State Bank Limited in terminating the services of Sri Dhruv
Kumar son of Sri Khaderan Ram with effect, from 17.08.96,
is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman
is entitled?
3. Brief facts are—
4. It is alleged by the claimant Sri Dhruv Kumar that
there was clear vacancy of peon at banks Chunar Branch
in District Mirzapur and he was appointed by the branch
manager as a temporary peon on 12.12.95. He was required
to work for more than the full hours of work at Chunar
Branch on all the working days. He was the only peon at
Chunar Branch. Initially he was paid Rs. 30 per day which
was raised to Rs. 35 per day and these payments were paid
periodically.
5. Further these payments are made in benami names,
which name the manager of Chunar Branch made the
applicant to write on the reverse of the voucher whereas at
the time of payment by the cashier he used to obtain the
signature of the applicant on the vouchers. He continued
to work as temporary peon up till 17.08.96 when his services
were abruptly terminated by the bank without assigning
any reason, without payment of notice pay and
retrenchment compensation. Thus the bank committed
breach of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. When the bank did not pay any heed to the
representations of the applicant, thereafter the applicant
raised an industrial dispute where the conciliation
proceeding ended in failure and this reference was made
by the Government of India. Thus the applicant worked
continuously for more than 240 days.
7. Therefore he has prayed that he be reinstated in
service with all consequential benefits. .
8. Management refuted the claim of the applicant
on a number ground, inter alia, stating that the applicant
has worked only 4 days in the month of August 1996 for
which he was paid prescribed rate of wage of Rs.35 per day
paid to temporary daily wagers at that time. Thus no
question of termination of service arises as such they have
not committed any breach of section 25F of the Act. The
claim statement has also not been verified by the applicant
and as such is liable to be rejected. The present reference
is also bad in law.
9. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the
claimant but nothing new has been alleged therein.
10.Both the parties have filed documentary as well
as oral evidence.
11.Claimant has filed A/D receipt as well as speed
post receipt vide list dated 23.07.12.
12.Claimant has also filed 9 documents vide list
dated17.08.01. These papers are paper No.19/2-12.
5804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
13. Opposite party has also filed original documents
vide list dated 2.06.08. These documents are three vouchers
and a letter written by Dhruv Kumar himself.
14. In the oral evidence claimant has produced
himself as w.w. 1 and opposite party has produced M.W. 1
Sri Amar Raja, who is the senior branch manager of the
bank.
15. I heard the arguments and perused the whole
records at length.
16. It is a fact that opposite party was a public
institution and they have a prescribed procedure for
appointing any person on specific post. This bank was
amalgamated with bank of Bank on 19.06.02.
17. M. W.1 has specifically stated that the claimant
had worked only for four days and they have filed voucher
in original and these voucher are paper No.31/2-4 and last
voucher is dated 17.08.96 which mentions on the front of
the voucher — Misc expenses — amount paid to Sri Dhruv
Kumar of Rs.35 and there is a signature on the back of this
voucher in the name of Sri Dhruv Kumar.
18. Opposite party has also filed an application which
is paper No. 31/5 which is signed by the claimant himself
wherein he has specifically stated that the application which
he has given on 04.12.96 is not proper whereas he has
worked only for three days.
19. M. W.1 has also stated on oath that there is no
record regarding paper No. 19/2-8 which are the
photocopies filed by the claimant and there is no signature
on paper No.19/3. This witness has been thoroughly cross
examined. Not a single word has been asked by the claimant
on the application paper No. 31/5 which is in original and
moved by the claimant wherein the claimant had admitted
that he had worked only for 3 days in the bank. Therefore,
there is no evidence, in rebuttal to this application.
20. In the cross W.W.1 stated that he was forced to
sign this letter, but this point does not appear to be
satisfactory as the claimant did not put any question to
M.W.1 that management has forced him to sign this letter.
21. Much stress has been given on paper No.19/2-6.
The opposite party has emphasized that these are the
photocopies and initial burden was on the claimant to prove
these documents. They stated that paper No.19/2—3 which
is photocopy does not contain any stamp nor there appears
signature of any authority. They stated that the claimant is
claiming that the cause of action has arisen on 17.08.96,
whereas there is no such date like 17.08.96 or nearby in the
letter 19/2-03. The last date in this letter is 10.09.96. It shows
that the claimant was also working on 10.09.96 if this
document 19/2 is believed, but it itself contradicts the plea
of the claimant as he himself stated that he has been
removed on 17.08.96. Moreover the dates are not legible.
Moreover, as per letter 19/4 one Sri Jagdish Singh has
allegedly written that the payments out of listed 20
payments relating to 12.08.96, 16.08.96 and so on has not
been made by him, whereas in the letter 19/2 there is no
mention of date 12.08.96 and 16.08.96. Moreover, when Sri
Jagdish Singh retired it was the sole responsibility of the
claimant to get his attendance procured. Opposite party in
such circumstances cannot be blamed.
22. Therefore, there are only three vouchers along
with application of the claimant himself which is paper
No.31/5. These papers cannot be disbelieved.
23. Hence considering the evidence adduced by both
the parties the claimant has failed to establish that he has
worked for 240 days continuously or more in a calendar
year. The evidence adduce by the opposite party cannot
be disbelieved.
24. Therefore, it cannot be held that the services of
the claimant were terminated in violation of the provisions
of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
25. Consequently workman is not entitled to any relief.
26. Reference is accordingly answered against the
workman and in favor of the management.
27. It is further ordered that two photocopies of this
award be sent to the Mol, New Delhi for publication.
RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2147-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV c®d vkQ
bankSj 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 112@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@58@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2147.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/
2005) 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 Indore and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
12/09/2013.
[No. L-12012/58/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5805
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/112/2005
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
General Secretary,
Daily wages Bank Employees Association,
9, Sanwar Road,
Ujjain (MP)
… Workman/Union
Versus
General Manager (Operations),
State Bank of India,
Head Office, Yeshwant Niwas Road,
Indore
… Management
AWARD
Passed on this 16th day of August, 2013
1. As per letter dated 4-10-2005 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-12012/
58/2005-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager (O), State Bank of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Mohammed Anwar Khan w.e.f.
August 99 and not regularizing him is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed by 1st party workman
through General Secretary of Daily Wage Bank Employees
Union. The case of 1st party workman is that he was
engaged permanently by Branch Manager, Nateran Distt.
Vidisha from January 1994. He was paid wages Rs.20/- per
day. That the workman was working satisfactorily, his
wages were increased to 30, 40/- per day. His wages were
paid every week after deduction of the wages for holidays.
That the workman continuously worked from January 1994
to August 1999. That he had completed 240 days
continuous service as provided under Section 25 B of I.D.
Act. He was in service for more than 5 years. His services
were terminated without notice, without paying
retrenchment compensation, principles of last come first
go was not followed. He was not given opportunity for
re-employment as such IInd party violated Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. On such ground, workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
3. Management filed Written Statement at page 7/1
to 7/8. IInd party denied claim of the workman. It is submitted
that the workman had not completed 240 days continuous
service preceding termination. He was never employed by
the Bank. There is no employer employee relationship
between parties. The reference is not tenable. That so called
Secretary Ram Nagwanshi was dismissed employee of the
Bank. That Nagwanshi was involved in grave misconduct
and dismissed from service from 5-12-2001. In view of ratio
held in AIR-1996-SC-1865, Shri Ram Nagwanshi cannot
represent employee of the bank as Union Representative.
4. IInd party denies employer employee relationship.
That name of worker was not sponsored from Employment
Exchange, he was not appointed following selection
procedure as per the rules of the Bank. Employee cannot
be allowed back door entry. That the services of workman
were utilised in Nateran branch for 2-3 hours per day as
and when required basis. He was paid "A grade wages for
cleaning work. Workman was never appointed in bank
service, no appointment letter was given as the part time or
regular employee for more than 240 days. That
discontinuation of his service cannot be termed as
retrenchment. Disengagement is covered under Section
2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act. lInd party relies on ratio in various
cases. He submits that workman is not entitled to
regularization as he was not appointed following selection
process. On such ground, IInd party prays for rejection of
claim of workman.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/3
reiterating its contentions but his services are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act without any notice
or paying retrenchment compensation.
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 General
Manager (O), State Bank
of Indore in terminating the
services of Shri Mohammed
Anwar Khan w.e.f. August 99
and not regularizing him
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
7. Before dealing with other contentions, I make it
clear that the objections filed under Section 36 of I.D. Act
about locus of Shri Ram Nagwanshi Secretary of Union
and for engaging Advocate were not pressed.
8. Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D. Act. Material
contentions of workman that he was continuously working
in the Bank from January 1994 to August 1999 are denied. It
is denied that workman completed 240 days continuous
service, violation of Section 25-F, H is also denied.
5806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
9. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
most of his contentions in statement of claim that from
January 94 to August 99, he was working under Branch
Manager Shri B.L.Bamne, Shailendra Sharma and G.P.
Upadhyay. He was initially paid wages Rs.20/- per day.
Wages were increased to 30/-, 40/-. His services were
terminated without notice or paying retrenchment
compensation. In his cross- examination, workman says
appointment letter was not received by him. His name was
not sponsored through Employment Exchange.
Advertisement, public notice was not issued for post of
peon. He was working on daily wages, he was paid wages
Rs.20/-, Rs.25/- per day. In his cross-examination, it was
not challenged that workman was continuously working
from January 94 to August 99. That he had completed 240
days continuous service. The evidence of workman on
above point remained unchallenged.
10. Management filed affidavit of its witness
Shri Naresh Meghani. In his affidavit, most of the
contentions of management in Written Statement are
covered that the workman was not continuously working
from January 1994 to August 99. That the workman was
working for one hour morning and one hour evening. He
was not appointed following selection process. His name
was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.
Management's witness in his cross-examination says that
during January 1994 to August 99, he was not working at
that branch. The affidavit of evidence is based on Bank
record. That Shri B.L. Bamne, Shailendra Sharma and G.P.
Upadhyay were working in the branch. That he had tried to
see wage register, appointment orders but the record was
not traced. Any record was not found in which name of the
workman was appearing. That sub staff Om Prakash Panthi
has told him that workman was working one hour morning
and one hour evening. Shri Panthi is dead. There may be
several employees working during the relevant period but
any of those employees are not examined by the bank.
11. Management's witness in his further cross-
examination denies payment of bonus hence record was
not traced Management's witness identified signatures on
documents Exhibit W-l, W-2 payment of bonus to the
workman, no doubt merely on the ground that bonus has
been paid as per W-l Rs.519/- by cheque Exhibit W-2. One
cannot jump to conclusion that workman has completed
240 days preceding his disengagement. However evidence
of workman on the point is not challenged in his cross-
examination and therefore I find no reason to disbelieve
evidence of workman that he was continuously working in
the Bank. The bank has tried to convince that worker was
working one hour morning and one hour evening but any
employee working at relevant period are not examined. The
evidence adduced by management is here-say evidence.
There is no corroboration from any of the employee working
during the relevant period. From the evidence on record, it
is established that workman was continuously working for
more than 240 days continuous service preceding
termination of his services. The workman was not issued
notice, was not paid retrenchment compensation, the
termination of his services is in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. On the above point, reliance is placed in ratio held
in case of
"Samishta Dube and City Board Etawah and another
reported in 1999(81) FLR 746 their Lordship of the
Apex court dealing with provision of UP Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 Section 6-N held in absence of
any agreement between the employer and the
workmen, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the
workmen who was the last person to be employed in
that category, unless for reasons to be recorded, the
employer retrenches any other person."
In present case the evidence adduced by workman
is not clear about IInd party employing 88 employees after
his termination, therefore ratio held in the case cannot be
beneficially applied in the present case.
Next reliance is placed on ratio held in Case of
Regional Manager, SBI versus Shri Rakesh Kumar Tewari
reported in 2006(108)FLR 733. Their Lordship held Section
25-H doesnot require continuous employment of workman
within meaning of Section 25-B before he could have beeen
retrenched.
Ratio cannot be applied to the present case at hand
as no evidence is adduced on record that after termination
of services of 1st party workman any other person was
employed in Bank.
In case of Jaipur Development Authority versus
Ramsahai and another reported in 2007(I) Supreme Court
Cases (L&S) 518. Their Lordship held ID Act doesnot
envisage application of its provisions where both
recruitment and termination are uncertain or when the
workmen are not required to be recruited in a categorywise
service e.g skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled etc. That Section
25-G is not imperative in nature. For applicability of Section
25-G, H of I.D.Act requirement of continuous work in terms
of Section 25-B is not necessary.
The evidence discussed on record clearly shows
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, there is no cogent
evidence about violation of Section 25-G, H of I.D. Act
therefore I record my finding on Point No.1 in Negative.
12. Point No.2- In view of my finding on Point No.1,
question arises as to what relief the workman is entitled.
Workman was not appointed following selection process.
He was working on daily wages from January 94 to August
99 for about 5 years therefore the reinstatement with back
wages would not be appropriate. Considering that the
workman was working on daily wages Rs.20/- to 40/-
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5807
compensation Rs.25,000/- would be reasonable.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of General Manager (O),
State Bank of Indore in terminating the services of
Shri Mohammed Anwar Khan w.e.f. August 99 and
not regularizing him is not legal.
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs.25,000/- to the workman.
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] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2148-—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 41@2003½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@262@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2148.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 41/2003 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
09/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/262/2002-IR(C-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. 41 OF 2003
Parties :
General secretary,
Janta Karmchari Sangh, Kunsunda, Dhanbad
Vs. Gen. Manager, P.B. Area of M/s BCCL, Dhanbad:
On behalf of the workman:
Mr. B.B. Pandey, Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management :
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : JHARKHAND
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th June, 20l3.
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-
200l2/262/2002-IR(C- I) dt30.04.2003.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Janta Karmchri Sangh from
the Management of P.B.Area of M/s BCCL that Shri
Raghubir Yadav, W.E.Opertor should be regularized
on the post of Water Supervisor, is proper and
justified? If so, to what relief and from what date the
workman is entitled?"
2. The case of the Janta Karmchari Sangh, Godhur,
Kusunda, Dhanbad for workman Raghvir Yadav as stated
in its written statement is that the workman is a permanent
employee of Bhagabandh Colliery. He holds the Statutory
Certificate of Second class as Winding Engine Operator.
As per requirement of the management of the authorization
as per the Office Order No. 1005 dt. 31.7.1996, Slip
dt. 10.01.1997, the Office Order Nos. 945 dt. 13/15.3.2002
and 2333 dt. 20.02.2002 issued to him time to time has been
working as the Water Supervisor for several years. His
petition to Sr. P.O. of the Colliery bearing noting dt. 4.7.2001
and 5.7.2001 of the different authorities and the petition dt.
3.1.2002 to the Minister of Coal and other documents are
also in support of his claim for his regularization on the
post of Water Supervisor, but the management despite
assurances verbally refused in April, 2002 to regularize him.
At his approach, the Union raised the Industrial Dispute,
and after its failure in its conciliation proceeding before the
ALC@, Dhanbad due to recalcitrance of the management
resulted in the reference for an adjudication. The workman
is entitled to regularization on the post of Water Supervisor
from appropriate date past as per the Certified Standing
Order of the B.C.C.L.
3. The workman, not the Union, in his rejoinder under
the signature of his Advocate B.N.Singh has specifically
denied, and stated that as per authorization, he was being
designated as Water Supervisor.
5808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that in fact the
workman concerned is a permanent employee of Bhagaband
Colliery of P.B. Area, M/s BCCL since 17.10.1990, the date
of his appointment. He has been discharging his duties as
per his designation till date. But as per the Cadre Scheme,
there is no post of Water Supervisor which is highly
sensitive, for which the workman is not competent. None
can claim for promotion/regularization as a matter of right
on the basis of his eligibility. The promotion in a higher
post is made according to a Cadre Scheme by giving equal
opportunity to all eligible candidates of the promotional
zone after recommendation of the Departmental Promotion
Committee (DPC) duly constituted by the Cadre Controlling
Authority. No appointment/promotion/regularization can
be made by any Public Authority ignoring the rules and
regulations made for it. Thus, the demand of the Union is
neither legal nor justified.
5. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder specifically
denying the allegation has stated that nobody is authorized
and competent to authorize a Winding Engine Operator to
work as Water Supervisor without prior approval of the
Cadre Controlling authority. The alleged authorization is
forged and manufactured for the purpose of the case which
has no evidentiary value. The Union raised the Industrial
dispute in utter violation of the provision of NCWA and
the Cadre Scheme formulated by the JBCCI. There is no
merit in it.
FINDING WITH REASONING
6. In this case Raghubir Yadav, the workman himself
for the Union and MWI Rajesh Kumar Kar, Personnel
Officer, Bhagabandh Colliery, for the management have
been examined.
WWI Raghubir Yadav, the workman himself though
designated as Winding Engine Operator, states to have
been working as Water Supervisor as per the Office Order
No.1005 dt. 31.7.1996 (Ext.W.1) and the copy Sunday/
Holidays work slip issued by Sri R.N. Mishra, the Project
Officer of the Colliery (its Xerox copy—marked as Ext. W.2),
though the correct designation of Water Supervisor is the
Water Treatment Plant supervisor. But his oral evidence at
the point that Shri Khayum Khan was given the designation
of Water Supervisor one-and-half or two years prior to his
is unpleaded, so inadmissible. Admittedly the Workman is
Winding Engine Operator drawing his salary as technical
Supervisor Gr. C which has its own Cadre Scheme; he was
granted SLU in case of his stagnancy, and he was neither
interviewed nor recommended by the D.P.C. prior to his
authorization for working as Water Supervisor.
7. Whereas statement of MWI Rajesh Kumar Kar,
the then Personnel Officer Bhagabandh Colliery, affirms
the designation of the workman Raghubir Yadav as Winding
Operator which is a statutory post presupposes the holder
of the certificate from the DGMS for it. He (MWI) has also
asserted the post of Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
exists under the NCWA and the Cadre Scheme. He flatly
denies the workman to have performed the same job of the
Water Treatment Plant Supervisor since his authorization
in the year 1996.
8. Mr. B.B. Pandey, the Learned Counsel the Union/
workman, submits that the O.P./management has never
objected to the authorization dt. 31.7.1996 of the Project
Officer concerned in favour the workman for his working
as Water Supervisor which is recognized as Water
Treatment Plant Supervisor under NCWA, so he is entitled
to his regularization accordingly. In response to it Mr. D.K.
Verma, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P./management has
contended that nowhere is the case of the workman about
his working as Water Treatment Plant Supervisor nor he
has the qualification or authorization for the highly technical
and sensitive post, nor the NCWA refers to any such post
of Water Supervisor; moreover, none has authority to issue
any such authorization for working as the Water Supervisor.
9. On appreciation of the evidences of both the
parties, I find that it is indisputable fact that the post of
Winding Engine Operator, the workman holds, has its own
cadre; the post of the Water Treatment Plant Supervisor
exists under the NCWA and Cadre Scheme, but neither
NCWA nor Cadre Scheme provides for the post of 'Water
Supervisor. There is beyond doubt that the workman had
not undergone the interview nor the recommendation by
the D.P.C. for the alleged post of Water Supervisor.The
NCWA VI or VllI at the relevant time nowhere provides for
regularization for the aforesaid post on the basis of such
authorization by the Project Officer of the Colliery
concerned, as it was quite contrary to the statutes of the
Labour Law. The argument of Mr. Verma, the Ld. Advocte
for the O.P./Management outweighs that of Mr. B.B.
Pandey, Learned Counsel for the Union. Under these
circumstances, in the terms of the reference, it is hereby:
ORDERED
The Award be and the same is passed that the
demand of the Janta Karmchari Sangh from the
Management of BCCl, P.B. area for regularization of
Shri Raghubir Yadav, the W.E. Operator, on the post of
Water Supervisor is neither proper nor legal. So the
workman is not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2149-—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 13 dk 1997½ dks
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5809
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@444@1995&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2149.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/1997)
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 09/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/444/1995-IR(C-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. 13 OF 1997
Parties :
The Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Jharnapara, Dhanbad
Vs.
Addl. Chief Engineer (E & M),
Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL, Dugda, Bokaro
Appearances:
On behalf of the workman/Union:
Mr. D. Mukherjee, Ld. Advocate
On behalf of the Management:
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th 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/
444/95-IR(C-I) dt. 14.1.1997.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Union for regularization
of the services of S/Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyanchand
Singh and Sivbachan Singh with the management of
Dugda Coal Washery of M/s BCCL is justified? If so,
to what relief are the concerned workman entitled?
2. The case of the sponsoring Bihar Colliery Kamgar
Union, Hirapur, Dhanbad, for the workmen S/Shri Jogesh
Prasad, Gyanchand Singh and Sivbachan Singh is that they
had been performing the maintenance job of permanent/
perennial nature since long with the tools supplied by the
management and its direct control and supervision,
producing goods for the benefit of it. The continuous
engagement of the workman also in transporting materials
for water supply from the store to the respective places
was an integral part to the production of the Coal Washery.
At their several times representations to the management
for their regularization and wages as per law, but its went
without any effect; the Union raised the Industrial Dispute
before the A.L.C.(C) on 5.3.1994, then the management
stopped them from service from 28.12.94 during the
pendency of conciliation proceeding. Thus the action of
the management in not regularizing the workmen and
stopping them from service during the pendency of the
conciliation. Proceeding was vindictive, illegal, arbitrary
and unjustified. Finally, it resulted in the reference for an
adjudication. So the demand of the Union from the
management of the Coal Washery for regularizations of the
workmen was legal and justified.
The Union in its rejoinder has categorically denied
all the allegations of the O.P./Management as vague,
frivolous, and false.
3. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management is that the persons as named in the reference
neither ever worked nor appointed nor continuously
engaged by the management of Dugda Coal Washery of
the M/s BCCL on any job of permanent nature at any time
nor any tools supplied to them by the management for any
work nor employer-employee relationship existed between
the persons concerned and the management. They are
factually outsiders. So the question of their regularization
in the service of the M/s BCCL does not arise; thus the
demand of the Union as mentioned in the reference is
nothing but an attempt to provide employment to the
outsiders through back door, rather is neither legal nor
justified.
The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has specifically
denied all the allegations of the Union for the workmen and
stated that the job of the maintenance of water supply
system at the intake well of Dugda Coal Washery was
prenenily under the contractor, and all the persons engaged
by the contractor in the aforesaid job were regularized and
taken in employment of the Coal Washery from 23.10.93 as
per the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal
No. 2, Dhanbad, and the said job was departmentalized. No
person engaged by the contractor in the said job was left
in regularization, as the persons concerned have never
worked under the contractor in the said job, rather the
persons concerned were actually engaged by M/s S.P.
5810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Construction and M/s S.K. Construction whenever
required in the year 1988, 89 and 1993 in the job of Civil
Construction, which has not been prohibited by the
Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970. As such the demand of the Union is
fake, baseless and frivolous.
FINDING WITH REASONS
4. In the reference case, WWI Gyan Chand one of
the workmen concerned for self and for all other concerned
ones and MWI S.N. Roy, the Dy. Chief Engineer at
Sudamdih Eastern Washery Zone for the management have
been respectively examined.
The oral statement of WWI Gyan Chand for all the
three workmen including himself disc loses that they started
working at Dugda Coal Washery in the year 1985 as helper
as contrasted with their plain pleading dealing with no
specific time or working as a helper; they were engaged
and supplied the tools by the management for the work of
inevitable maintenance i.e., for the supply of water from
the intake well to all Coal Washery; their work was
continuous in nature and under the supervision of the
management, but they were stopped from the working from
Dec, 1994. But alleged stoppage of their working from the
period is unpleaded just as their putting their duties for
more than 240 days in each year.
In support to their alleged case, the witness (WWI)
has unpleadedly proved 29 Gate Passes issued by the
Management for the entry into the office as Ext.WI series
but out of them, only nine are the Materials/Stores Passes
dt. 19.6.94, 3.1.95, 10.8.94, 12.7.91, 11.8.94, 2.7.94 ineligible
'94, 12.6.94 and 15.6.91(latter there in photocopies) issued
by the BCCL Management, but none of them proves to
have issued to the workmen.
5. So far as the rest documents of the workmen
concerned, all of them are factually four applications
dt. 8.2.89, 22.6.92, 12.8.86 and 25.8.88 and their photocopies
of the Raju Construction, all Civil, Structural, Mechanical
& General Order Supplier, Project Officer, Dugda (Giridih)
to the Dy. Chief Engineer (W), Dugda Coal Washery for
the issuance of the temporary Gate Passes to the three
workmen and other two Santosh and Santosh Kumar Singh,
and accordingly the red I.D. Cards of the workmen
concerned (Ext.W.l/10-12) and their Certificate on the Pad
of the aforesaid S.R. Construction dt. 23.11.89 (Ext.W.l/28)
about their working under it as Mazdoors from 10.11.1984
to 31.10.1987. The aforesaid documents of these three
workmen undisputedly clearly in disproof of their case
affirm their engagement by the aforesaid Civil Contractors
for civil constructional job, an unprohibited job, which was
not continuous in process, for which these workmen, might
be possibly used to work under the Civil Contractor as
positively stated by MWI S.N. Roy, as the then Project
Officer of Dugda Coal Washery. According to the
management witness (MWI), the management did not
maintain any list of workers engaged by the contractors
for their work in the said intake well excepting a list of
workers in case of payment of wages to them for its
verification by the Principal Employer, i.e., the Personnel
Department; and that tools for working in the intake well
are not supplied by the management to the contractors'
workers. It is also indisputable fact that the management
did not issue any appointment letter to the workmen.
Besides, the statement of the aforesaid management witness
(MWI) clearly ascertains the regularization of contractors'
other 31 workmen who used to work in the intake well of
Dugda Coal Washery as per the Office Order (dt. 20.4.94—
Ext.M.l) in implementation of the Award in Ref. No. 134/91,
and it discloses that the present workers never worked
directly under the management in any capacity, so the
question as to the supply of the tools or supervision of
their work does not arise.
6. At the point whether the three workmen were the
employees of the alleged management/the Principal
employer, Mr.D. Mukherjee, Sr. Counsel-cum-Union
Representative for the workmen referring the rulings in
photocopies thereof (to be cited hereinafter) has
paraphasedly submitted as held therein as such:
That workmen were engaged through contractor for
manufacturing salt and the contractor, used to deduct
commission and paying them their wages; the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that they are the workmen of the
Principle Employer (1962(i)LLJ SC 131, United Salt Works
Ltd., Vs. their workmen);
That where 21 workmen of Sugar Factory were
stopped from duty and the plea of the management before
the Tribunal that they were contractor's workmen. The
Tribunal held the workmen as employees of the management
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held them the
employees of the Principal employer, and accordingly
directed reinstatement with full back wages
(1963(Il)LLJ(SC)442(CB), Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Ram
Ujagar);
That where Principal employer used to supply Bidi
leaves and tobacco to the contractor, who used to supply
the same to the workmen. The workmen were preparing
Bidi in their respective houses, and were depositing the
same to the contractor. The workmen were held by the
Apex Court that they are employees of the management.
(1964 II LLJ 633, D.C. Dewan Mohideen Saheb & Sons &
Another Vs. United Bidi Workers Union).
That in the case of Shankar Mukherjee Vs. Union of
India and others, F.L.R. 1990 at 20. Their Lordships held
that 'even after forty years of independence engagement
through contractors is illegal and baneful nature, and it is
exploitation of the workmen as bonded labour, and that in
the case of Royal Talkies Vs. ESI, SCW-15-101, their
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5811
Lordships held that the employees working in the Cycle
Stand of the Cinema Hall which is run by the contractor is
actually the employee of the principal employer i.e., Cinema
Hall.
Further has been urged by Mr. D. Mukherjee, the
Ld. Advocate-cum-Union Representative, that in the
famous case of the Hussainbhai Vs. Alath Factory, SSLJ-15
at page 112, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court for
the application of the 'Lifting the veil' or looking at the
conspectus of factors governing employment as true test
to discern the naked truth about the real employer in the
case where a worker or a group of workers/labours to
produce goods or service and these goods or service are
for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the
employer/the management, not the immediate contractor,
as the employer has economic control over the workers,
subsistence, skill and continued employments; even where
the presence of immediate contractors with whom the
workers have immediate or direct relationship. The Court
must be astute to avoid the mischief, and achieve the
purpose of the law.... It is also submitted by Mr. Mukherjee
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Bharat
Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2003(3)LLN
892 held that the constitutional Bench has confirmed the
Hussainabhai Case that it is neither dissented nor diluted
by the Constitution Bench.
Lastly, Mr. Mukherjee, submits that Award dt. 30.10.96
passed by the CGIT NO. l, Dhanbad, in Ref.No.58/92 was
confirmed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd.,
Vs. National Union Water Front Workers, reported in 2001
LLN 135 at page 176 Para 144. But in place of it, the photo-
stat of ...a Ruling by same names of the parties reported in
2001 LL.961 having total paras 129 has been filed for
consideration but it being vague rendered unable to see it.
Further plea of Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Counsel for the
Union/workmen is that the case of Uma Devi, 2001 (II)LLJ-
1087(SC) as mislead by Management factually unreleates
to the status of the employer-employee relationship; that
in the aforesaid case, the management had pleaded that
employees were appointed as casual workmen without
following the procedure laid down under Article 309 of the
Constitution of India applicable for Government servant,
and so disputed their claim for regularization. According to
Mr. Mukherjee, in the present case, the status of the
employer-employee relationship is in dispute; the Tribunal
to decide employer-employee relationship, and the case of
Uma Devi not applicable where employer-employee
relationship is in dispute which has been considered by
the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in 2007 LLR
1029, Punjab National Bank Vs. National Bank Canteen
Workers' Union; and the same view again reiterated in the
case of Deeljendr Nath Singh Vs. State of West Bengal.
8. On the other hand, Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Counsel
for the O.P./Management has contended that in the present
case, the alleged three workmen were factually casual
workers of the contractors for their civil works, but never
engaged or appointed nor paid by the management who
has never economic control over the workers; they had no
employer-employee relationship; so they are not entitled
to regularisation. To him, none of the rulings as cited by
Mr. Mukherjee, Ld. Adv. for the Union/workmen applies to
the facts of the present referrence under adjudication.
9. On perusal and candid consideration of the
materials as made available on behalf of the workmen, I
find the facts as under:
(i) These three workmen were not issued any
appointment letter, pay slip and any I.D.Card by
the O.P./Management any time;
(ii) They were factually casual workers of the Raju
Construction, S.K. Construction and S.R.
Construction, all Civil, Structural, Mechanical &
General Contractor of the Management for its Civil
work, which was not of perennial nature.
(iii) The workmen have no proof of their continuous
working as casual labour for statutory period under
Sec. 25 (a)(ii) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947;
and
(iv) There was never any relationship of employer-
employee relationship between the workmen and
the O.P./Management. There is no camouflage in
this respect at all, as it is evident from the documents
of their only four applications of the Civil contracts
for Civil work (Extt. W.I series)
In such circumstances, the ratio decidendi of all the
cited rulings being quite distinct from the facts of the
present case, none of them holds good with the case under
adjudication.
In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby
awarded that the demand of the Union for regularization of
the services of S/Shri Jogesh Prasad, Gyanchand Singh
and Shivbachan Singh with the management of Dugda Coal
Washery of M/s BCCL is totally unjustified. So the
concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2150-—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
5812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 80 dk 1998½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@726@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2150.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 80/98 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
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
11/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/726/1997-IR(C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act
1947
REF. NO. 80 OF 98.
Employer in relation to the management of,
Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workmen.
Present: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer.
Appearances :
For the employers: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman: None.
State: Jharkhand.
Industry: Coal.
Dated 19/8/2013
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/726/97/IR (C-I) dt. 10/09/1998
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Bhagabandh Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L. in denying to
provide employment to the dependant son of
Smt. Kauslya Kamin under VRS(F) scheme on the
plea that she has crossed the age of 58 years on the
date of filing the application under VRS(F) scheme is
legal and justified? If not to what relief is the
dependant son of Smt. Kamin entitled?"
2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are
noticed. The parties appeared and filed their respective
claim statements. But subsequently, though management
counsel appears, the workman did not appear. Therefore, it
appears that there is no dispute between the parties. Hence
no dispute award is passed. Communicate to the Ministry.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2151-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fVLdks ds
izcaèra= 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; uañ 2] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
188@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
09@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@347@2000&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2151.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 188/2000
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 TISCO, and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 09/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/2000/1997-IR(C-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. 188 OF 2000.
Parties :
The General Secretary,
Colliery Karmchari Sangh, Bhaga Dhanbad
Vs. General Manager
M/s TISCO, Jamadoba, Dhanbad
Appearances :
On behalf of the workman : None
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5813
On behalf of the Management:
Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. Advocate
State : JHARKHAND
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th August, 2003.
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/
347/2000(C-I) dt. 29.11.2000.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the General Manager of
M/s TISCO, P.O. Jamadoba, Dist. Dhanbad in not
providing employment to the dependant son of
Shri Rambali Mahato is justified? If not, to what relief
is the said dependant of the workman entitled".
2. The case of workman Rambali Mahato as sponsored
by Colliery Karmchari Sangh, Bhaga, Dhanbad that the
workman, T.No. 43669 was an employee of the TISCO Ltd
at. 6 & 7 Pits Colliery after his appointment w.e.f. 12.5.1969
and he discharged his duty as a Trammer. On sending him
to the Medical Board of the Management following his
madness during his employment, he was declared medically
unfit to continue his service. So he was put off the service
of the Company w.e.f. 22.9.1984.The workman rendered his
service for very long time of 23 years. The dependant of
the workman is entitled to his employment in place of the
workman as per the provision of the NCWA. Even at his
second time representations the management did not
consider his case, though the workman during the tenure
of his service had enrolled the name of the dependant son
in the Employees Dependant Register as per norms of the
Company. Thus the action of the management in not
providing employment to the dependant son of the
workman is unjustified.
3. Specifically denying the allegation of the O.P./
Management, it has been alleged on behalf of the workman
in his rejoinder that Rambali Mahato was appointed on
12.5.1961 as Trammer at 6 & 7 Pits Colliery. The management
itself admitted that Sri Rambali Mahato nominated one
person Shri Ram Ker Yadav to get an employment against
his long service according to the employment procedure
of the Company.
4. Whereas the contra pleaded case of the O.P./
Management with categorical denials is that the present
reference is unmaintainable, as it has been raised by the
Union concerned on behalf of the Ex-workman, Rambali
Mahato, who is already dead. The Union has no locus
standi to raise the demand on behalf of a workman, who is
not a member of the Union. The Union is a stranger one.
The provisions of the NCWA has no application to the
Establishment of the M/s TISCO in respect of the
employment of dependants, as the NCWA itself stipulates
that the Establishment will follow its own employment
procedure. The workman during the tenure of his service
had nominated one person named Ramker Yadav as his
dependant son to be provided employment on the strength
of his service against future vacancies. The management
considered the employment of temporary workers in the
year 1992 and the workman was issued the letter dt.
16th June,1992 to appear before the Medical Board along
with his dependant son for his medical examination so as
to nominate him in the pool of temporary workers for
providing employment against the temporary vacancies, if
found suitable for the job of a Miner. The management
recruited some of the dependants as temporary workers in
the year 1992 on the basis of the selection made to be
engaged against temporary vacancies, but the workman
did not turn up along with his dependant son for necessary
interview, selection and medical examination, as a result,
the name of his dependants could not be kept on the penal
of temporary workers.
5. Further alleged on behalf of the O.P./Management
that after the year 1992, with the introduction of the modern
technology by the Management in the Mining Operation,
the output per man shift increased in the process of
mechanization and concentration of the operation, but the
requirement of man power got reduced. Thus, it resulted
that the permanent workmen become surplus to requirement.
Hence, the Management introduced several Voluntary
Retirement Scheme for reduction of surplus manpower on
payment of better compensation and facilities so as to
maintain optimum work force for smooth working of the
Mines. So the scope of employment of the more workers in
the different establishments of the Company got reduced,
and the management has not yet been able to regularize
the temporary workers already inducted into the
employment of the Company prior to 1992. Thus, no
vacancy exists at present for consideration of the
dependants of any workman at the present juncture of
time. It is also alleged that no right exists for the demand on
behalf of an Ex-workman or Dead workman for employment
of his dependants. The consideration of the cases of
dependants for their employment is only against vacancies,
but there is no fixed time for providing an employment in
seniority under such circumstances, the demand for
employment by the workman is meritless, as the basis of
the Union concerned is baseless and imaginary, so it is
unsustainable. The action of the management in not giving
employment to the dependant son of Late Rambali Mahato
is legal and justified, and the concerned person is not
entitled to any relief.
6. In its rejoinder, the O.P./management has
categorically denied the allegations of the Union, and stated
that Sri Rambali Mahato was appointed on 12.5.1961, not
5814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
on 12.5.1969 as alleged, and he was discharged from his
service on medical ground w.e.f. 22.9.1984.
FINDING WITH REASONS
7. In the instant reference, WWI Ram Bali Mahato,
the medically discharged workman for the Union and MWI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the Head Clerk for the O.P./
Management have been examined respectively.
The statement of WWI Rambali Mahato reveals that
he was appointed in the year 1957 and was declared
permanent in the year 1961 but was discharged from the
service on medical ground in Sept.,1984; and after
completion of his 15 years of service, the management
registered the name of his son Ram Ker in the Employment
Register of Dependant, but the management did not provide
his son any employment in view of the Employment policy
without any reason, though he had fulfilled all the
conditions required in support of his claim for it. Thereafter,
G.M.as per his letter (dt. 14/16.3.1994 -Ext.W.I) assured the
son of the workman to consider his temporary employment
in the event of requirement in future. His son had also
submitted his three representations (dt. 13.4.1994, 27.10.97
and illegible -Extt. 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively). The aforesaid
letter of the Divisional Manager clearly discloses that the
dependant son of the workman as per the letter dt. 16.6.1992
referred therein was advised to appear before the medical
Board for his medical fitness for employment, but he did
not turn up for it at the relevant time, and the post was
filled up by the next incumbent in the seniority list as per
turn. The workman (WWI) has asserted that his son had
not got any letter from the management for his interview
for it.
8. Whereas from the statement of MWI Dinesh
Kumar Sharma, the Head Clerk of the Management, it is
evident that, as per the service sheet of the workman
(Ext.M.1), he was discharged from service w.e.f. 22.9.1984
on the ground of his medical unfitness. The provision of
the NCWA is inapplicable to the Tata Steel Company, as
the management has its own policy. It is indisputable that
the name of the petitioner (son of the workman) was also
registered in the Employees Dependant Register, so in the
year 1992, the management had offered him for his temporary
employment as its letter (dt. 16.6.1992-Ext. M.2), but the
workman did not respond to the offer of employment .In
the year 1994, the petitioner son of the workman submitted
an application for employment, the management gave its
reply letters (Ext. M3 services, Extt. M. 4 and 5) responded
to his respective representations, so the claim of the
workman for employment of his son is not justified, and he
is not entitled to relief. But the Management witness has
affirmed that the Management has no proof about the
receipt of the employment offer by the petitioner in the
year 1992, and that the workman Rambali, now deceased,
had served the management for more than 23 years, though
denying that the claim of the workman for the employment
of his son after enrolment of his name for employment
following completion of his 15 years service, was
unconsidered in spite of available vacancy.
9. As per written argument, it is to submit on behalf
of the workman now Late Ram Bali Mahato/now his
dependant son Ramker Yadav that despite the fair case of
the workman for the employment of his aforesaid dependant
son that as per the employment policy of the Management
of the Tata Steel Company, the workman had got his name
of his dependant son Ramker Yadav enrolled in the
Employment Dependant Register after completion of his
15 years of his service, the workman was discharged on
medical ground in Sept., 1984, the management did not
provide him employment on the ground of non-appearance
of the workman or his dependent son at the relevant time
for reporting in spite of the latter's induction in the pool of
the temporary workers. Further it is contended on behalf of
the workman/the petitioner that in view of the para 9.4.3.(ii)
of the NCWAIII, the claim of the workman for his son Ramker
Yadav's employment is quite justified, because the
management of the TISCO Collieries is the party to the
NCWAIII, so it is applicable to the present case.
Whereas vehemently opposing the aforesaid plea of
the workman/petitioner, Mr. D.K.Verma, Ld. Counsel for
the O.P./Management has contended that the N.C.W.A. is
not applicable to the TISCO, as it has its own rules in
consonance with Rules of the J.B.C.C.I. Raising the point
about the cause of the action for the reference, Mr. Verma,
Ld. Counsel for the O.P./Management that in fact the
workman, was appointed on 12.5.1961, and he was
discharged from his service on medical ground w.e.f.
22.9.1984, and later on the workman died and the date of
his death was not disclosed in his case, so the claim of the
employment for the dependant as a matter of right is
unsustainable.
Lastly, the plea has been taken on behalf of the
workman/petitioner that the dependant son of the workman
(now dead) in the case has a right to obtain appointment
on compassionate ground as per the settlement itself as
held in the case of Mohan Mahato Vs. Central Coal Fields
Ltds and Ors reported in (2007)2 SSC (L & S) 951 (Paras 10
& 13)
10. After hearing the Learned Counsels for the
respective parties, and on perusal of the materials available
on the case record, I find the facts emerging during the trial
of the case for due consideration are as under:
(i) The indisputable acts are that workman Rambali
Mhato as a Trammer served at 6 & 7 Pits Jamadoba
Colliery under the management of the TISCO for
more than 23 years until his discharge from his
permanent service on 22.9.1984 on medical ground
of permanently disablement due to his T.B. and
Leprosy;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5815
(ii) It is an acknowledged fact that the workman after
completion of his 15 years' service had already got
the name of his dependant son Ramker enrolled in
the Employee Dependant Register (EDR) for future
employment as per static rule of the Company.
(iii) Despite fulfillment of the aforesaid terms and
conditions by the workman for employment of his
son Ramker Yadav as per the policy of the Company,
the management in contravention of its own policy
at the relevant time in the year 1992 cannot deprive
Sri Ramker Yadav, the son of the workman Rambali
Mahato of his right to employment on the ground
of their non-appearance before the Asstt.
Manager(P) within three days of receipt of the letter
dt. 16.6.1992(Ext.M.2), or even on that of the
changed circumstances about meeting of the
requirement from the dependants of the retired
employees of more than 30 years based on seniority
as per the letter dt.14/16th March, 1994 (Ext.W.1),
and
(iv) The O.P./Management has no proof of the delivery
of its letter dt. 16.6.1992 (Ext.M.2) to the workman
now his son all along struggling for it. The verdict
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited case
of Mohan Mahato holds good with the factum of
the case.
11. Under these circumstances, it I held and hereby
awarded that the action of the General Manager of M/s
TISCO, PO: Jamadoba, Distt. Dhanbad in not providing
employment to Ramker Yadav, the dependant son of Rambali
Mahato is quite unjustified. So the said dependant son is
entitled to his employment in the Company as per its very
policy, relaxing his age due to undue delay caused by the
O.P./Management itself for its negligence in duty towards
him.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2152-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh 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; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 29@2002½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@383@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2152.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 29/2002 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
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
11/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/383/2001-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In the Matter of a Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D.
Act, 1947.
REF. NO. 29 OF 2002
Employers in relation to the management of Urimari
Project of M/s C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:— Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:— Sri P.M. Prasad Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated 24/5/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/383/2001 IR (C-I),
dt. 26/02/2002, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
^^D;k turk etnwj la?k dh lhñlhñ,y] fl;ky {ks= ;wjhekjh
izkstsDV ds izcaèra= ls ekax fd Jh ujs'k izlkn] ofj"B Mªk¶VeSu
dh tUe rkjh[k 6-12-1945 ds LFkku ij 14-7-1949 ntZ dh
tk;s mfpr ,oa U;k; laxr gS\ ;fn gka rks deZdkj fdl jkgr
ds ik= gSa\**
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 21.03.2002. After notice both parties appeared, the
workman files their written statement on 07.10.2002. The
Management files their written statement-cum-rejoinder on
28.03.2003. Thereafter the workman files their rejoinder on
07.07.2003.
3. The short point involved in this case is as to
whether the Date of Birth of the workman was 14.07.1949 or
06.12.1945. On the basis of which they was retired in the
5816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
year 2005, case of the workman was that he passed
matriculation. But his matriculation certificate was stolen
by dacoits alongwith other house hold articles. But the
workman filed some other certificates where his date of
Birth appears to 14.7.49. But the recommendation of NCWA
is the persons who have no matriculation certificate to
prove the age or date of Birth they have to be presented
before the medical board for age determination. Accordingly
the workman presented before the medical board where his
age has been determined as 23.09.1945.
4. The workman has stated in his cross examination,
that he has not filed the original matriculation certificates
and that has been stolen and he lodged F.I.R. Had the
workman passed the matriculation examination, he could
have obtained the duplicate of the same from the Board or
University authority. In the absence of the same his age
determination by the medical board is accepted to be
justified.
5. Since as per the NCWA the workman appeared
before the medical board in absence of matriculation
certificate, either original or authenticated duplicate the
result of the medical board is to be accepted.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold
that the demand of Janta Mazdoor Sangh, C.C.L Sayal Area
of Urimari project for recording the age of Sri Naresh Prasad,
Sr. Draftsman. 14.07.1949 in place of 06.01.1945 is correct
and justified. Accordingly the workman has been rightly
retired by the management. Hence the workman is not
entitled to get any relief, the reference answered against
the workman.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2153-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh 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; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 104@2000½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@446@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2153.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 104/2000 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
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
11/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/446/1999-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (2A) OF
I.D. ACT, 1947.
Ref. No. 104 of 2000
Employers in relation to the management of Regional
Hospital, Kustore Area M/s B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present: SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:—
Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate
For the workman
:—
Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 18/6/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/446/99 (C-I), dated 03/02/2000,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-
section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
^^D;k dqLrksj [knku Hkkñdksñdksñfyñ] èuckn ds izcaèra= }kjk
deZpkjh Jh izsepUn] Mªslj dks lgk;d Hk.Mkjiky ds in ij
fu;fer ugha djuk ,oa muds }kjk fd, x, lgk;d Hk.Mkjiky
dk dk;Z djus dh vofè ds osru dk Hkqxrku u djuk]
laoSèkfud ,oa dkuwuh rkSj ij lgh ,oa mfpr gS\ vFkok ugha\
;fn ugha] rks deZdkj fdu ykHkksa ds gdnkj gSa\**
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 23.02.2000. After notice both parties appeared. The
Sponsoring Union files their written statement on
03.09.2001. The management files their written statement-
cum-rejoinder on 12.12.2001. Thereafter rejoinder and
documents received by the workman. Witness have been
examined.
3. The case of the workman is, he was working as a
dresser in the General hospital Kustore in a sanctioned
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5817
post. In the store of the said hospital, this workman was
ordered to remain in charge of store and he has been working
as such for along time. The post of store keeper is a clerical
post carries more pay than dresser for which the workman
represented to be observed in the said post which was
rejected. The workman raised the dispute which came for
decision before this Tribunal.
4. The case of the management is, that there was one
sanctioned post of store keeper of the hospital and one
man is working there. The present workman was ordered to
assist or work as store keeper in his absence and the
workman has been working and as such, but he is not be
regularised. Since he has not been selected or recruited as
clerk.
5. There is no scope for promotion from dresser to
store keeper clerk.
6. After hearing the argument, perusing the pleadings
and evidence this tribunal finds that the workman has not
been recruited as clerk or storekeeper but he was working
in the said post.
7. Merely working in a higher post for a long period
does not automatically get a right to be regularised in the
said post. Therefore the Tribunal does not feel to disturb
the cadre rule of the management to take a dresser to the
cadre of the store keeper.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I hold that the action of the management of Kustore
colliery of M/s. BCCL is not regularising Sri Premchand,
dresser as store keeper difference of wages is legal and
justified. The workman is not entitled to get any extra
remuneration. Therefore the reference answered against
the workman.
This is my award.
R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2154-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh 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; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 120@1999½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@42@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2154.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 120/1999 of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
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
11/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/42/1999-IR (C-I)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) D (2A)
OF I.D. ACT, 1947
REF. NO. 120 OF 1999
Employers in relation to the management of Barora Area
of M/s. B.C.C.L.
AND
Their workmen
Present:
Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the Employers
:—None
For the workman
:—None
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated 24/5/2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-20012/42/99 IR (C-I), dated
04/06/1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of
Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause
(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
^^D;k etnwj la?k dk nkok fd Jh lkèq uksfu;k o"kZ 1982 ls
ukbV xkMZ dk dk;Z dj jgs gSa lgh gS\ ;fn gka rks D;k mudh ekax
fd deZdkj dks iwoZ frfFk ls mDr in ij fu;fer fd;k tk,
rFkk lHkh vkfFkZd ykHk fn, tk,a mfpr gS\ ;fn gka rks deZdkj
fdl jkgr ds ik= gSa rFkk fdl rkjh[k ls\**
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 15.06.1999. After Notice both parties appeared. The
workman files their written statement on 30.11.2000.
Thereafter rejoinder and documents received. Evidence of
the workman taken. Admittedly the workman was working
wagon loader. But subsequently he was entrusted to work
as a peon cum security guard. Presently the workman claims
to be absorbed as security guard cum peon. It is also the
5818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
case of the workman that he has no papers to show that he
was appointed as security guard or he was selected for the
said post by appearing any interview.
3. On the other hand it is submitted by the
management that in wagon loader post one has to labour
hard for which the workman requested to work on the
surface to work as a peon with understanding of receiving
the wagon loader scale.
4. Had the workman produced any promotional or
appointment letter to the post of either peon or security
guard. There was no difficulty to allow his claim. As that
has been not filed, the workman has no right to continue as
peon or security Guard.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, I hold
that the claim of Mazdoor's Sangh that Sri Sadhu Nonia is
working as night guard from the year 1982 is not correct.
Accordingly the workman is not entitled to be regularised
in the post of peon-cum-security guard. Hence the reference
is answered against the workman.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2155-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@
Je U;k;ky; uañ 2 /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 201 dk 2001½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 09@09@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@410@1997&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2155.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 201/2001)
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 09/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/410/1997-IR (C-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. 201 OF 2001.
Parties
:
Joint General Secretary,
Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh,Rajender Path, Dhanbad
Vs. General Manager,
Lodna Area of
M/s BCCL,Khasjeengora,Dhanbad
Appearances:
On behalf of the
:
Mr. R.K.Mukherjee,
workman/Union
:
Ld.Advocate
On behalf of the
Management
:
Mr.D.K.Verma, Ld.Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 27th June, 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-20012/410/97-IR(C-I) dt. 23.7.2001.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor
Sangh from the management of Lodna area of M/s.
BCCL for regularization of Sri Khagan Rajwar in
Group -E w.e.f. 23.9.97 end in Group- D 15.1.93 is
justified and legal? If so, what relief is the workman
entitled to?".
2. The case of workman Khagan Rajwar as sponsored
by
the
Rashtriya
Colliery
Mazdoor
Sangh
(RCMS),Dhanbad, is that typographical mistake in dating
23.9.97 in place of 23.9.87 in the Schedule to the reference
be read and corrected as latter date for proper adjudication;
that the workman was initially appointed as Greaser Helper
in Cat.I, w.e.f. Sept.,1996,was regularized on 23.9.87
accordingly in Cat.II and then as Auto Fitter Helper in Cat.E
in place of E.P.Fitter Helper w.e.f. 21.11.990. Bhim Ram ,the
junior, who was appointed on 7.11.1989, was regularized in
Excavation Cat.E only after one year w.e.f. 21.12.1990 and
the same time in E/P Fitter Helper, but the workman was
given Cat.E after four years of his appointment, so the
workman was also entitled to be regularized as E/P Fitter
Helper in Cat.E after one year w.e.f. 23.9.1987.Thus action
of the management in regularizing the workman as Auto
Fitter Helper in Excavations Cat.E w.e.f. 21.11.90 instead of
regularizing him as E/P Fitter helper w.e.f. 23.9.1987 is
discriminatory. Likewise the promotion/regularization of
the other workmen Binod Prasad Rajak,Bhim
Ram,Ramashray Ram and Om Prakash junior to the workman
in Cat.1 to Grade D w.e.f. 15.1.1993 is contrasted with the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5819
workman in Grade E itself is due to his wrong initial
designation amounting to supersation.
3. Further it is alleged that while continuously
working in the Excavation grade, the workman was wrongly
given designation of the Auto Filter Helper in place of
proper designation against the principle of equal pay for
equal work. He is entitled at least to be put in the Grade "D"
w.e.f. 15 .1.1993 on which date his juniors were given the
same benefits of Grade-D. The action of the management is
unfair Labour practice and violation of Cadre Scheme for
Excavations Personnel and of the Artt.14,16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India. Finding no alternation, the union on
his behalf raised the Industrial Dispute before the ALC @,
Dhanbad,but its conciliation proceeding failed due to non-
cooperative attitude of the management, it resulted in the
reference for an adjudication.
4. Secondly denying the allegation of the O.P.
Management, the Union in its rejoinder has stated that the
reference is legally maintainable and if there is no violation
of any cadre scheme, then promoting regularizing the
workman as Auto Fitter Helper in Excavation Cat.- E is
itself wrongs as well as giving him the Grades E & D w.e.f.
21.11.1990 and 20 12.96 in place of the year 1987 and 1990
respectively as given to his junior similarly situated persons
Binod Pd.Rjak, Bhim Ram, and others. Since the cadres of
Bhim Ram and the workman are same, the workman deserves
to be given his due actual cadre/designation at proper time
as others were given.
5. Whereas challenging the maintainability of the
reference, the contra pleaded case of the O.P./Management
is that the Cadre Scheme for non-executive employees
governed by the NCWA as formulated by JBCCI w.e.f.
NCWA (1).The Cadre Scheme for Excavation Personnel
was issued by the Implementation Institution (II) No.49/
5074 by the JBCCI.The workman was appointed as a Trainee
in Cat.I on 4.9.86, was subsequently regularized in Cat. II
w.e.f. 23.9.87, then regularized as Auto Fitter Helper in
Excavation Cat.E w.e.f. 21.11.1990, and then promoted from
excavation Cadre E to Excavation Gr.D w.e.f. 20.12.1996.The
sponsoring Union has no locus standi to raise the present
Industrial dispute in the year 1995, and to demand for his
regularization with retrospective effect quite against
violation of the Cadre Scheme.The workman we rightly
placed as a Greaser Helper Trainee at the time of his
appointment on 4.9.1986, since then his placement in Cat.II
and then in Auto Fitter Helper in Excavation Cadre E w.e.f.
23.9.87 and 21.11.1990 respectively was quite right. As per
the Cadre Scheme Excavation Gr'.D' is a selection post and
workman was selected for the said post was accordingly
placed in Gr.' D' w.e.f. 20.12.1996.There was no anomaly or
irregularity in the promotion and regularization of the
workman from Cat. I to Gr.D.The demand of the Union is
neither legal nor justified, so the workman is not entitled to
any relief.
6. Further, the O.P./Management in its rejoinder with
categorical denials has stated that the suo moto change by
the Union in terms of the reference without asking the
Ministry for its corrigendum is illegal and justified, as the
Tribunal cannot make a correction in lack of any
corrigendum of the Ministry in the reference. The Ministry
has refused to refer the dispute initially. It is also alleged
that the workman and Bhim Ram were appointed in different
cadres, so he had no connection with the case of Bhim
Ram.
FINDING WITH REASONINGS
7. In the reference case,WW1 Khagan Rajwar,the
workman himself and WW2 Seo Shankar Prasad Singh’
Sr.Mechanic, South Tisra Colliery, on behalf of the Union
have been fully examined, whereas no witness could be
examined by the O.P./Management despite ample
opportunity.
8. Mr.R.K.Mukherjee, the Ld.Counsel for the Union
as per his written argument submits that the workman
Khagan Rajwar was initially appointed as Greaser Helper
in Cat.1 w.e.f. 23.9.1986, and regularized as a Greaser Helper
Cat. II 23.9.1987, thereafter as the Auto Fitter Helper in
Cat.E w.e.f. 21.11.1990, whereas his junior Binod Prasad
Rajak and other working in the same capacity were
regularized in Gr.D w.e.f. 15.1.1993,so the workman is entitled
to Grade D w.e.f. 15.1.1993,whereas statement of the
workman Khagan Hagan Rajak (WW1) based on the
photocopies of the documents of the aforesaid colleague
Binod Prasad Rajak manifests the appointment of said Rajak
as Excv. Plant Greaser Helper (T) as per the Office Order
(dt.6.12.1986 -Ext.W.1), the regularization of the workman
and aforesaid Rajak as Greaser Helper Cat.II w.e.f. 23.9.87
and 7.12.1987 respectively as per the Office Order
(dt.30.4.1988 -Ext.W.2 with objection), thereafter promotion/
regularization aforesaid Rajak as Fitter Helper w.e.f. 6.12.1989
as per the Office Order dt.24/25.9.90 (Ext.W.3 with
objection),and then his promotion in E.P.Fitter Grade B as
per the Office Order dt.24.7.1993 (Ext.W.4 with objection).
The workman has stated to have been promoted in Grade E
-Fitter in the year 1991, but to have claimed for the Grade B
as Mr.Rajak is working in. But factually the aforesaid Office
Order (Ext.W.4) refers to the promotion of Mr. Rajak as
E.P.Fitter in Grade D, not in Grade B as claimed by the
workman. Likewise, the statement of WW2 Sheo Shankar
Pd.Singh is corroborated to that of the workman.
9. On the other hand, Mr .D.K. Verma, Ld.advocate
for the O.P./Management has to submit that the
management in Para 8 of its written statement has already
mentioned about the workman to have been promoted
Excavation Grade E to Excavation Grade D w.e.f. 20.12.96,
and that however no case of the workman could be made
out in terms of the reference under adjudication.
5820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
10. On due perusal and consideration of the materials
as adduced by the workman, I find that irrespective human
lapse/fallacy in the Reference to Grade B in stead of D, the
workman has expressedly or impliedly proved his case /
claim for promotion to Grade "D w.e.f. 15.1.1993 as Senior
to his Colleagues Binod Pd. Rajak who has been working
as E.P. Fitter since aforesaid date, but the claim of the
working for regularization in Grade E w.e.f. 23.9.97 being
vague remained unproved.
Under these circumstances, it is, in the terms of the
reference, hereby,
ORDERED
That the award be and the same is that the only claim
of the Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh from the
Management of Lodna Area, B.C.C.L. for regularization /
promotion of workman Khagan in Grade D w.e.f. 15.1.1993
is justified and legal, but in respect of its demand for the
workman's regularization in Grade "E" w.e.f. 23.9.1997, it is
too vague. Hence, the workman is entitled to promotion to
Grade "D" with all its financial benefits/differences
whatsoever since 15.1.1993. Let the copies -one Soft and
one Hard of the Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour &
Employment, New Delhi, for information and needful
publication in the Gazette of India.
KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2156-—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 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@1998½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@09@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&20012@193@1997&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2156.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/1998)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
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
11/09/2013.
[No. L-20012/193/1997-IR(C-I)]
M. K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD
In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act
REF. NO. 39 OF 1998
Employer in relation to the management of Sendra
Bansjora Colliery of M/s. BCCL.
AND
Their workmen.
Present :
Sri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
For the employers
: Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.
For the Workman
: Sri D. Mukherjee Rep.
State Jharkhand.
: Industry—Coal.
Dated 22/07/2013
AWARD
By order No. L-20012/193/1997/IR (C-I) dt. 12/08/1998,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section
(1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Sendra
Bansjora Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L. in dismissing the
service of Shri Ram Lakhan Chouhan, Ex-Mini-Loader
w.e.f. 21.2.85 is justified. If not, to what relief Shri
Ram Lakhan Chouhan is entitled."
2. After receipt of the reference, parties are noticed,
Respective parties submitted their documents. MW-1 has
been examined and crossed examined. During continuance
of the case, the workman died. None from his behalf filed
any substitution petition supported by affidavit. The case
adjourned for filing of substitution petition. Four years
elapsed in the meantime. Hence the present reference is
abated against the workman.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 13 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2157-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj baf.M;u
,;jykbUl ¼dydRrk½ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5821
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 03@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
11-09-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11011@10@88&Mh-II ¼ch½@Mh-III¼ch½]
,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2013
S.O. 2157.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/2011)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Guwahati as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute
between the management of Indian Airlines, Calcutta, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
11.09.2013.
[No. L-11011/10/88-D.II(B)/D.III(B)]
M.K. SINGH, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
Present:
Sri L.C.Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:
The Management of Indian Airlines, Calcutta.
-Vrs-
Their Workmen Sri Basistha Sahani & 3 Others.
Ref. Case No.03 of 2011.
Appearances:
For the Management:
Mr. R.N.Mazumder, Advocate.
Mr. M.Mahata, Advocate.
Mr. A.K.Sarkar, Advocate.
For the Workmen:
Mr. Abu Sharif, Advocate,
Date of Award: 20.08.2013.
AWARD
1. This Reference was initiated on an Industrial
Dispute raised by the workman Sarbasri Jibeswar Mandal,
Jagannath Mahato, Sunil Singh, Baisistha Sahani, Security
Guards/Loaders against the Management of Indian Airlines,
Kolkata which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal,
Guwahati by the Ministry of Labour vide order No.L-11011/
10/88-D.II(B)/D.III(B) dated 4.1.1989, u/s 10(1)(d) of the
Industrial Dispute Act for adjudication, as per the following
Schedule.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Indian
Airlines, Calcutta in terminating the services of
S/Shri Jibeswar Mandal, Jagannath Mahato,
Sunil Singh, Baisistha Sahani Security Guards/
Loaders from 1987, 1983, May 1986 and 1982
respectively is justified. If not, what relief are the
workmen entitled to?"
2. The Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati (State) registered
this Reference Case being Reference No.2(C)/1989.
Subsequently, the Reference was transferred to this
Tribunal by the Industrial Tribunal (State), Guwahati vide
their order dated 19.2.2011 and accordingly the
present Reference has been renumbered (Reference Case
No.03/2011).
3. On receipt of the Reference, on transfer, notices
were issued upon the parties and both the parties appeared
and the case was fixed for argument. Subsequently, the
workmen were found absent inspite of issuing notice upon
them. Even the learned Advocate for the workmen was
found absent inspite of causing service of notice upon him
hence, the Management was heard ex-parte as per order
dt. l7.5.2013.
4. The workmen submitted their claim statement
jointly stating inter-alia that they were appointed by the
Management of Indian Airlines, Kolkata I different jobs as
shown below:—
(i)
Shri Jagnnath Mahato was appointed as
Security Guard on day and night shift.
(ii)
Shri Jibeswar Mandal was appointed as
Security Guard in the year 1979 for both day
and night.
(iii)
Shri Sunil Singh was appointed as loader for
day shift.
(iv)
Shri Basistha Sahani was appointed as Loader
for day shift.
The workmen stated that they were discharging their
service to the best of their ability and sincerity and to the
satisfaction of the Management for several years
continuously without any blemish as Casual/Daily rated
employees. But the workmen were terminated from the
service without assigning any reason thereof violating the
provision of law. The workman contended that they had
been performing the permanent nature of work continuously
but the Management due to their unfair labour practice
employed them as Casual labourer and even did not issue
any appointment letter inspite of their repeated requests to
issue formal letter of appointment. Then the workmen raised
dispute regarding the illegal termination and having failed
to get any relief, got the dispute referred to the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati who after discussing
the matter on 13.1.1986 with the Management
representative, in presence of the workmen, and the
Management inter alia agreed to consider the demand of
the workmen to be absorbed on regular posts. Thereafter,
5822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workmen were called to appear in an interview held by
the Management on 20.2.1986 and the workmen in view of
their position, could not but appeared in the interview for
the post of Loaders on the aforesaid date.
It is also stated by the workmen that after the
interview the workmen did not receive any letter from the
Management, rather on 19.8.1986 .the workmen received
letter being No.54(10)/86-B/A dated 18.8.1986 from the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Guwahati
whereby they came to know that all the workmen as
mentioned above have been declared unsuccessful and
their prayer has been rejected. Thus the action of the
Management is malafide and the interview was a mere eye-
wash to deprive the poor workmen who were fighting for
justice all along. It is further mentioned by the workmen
that there was the need and requirement, under the
circumstances the Management can not deprive the
workmen; and there was no medical test as the work of
Loader is merely a manual work and the workmen were
healthy; disciplined persons who were deprived only
because of the fact that they were having pursuing their
legitimate claim to the Management. Further plea of the
workmen is that they were not allowed to do any work
whatsoever in the Indian Airlines and this has resulted to
great hardship to the workmen. The workmen also
mentioned that they served the Management for years
together and yet they remain on daily rated workmen
without any security of their services without the protection
of equal pay for equal work. Even though they were putting
continuous service for not less than 4/5 years. The workmen
added that the necessary registers showing employment
are with the Management and they are to produce these
before this Tribunal while the workmen were not supplied
with letter of appointment; and that there were several other
Loaders employed by the Management who were
performing similar nature of work getting much higher
remuneration but the workmen were paid a low rate,
although they performed similar nature of work like the
other loaders. Hence, the workmen are entitled to get the
same rate of wages which was denied by the Management.
As such, the workmen prayed to hold that the order of
termination of the workmen by the Management is illegal
and unjustified; and to award their reinstatement with all
back wages for the period of their forced unemployment
along with costs and further be pleased to direct that the
workmen be paid same scale of wages as other loaders
employed by the Management.
5. The case of the Management on the other hand, in
brief, is that the dispute having been not sponsored by
any Union and in absence of any mention in the order of
Reference that the said Reference has having been made
u/s 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947; and as the
dispute is not in an Industrial Act within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act; the present Reference is not
maintainable. The Management mentioned that the
workmen namely Shri Jagannath Mahato and Shri Sunil
Singh were engaged as casual workers as shown below:—
I
Shri Jagannath Mahato:
May, 1986
8 nights as Security Guard.
June,1986
15 nights as Security Guard.
July, 1986
15 nights as Security Guard.
August,1986
8 nights as Security Guard.
November, 1986
12 nights as Security Guard.
March,1987
14 nights as Security Guard.
April, 1987
1 day as Loader.
8 nights as Security Guard.
May, 1987
12 nights as Security Guard.
Total - 93 days.
(ii)
Shri Sunil Singh:
June, 1987...................12 days as Loader.
The remaining workmen Shri Jibeswar Mandal and
Shri Basistha Sahani were never engaged by the
Management as casual labourer. Thus it is clear that none
of the workmen has completed 240 days of continuous
service in any given year so as to come within the purview
of Section 25(f) of the I.D.Act and to derive benefit
thereunder, in the even of their termination. Further case of
the Management is that an interview was held by the
Management in November,1986 for filling up the vacancy
for the post of Loader for the candidates sponsored by the
local Employment Exchange as also for the candidates
recommended for interview by the Assistant Labour
Commissoner (C), Guwahati who recommended the names
of the alleged workmen besides 11 others whose names
appeared in the minutes of discussion held in the Office of
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati on
13.1.1986 in respect of the representation made by 15 ex-
casuals. The interview for the said candidates sponsored
by the Employment Exchange and for those who were
recommended for interview by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), was held on 20.2.1986 by duly
constituted Board and the names of the workmen Shri Sunil
Singh and Jibeswar Mandal were empanelled which was
valid up to 26.2.1988, while Shri Jagannath Mahato and
Basistha Sahani were found not suitable by the Interview
Board. The panel has since expired Shri Sunil Singh and
Jibeswar Mandal could not be offered appointment because
of the embargo on the recruitment. Subsequently fresh
names were sponsored by the Employment Exchange,
Guwahati on the request of the Management and those
who were found eligible have already been interviewed by
the Board and a fresh panel was drawn for the post of
Loader at Guwahati, and none of the present workmen
were sponsored by the Employment Exchange.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5823
The Management categorically the allegations in
para— 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,12 and 13 of the claim
statement submitted by the workmen. The management
denied that the workman Jibeswar Mandal was appointed
as Security Guard in the year 1979 for both day and night,
and that the workmen were serving the Management for
several years continuously; and that the workmen
Jagannath Mahato and Basistha Sahani were employed as
casuals. As such, the question of termination of service of
the alleged workmen does not and can not arise. The
Management also denied in particular that the alleged
workmen had performed permanent nature of work
continuously and that the Management had been following
unfair labour practice. The Management pleaded that the
workmen never issued appointment letter to the casual
labourer. The further plea of the Management is that the
Management's representative agreed to consider the case
of 15 casuals including the alleged workmen subject to
fulfillment of the requirement suitability/ interview/selection
etc. and hence, it is wrong to allege that the Management
agreed to absorb the workmen on regular post in the said
meeting held on 13.1.86; as such, it is not correct to mention
that the workmen were not required to undergo any
interview. Under the above circumstances, the Management
contended that the workmen are not entitled for any relief
and hance prayed for answering the Reference accordingly.
5. The workmen by filing an Addl. claim statement
stated that the Tribunal has already decided the point of
maintainability raised by the Management as preliminary
issue and the Court vide its order dated 29.5.89 opined that
the present dispute is an Industrial Dispute as defined in
law; and that the statements made by the Management in
their W.S. are not true, correct and misleading. lt is also
contended by the workmen that an interview was really an
eye wash since holding of the interview after long time to
work as a casual workers is meaningless and malafide which
amounts to unfair labour practice and hire and fire policy.
6. In order to establish their respective plea the
workmen examined themselves while the Management
examined their solitary witness Namely K.M.A. Koshic,
Dy. Manager, Indian Airlines, Kolkata.
Let me discuss the evidence of both the sides. The
workman Shri Jibeswar Mandal(W.W.l) in his evidence
stated that he worked as Security Guard under the
Management from 1979 to 1984 as casual worker and during
this period he sometimes worked as Loader as per the
instruction of the Management; and the Station Manager
prepared the weekly bill (voucher) and on production of
the said bill before the cash counter the payment was made
to him. After 3 years of his service when he found the
cashier causing trouble in making payment he kept
Photostat copy of the bill prepared by the Station Manager
and some copies have been filed in this case. He mentioned
that during the period 1979-83 many posts for Loader held
vacant and upon filing applications twice for regular
appointment as Loader. The interview was held by the
Management and on his approach the Station Manager
told him that he would be absorbed as Loader on permanent
basis whenever any vacancy arises. He has proved the
Exhibit-I, the notice issued to him calling for an interview
for the post of Loader. The W.W.1 also said that he along
with 14 other casual labourer made a representation before
the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati who held
conciliation on 13.1.86 and as per the minutes of the
conciliation proceeding the Management arranged for
interview for the Post of Loader and the workman appeared
in the said interview on 20.2.86 but he was not appointed.
Thereafter he along with other co-workmen namely Sunil
Singh, Basistha Sahani and Jagannath Mahato made
representation for taking necessary action by the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), whereupon reply was received
by them from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C).
Guwahati that they were not selected for the post of Loader.
Thereafter the Management did not allow them to work as
casual worker. The W.W.l has proved the minutes of the
conciliation proceeding held on 13.1.86 as Exhibit- 2. Then
the workman made an appeal before the Labour
Commissioner (C), Guwahati on 26.8.86 (Vide Exhibit-3)
against the order dated 19.8.96 issued by the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C). During this period the
Management have absorbed 10 to 12 casual labourer
permanently and those labourers were not working with
the W.W.l as casual labourer since 1979. He also mentioned
that his name was registered in the Employment and his
name was also sponsored by Employment Exchange before
the authority but the Management did neither appoint him
till date of his deposition nor allowed him to work as casual
worker.
In course of his cross-examination the W.W.1
mentioned that his grievance would have met up the
Management appointed him on the basis of the interview
held on 20.2.86 and the panel was prepared for the
successful candidates after the interview on merit. He also
said that he was not satisfied that his name in the panel list
unless he is appointed, and that it is not his contention
that since he appeared in the interview he should be given
appointment as the matter of right. The workman witness
also stated that his name was registered with the
Employment Exchange and he worked under the Travel
Agent of Indian Airlines and then he again says sometimes
he worked as casual labourer in the Indian Airlines and the
nature of work done by the Security Guard and that all the
labourers are not same. He again mentioned that he has no
document to show that he was serving as casual labourer
in the Indian Airlines.
The workmen witness No. 2, Shri Sunil Singh said
that he was working under the Management of Indian
Airlines as Loader from 1982 to 86 without any break as
casual worker and he was paid on monthly basis. The
5824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
vouchers were prepared by the Cargo In- Charge and after
counter signature of the same by the Station In-charge
these were produced before the Cash counter from where
he received the payment, The Cargo In- charge verbally
informed him that as there is no more work to do, he need
not attend their office and he would be informed as and
when any Loader work necessary. Then he along with other
workmen approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner
who held a meeting with the Management and as a result
ot the conciliation the Management held an interview for
the post of Loader and he appeared in the said interview.
He has proved the minutes of the conciliation proceeding
vide Exhibit-2. After interview the Management made a
select list of candidates and he was told by the Management
that his name was also in the Select List and he would be
absorbed as and when any vacancy occurs. But on his
enquiry on several occasions he was informed that no
vacancy occurred for the post of Loader. He also mentioned
that the Indian Airlines has engaged him as Loader after
his removal in the year 1986 and he has been working as
Loader on contract labourer basis. Even after the interview
he was engaged as contract labourer and he is still working.
He has submitted 2 vouchers marked as Exhibit-4(k) and 4
(b) issued by the Station In-charge. According to the
workman witness No. 2 the vouchers marked as Exhibit-
4(a) and 4(b) establishes that he was engaged by the Indian
Airlines as labourer on contract basis and was paid his
wages. He also said that as contract labourer he was getting
about Rs.600/- per month and after he would have been
engaged against permanent vacancy as labourer he would
receive Rs.2000/- per month, but the Management is not
engaging him as labourer on permanent basis though there
are vacancies. In course of his cross-examination the
workmen witness No.2 said that the read up to Class-V in
Bihar and upto Class-VIII in Guwahati but he does not
have any certificate to show that he read in a school at
Guwahati. He also said that he did not have any allegations
against the person who held the interview and apart from
him Shri Jagannath Mahato also selected by the Interview
Board. He further said that the persons whose name is on
the top of the list would get the appointment in case of any
vacancy and altogether 15 persons were called for interview
including himself and Jagannath Mahato. Out of 9 selected
candidates whose names are above him would get
preference in the matter of appointment if any vacancy
occurs. He again stated that he has submitted documents
to show that he was engaged prior to 1986. The witness
concerned categorically denied the suggestion tendered
by the Management that he has not submitted any
document to show that his appointment as Loader was
prior to 1986; and that he was not employed by the Airlines,
so question of removal does not arise at all. He strongly
asserted that he worked as casual worker for such a long
period he should be given appointment.
The workman witness No.3, Basistha Sahani and the
workmen witness No.4, Jagannath Mahato made similar
statements that they were working as casual worker in
Indian Airlines in the year 1990 and 1982 respectively but
their services have not been regularized. Both the witnesses
stated that they appeared in the interview on 20.2.1986 for
appointment on permanent basis and altogether 15 persons
appeared before the Board out of these 15, 8 persons were
appointed as permanent workers as Loader but they were
not appointed. The Airlines Authority informed them that
another interview would be held after 2 months and on
expiry of two months they again approached the Duty
Officer who dispensed with their services and removed
them without any written order. The workmen witness No.3
also mentioned that after his removal from service the Indian
Airlines engaged another 2 new persons as Loader on
casual basis although he was told that no work is necessary
as Loader on enquiry. Thereafter they approached the
Labour Officer for settlement of their dispute but the Labour
Commissioner informed him vide Exhibit-5 that he was not
selected by the Indian Airlines in the interview. He also
said that he was again called and was engaged by the
Indian Airlines on daily basis to do the work of Loader and
the authority used to pay only half wages.
The workmen witness No.4 said that he has been
working as Loader on casual basis from the date of his
joining in the year 1982 till the date of his deposition without
any break and he was assured by the Management that he
would be appointed on regular basis within short time but
till then he was not appointed on permanent basis. He also
said that previously he was paid on monthly basis but
after this Reference was instituted he has been paying on
weekly basis and as casual labourer he got Rs.1300/- per
month but he would have been appointed as permanent he
would get Rs.2300/- per month. The said witness also
mentioned that he read upto class-IX in Bihar but his name
has not been enrolled in any Employment Exchange; and
out of 15 candidates along with him 3 persons have no
registration card till now but these 3 persons were appointed
on regular basis as Loader. He also mentioned that he is
entitled to permanent appointment as Loader because he
had put 8 years of service as casual laboures without any
break. The workmen witness No.3 in course of his cross-
examination said that he was residing in Guwahati for last
14 years and before that he had been residing at Patna from
where be passed his Matriculation in the year 1974. He
also said that he did not enroll his name with the Local
Employment Exchange. He also said that when he appeared
before the Interview Board he was certain that he would be
permanently appointed, but it is not possible to absorb all
the persons who appeared before the interview Board
against 8 vacancies. He also confirmed that the
appointment was made in order of merit. He also said that
he could not produce any paper to show as to how many
days he worked as casual workers nor could produce any
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5825
appointment letter issued by the Indian Airlines to the effect
that he was appointed as casual labourer during the period
of 1980 to 1986. The workman witnesses No. 4 in course of
his cross-examination stated that he hails from a village of
Motihari District in the State of Bihar and read upto Class-
IX. He also admitted that the order of Reference dated
4.1.89 made by the Central Government so far he is
concerned is not correct since he was never terminated
from service. He also said that he knew the persons who
were selected and appointed on the basis of the interview
and he has no grievance against those persons who were
selected and appointed on the basis of the interview in
which he also appeared but his grievance would have been
fulfilled if he be appointed and selected on the basis of the
interview. The workmen witness No.4 in reply to the
suggestion tendered by the Management denied the fact
that he did not work for 90 days only from the period from
May,1986 to May,1987; that he was not selected because
he did not perform well in the interview. The said witness
also mentioned that no appointment letter was issued in
his name by the Indian Airlines Authority and he has no
document to show that he worked continuously since 1982
till the date of his deposition.
7. The Management, on the other hand, examined
Mr. K.N.A. Koshic. the then Dy. Manager, Indian Airlines
as Management witness No.1. According to him there is
provision in the Rule for direct recruitment in the Airlines
service and the permanent Loaders are only recruited by
the Indian Airlines, however there is no provision for
appointment of casual labourers; and there are post of
Loader. He mentioned that erstwhile Grade- I & Grade-II
are now abolished and now the posts are reckoned by
designation. The post of Porter and Loader are same, the
post of Porter is filled by direct recruitment. The MW.l
further said that Kolkata is the Headquarter of Indian
Airlines where the Head of Personnel Department is located
for Eastern Region. Kolkata Head Office which conduct
the entire selection process for recruitment in order of
workmen category posts (now official category); and the
Station Manager of Guwahati Station has no power to
recruit any person. The Airlines constituted one Selection
Board for direct recruitment in which the names of the
representatives of concerned. Departments for which
selection is made become members of the said selection
committee including one member from Personnel
Department. He further stated that they are bound by the
Employment Exchange compulsory Notification of Vacancy
Act, 1959 and accordingly they notified the vacancy to the
concerned Employment Exchange for forwarding the names
of eligible candidates and as per Clause-9(c) of the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules marked as Exhibit-A
regarding approaching the Employment Exchange for filling
up of vacancy in Grade-I & Grade-II. i.e. posts of Porter or
Head Porter. They do not follow the above Rules in
corporated to 9(c), recruitment of casual employees. For
engagement of casual employees, Headquarters of Indian
Airlines is not consulted and the Station Manager can
engage casual employees depending upon the exigencies,
but the Station Manager has no power to absorb casual
labourer on permanent basis. He has proved of minutes of
discussions held on 13.1.1986 vide Exhibit- 2 and a letter
written by the Dy.Manager, Personnel service to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati dated
11.8.87 vide Exhibit-B, the letter written by the Dy. Manager,
Personnel service to the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(C), Guwahati on 16.9.87 vide Exhibit-C. He also said that
after interview was held and a panel was made in order of
merit and there is no provision for appointing one person
superseding another person who is higher up in the said
panel list. In course of his cross-examination the MW.1
said that on 20.2.86 interview was held for the post of Loader
but he could not say without consulting the record whether
15 persons including the present 4 persons (present
workmen) appeared in that interview or not. But from the
record he found that one panel of successful candidates
was prepared. He denied the suggestion tendered by the
adverse party that some of the candidates were appointed
from the said panel list superseding the present 4 workmen.
However, he admitted that from Exhibit-B he found that
Jagannath Mahato and Sunil Singh were empanelled in
that interview but he could not say whether these two
persons were considered to be successful candidates or
not; and as per Exhibit-B, Jagannath Mahato and Sunil
Singh were engaged by the Station Manager as casual
Loaders. It is further mentioned that as per Exhibit-2 the
representative of Indian Airlines stated before the Labour
Commissioner that none of these 4 employees has ever
been employed by the Indian Airlines, and the Station
Manager, Guwahati can say whether these 4 persons were
engaged as casual labourer or not. He also added that he
could not say anything on behalf of the Station Manager,
Guwahati as he has been engaged to depose in this Forum
pertaining to the question of Recruitment Policy of Indian
Airlines. He categorically denied the suggestion put
forward by the learned Advocate for the workmen that
Indian Airlines has withhold the evidence of Station
Manager, Guwahati because of the apprehension that he
would depose that these four persons were engaged as
casual labour at Guwahati or part.
8. After closing of hearing of both the sides this
Reference was fixed for argument and since then, the
workmen did not appear, hence, I have heard argument ex-
parte.
9. It may be mentioned here that the learned Presiding
Officer, State Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati vide his order
dated 25.10.91 allowed the workmen time till 12.12.91 to
move the Appropriate Authority for amendment to the
issued in question regarding specific mention of the alleged
date of removal/termination of service of the workmen
respectively. Again vide order dated 8. 7.94, the said Tribunal
5826
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
referred the matter to the Central Government for
amendment to the issue but no action taken in this regard.
Subsequently, the Reference was transferred to this
Tribunal vide order dated 19.2.2011, which was received
by this Tribunal on 4.3.2011. After transfer of the Reference
to this Tribunal the workmen did neither take any step for
amendment nor they appear in spite of allowing them
sufficient opportunities. Ultimately, my Learned
Predecessor, on scrutiny of record, vide his order dated
10.2.2012 fixed this Reference for argument.
In course of argument Mr. R.N.Mazumder, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K.Sarkar and
Mr. M.Mahanti, Learned Advocates for the Management
of Indian Airlines submitted that the undertakings of the
erstwhile Indian Airlines was transferred and vested in
Indian Airlines Ltd., a Company within the meaning of the
Air Corporations Act, 1956 with effect from 29th January,
1994, in terms of Section 3 of the Air Corporations (Transfer
of Undertakings and Repeal) Act, 1994. Lastly, due to
amalgamation made U/s 391-394 of the Company's Act,1956
the name of the Indian Airlines Ltd. has been changed as
Air India Ltd. with effect from 24.11.2010. The Learned
Advocate for the Management took the plea that at the
very outset some preliminary points were raised by the
Management, which had been incorporated in the written
statement which are as follows:—
(i)
The alleged industrial dispute having not been
sponsored and/or espoused by any union and
in absence of any mentioning in the order of
reference dated 4.1.1989 that the said reference
having been made under Section 2A of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the present
reference is not maintainable.
(ii)
The alleged dispute is not an industrial dispute
within the meaning of Section 2K of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947.
Learned Advocate, Mr. Mazumder pointed out that
the then Indian Airlines used to operate various flights in
different parts of the country as well as abroad and aviation
being a sophisticated industry being dependent upon many
external factors, of diverse nature, on some occasions,
variation in arrival and departure of the aircraft occurs and
apart from causing delays and disruption of flights towards
the stretching of time of total activities of the works at the
airport increases in normal work load due to the reasons as
aforesaid as well as absenteeism of regular employees the
Indian Airlines compel to engage casuals on need basis in
order to ensure smooth operation of flights, on rotation
from the persons whose names figured in a panel of casual
engagement and from others. He added that out of the 4
present workmen. 2, namely, Jagannath Mahato and Sunil
Singh were engaged as casuals as per records of the
Management which shows that the workman Jagannath
Mahato worked altogether 93 days from May,1996 to
May,1997 and Shri Sunil Singh worked 12 days as Loader
in the month of June,1987. He further mentioned that the
workman Jagannath Mahato is still in service as casual
labourer and the remaining 2 workmen Jogeswar Mandal
and Basistha Sahani were never engaged as casual labourer
by the Management as such, it is clear that none of the
employees have completed 240 days in any given year so
as to come within the purview of Section 25F of the
I.D. Act and to derive benefit thereunder in the event of
termination of service. He also mentioned that the
Management held and interview in February, 1986 for which
the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange
as well as recommended by the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Guwahati were considered and the
workmen Sunil Singh and Jagannath Mahato were found
suitable while the workmen Jibeswar Mandal and Basistha
Sahani were found not suitable by the interview Board and
accordingly a panel was prepared which was prepared
including the names of Sunil Singh and Jagannath Mahato,
which was valid till February, 1988. But due to the expiry of
the above mentioned panel fresh panel being drawn up,
the claim of the alleged workmen does not have any basis
at all. He also referred the principle of law decided by the
various orders of the Apex Court that the casuals do not
have any guarantee towards the right of employment. In
this connection Mr. Mazumder has cited the decision in
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and another -v/s- Bijli Mazdoor
Sangh and others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 755, wherein it
was held that there can not be a case for regularization
without there being employee-employer relationship;
Respondent having been engaged on daily wage and not
possessing the requisite qualification, held was not entitled
for regularization from any angle. He also relied on the case
of Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. -v/s- Workmen,
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in (2007) 1
SCC 408 wherein it was held that temporary employees,
who include casual, daily rated, ad hoc employees, etc.
have no right to the post nor to be continued in service,
nor to get absorption, far less of being regularized and
getting regular pay, nor can a direction be passed that a
temporary employee be continued till the age of
superannuation since there is no age of superannuation as
such employees have no right to the post at all. He also
cited the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. -v/s- Bhola
Singh, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 470, wherein it was held
that when an workman is appointed in terms of a scheme of
daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be
regularised in service; completion of 240 days of
continuous service in a year may not by itself be a ground
for directing regularization, particularly in a case when the
workman had not been appointed in accordance with the
extant rules. Mr. Mazumder also relied upon the case of
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others -Vs- Umadevi (3)
and others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5827
Learned Advocate for the Management again pointed
out that in pursuance to the direction given by the Prime
Minister of India in 1992 to effect 10% cut in the staff
strength across the Board, the Ministry of Civil Aviation,
has been consistently reviewing the status; and as per the
5th Pay Commission, 30% posts have to be abolished in
the next 10 years or 3% annually; resulted in reduction
30% in 10 years. It is also mentioned in his submission that
the Indian Airlines Ltd. was suffering losses from 1989-90,
for which Government of India constituted a Committee of
Experts in February,1995 which recommended two phased
strategy for revitalization of the Management and in the
light of the report submitted by the aforesaid Committee
the Management has initiated various measures for
containment and restructure of the existing manpower, to
curb absenteeism among employees, monitor and control
of overtime, casual employment, etc. for optimum utilization
of the existing manpower and also embark upon re-skilling
and redeployment. Accordingly the Management
progressively continue implementing various measures,
including the restructuring of its existing manpower.
Therefore, he submitted that the Management of the
Company should not be saddled with additional burden
by directing regularization and/or re-instatement of the
concerned workmen which may render futile the whole
process of revival of the Company.
10. The workmen relied upon the minutes of the
discussion held on 13.1.1986 in presence of the workmen,
the representatives of the Management and the Assistant
Labour Commissioner (C), Guwahati marked as Exhibit-2
wherein the Assistant Labour Commissioner requested the
Management to adjudge the suitability of the present
workmen along with the candidates sponsored by the
Employment Exchange as the workmen have also worked
with the Management, may be through a contractor. Besides,
the workmen have failed to produce any document
regarding their appointment, period of working, the date of
appointment and disengagement, in order to prove that
they had been working since 1982/1983/1986/1987
respectively. Even they have not been able to say the date
of their disengagement specifically. The copy of the
vouchers produced by the workmen vide Exhibit-4(A) &
4(B) shows that the workman Sunil Singh was paid the
remuneration in the form of a voucher for the period 12
days in the month of October, (year not mentioned) & for
12 days @ 6 hours per day excluding holidays in the month
of December (year not mentioned ).
11. From above discussion it has become crystal clear
that the workmen witnesses have not been able to establish
that they have completed 240 days of work in 12 consecutive
month and they were also found engaged purely on casual
basis. Nor the workmen were engaged against any regular
vacancy. The workmen have not been able to establish
that they were registered in any Employment Exchange
and their names were sponsored by the Employment
Exchange before the interview Authority although the
workmen witness No.1, Jibeswar Mandal in his evidence
mentioned that his name was registered in the Employment
Exchange but none of the workmen have been able to
produce any documentary evidence to the effect that they
were registered under the Employment Exchange. Further
the workman Jibeswar Mandal in course of his cross-
examination said that at the relevant time he was working
under Travel Agent of Indian Airlines and sometimes he
worked as casual labourer in Indian Airlines. But he has no
document to show that he is serving as casual labourer in
the Indian Airlines. All the workmen have failed to show
any document that they were engaged as Loader/Porter by
the Management. However it is found admitted by the
Management that the workman Jagannath Mahato worked
as casual worker as night Security Guard/Loader for 93
days only for the period with effect from May,1986 to
May,1987 while the workman Sunil Singh worked 12 days
only as Loader in the month of June,1987.
12. The allegation of the workman is that they were
illegally disengaged by the Management but it is to be
ascertained whether any rights has been accrued in favour
of the workmen for their protection against any termination/
disengagement by the Management. The workmen could
not mention the date of their termination by the
Management of Indian Airlines. In this regard in a catena
of cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the
workman has to establish adducing materials to show that
he has worked for 240 days in 12 consecutive month in
order to clear the right. to claim for regularization as well as
to seek the protection of law u/s 25F of Industrial Dispute
Act. In this regard I am constrained to rely upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer -Vs-
S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25; In Rajasthan State
Ganganagar Sugar Mill Ltd. -V/s-State of Rajasthan and
another (2004) 8 SCC 161; and in M.P. Electricity Board-vs-
Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246; and Batala Coop. Sugar Mills
Ltd. -vs- Sowaran Singh (2005) 8 SCC 481. In all these cases
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that
where the workman claimed that he had worked for more
than 240 days in the year preceding termination it is for the
workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself
or filing Affidavit, to prove the said factum and such
evidence may be in the form of salary or wages for 240
days or record of his appointment or engagement for that
year to show that he had worked with the employer for 240
days. It is also found that the workmen were given
opportunity by the Management to appear before the
interview Board on 20.2.1986 for appointment to the post
of Loader on permanent basis but only the workmen namely
Jagannath Mahato and Sunil Singh were empanelled by
the Board but due to lapse of said panel consequent upon
the embergo imposed issuing direction to curtail the
strength of staff issued by the Government the workmen
5828
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Jagannath Mahato and Sunil Singh were not appointed.
The plea of the Management found well established by the
Management witness No.1 since no rebuttal evidence in
this context is found on record. Hence, these two workers
were not appointed. From the evidence on record it is also
found admitted that the workmen Jagannath Mahato &
Sunil Singh are still in service under the management of
Airlines/ Air India Ltd. as admitted by them. Thus the
workmen have not acquired any right to be protected u/s
25F of the Industrial Dispute Act nor they claimed for
regularization.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the evidence of both the sides as discussed above
and having regard to the submission of learned Advocate
for the Management together with the decisions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred to above; it can safely
be concluded that the Management of Indian Airlines/Air
India Ltd. has not committed any irregularity or illegality in
terminating/disengaging the workmen who were purely on
casual basis. Accordingly it is held that the action of the
Management of Indian Airlines/Air India Ltd. in terminating
the services of workmen Sarbasri Jibeswar Mandal,
Jagannath Mahato, Sunil Singh and Basistha Sahani,
Security Guards/Loaders, from 1987, 1983, May1986 and
1982 respectively is justified and as such, the workmen are
not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
14. In the result, this Reference is disposed of without
granting any relief. Send the Award to Government
immediately as per procedure.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
20th day of August, 2013.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2158-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fcjyk lu
ykbQ bU';ksjsal dañ fyñ] eqEcbZ 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 p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
46@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&17012@19@2009&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2158.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Inustrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Birla Sun Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Mumbai and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 31.07.2013.
[No. L-17012/19/2009-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
Present: Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 46/2010
Registered on 13/7/2010
Sh. Satinder Singh, S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, R/o
Mullanpur Garib Dass, Tehsil Kharar, Distt. Mohali.
.....Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Chief Executive Officer, M/s. Birla Sun Life
Insurance Company Ltd., (Head Office), Vaman
House, 6th Floor, Malkwana Road, Off. Andheri
Kurla Road, Andheri East Mumbai.
2.
The Branch Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., Ropar Punjab.
3.
The Zonal Manager (HR Deptt.), Birla Sun Life
Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 149-150, Sector 9,
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.
4.
The Regional Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., SCO 149-150, Sector 9, Madhya Marg,
Chandigarh.
5.
The Territory Manager, Birla Sun Life Insurance
Co. Ltd., Near Hotel Majestic, Phase IX, SAS
Nagar, (Mohali).
......Respondents
Appearances
For the Workman
Sh. Neelam Singh Adv.
For the Management
Sh. Punit M. Bansal Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 17.7.2013
Central Government vide Notification [No. L-17012/
19/2009-IR(M)], Dated 30.6.2010, by exercising its powers
under Section 10 sub section (1) Clause (d) and sub section
(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial
dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether Sh. Satinder Singh, Agency Manager in
Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd. Ropar is a
workman as defined under ID Act, 1947? If so, whether
the action of management of M/s Birla Sun Life
Insurance Company Ltd., in terminating the services
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5829
of Sh. Satinder Singh w.e.f. 9.7.2009 is justified? What
relief the workman concerned is entitled to an from
which date?"
As per claim statement the claimant had joined the
respondent as Agency Manager vide letter dated 10.9.2007.
He always worked with dedication, worked hard and
contributed handsome business to his employees. The
behaviour of respondent No. 2 the Branch Manager was
however arrogant and insulting towards the claimant. The
said respondent withheld the confirmation letter of the
claimant and did not allow him to mark his attendance since
9.7.2009 and noted before his name in attendance register
'service terminated'. According to the claimant his services
had been terminated in violation of Section 25F and 25H of
the Act. It has also been stated in the claim statement that
on the basis of false and fabricated resignation letter of the
claimant the management allegedly relived him on 9.2.2010.
According to the claim statement the termination of service
of the claimant is totally bad in law and against the principle
of natural justice as he had completed 240 days from
10.9.2007 to 9.7.2009.
The claim was contested by the respondents on the
ground that claimant is not a workman under the provisions
of the Act. The duties of the claimant were managerial in
nature, which included to promote management products,
to recruit advisors, train and guide them so as to obtain
maximum number of insurance policies and his role was
that of a friend, philosopher, manager and guide vis-a-vis
the advisors. The entire activities of the claimant being
Agency Manager were geared to promote the management
and he never did any work akin, to skilled, unskilled,
manual, technical, clerical, operational or supervisory work.
He was to do managerial and administrative work. He was
required to build his own team of advisors and/or agents.
He represented the management internally and externally
to the outsiders such as customers etc. and as such he
does not fall within the meaning of workman as defined in
Section 2(s) of the Act. On several occasions he had been
informed by the management to improve his performance
but he deliberately failed. He did not improve despite non-
performance notices dated 29.4.2009 and 11.5.2009 and
since there was a serious dereliction duty hence the
management terminated his services vide termination letter
dated 8.7.2009 and vide cheque dated 8.2.2010 cleared all
his dues. It has been further stated by the management
that the Company does not provide relieving letter in case
of termination, however on personal request of the claimant
and considering that his future career does not get
hampered, the management had issued a relieving letter
dated 9.2.2010 in favour of the claimant along his full and
final settlement cheque. In the said letter however the term
'resignation' was erroneously mentioned in place of the
'termination' and as a business courtesy he had been given
best wishes for his future endeavours. The claim of the
claimant being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.
A rejoinder was filed claimant to say that so-called
Agency Managers are not managers and are in fact
controlled by Managers. The management very tactfully
has given, the designation as Agency Manager just to
escape from the provision of the Act. All the managerial
and supervisory work is done by the Branch Manager and
not by the so-called Agency Managers who are exploited,
harassed at the maximum level on the pretext of targets and
shunted out at the will of the management/Branch Manager
as in the present case.
In evidence the claimant examined himself and
reliedon certain papers. The management after filing the
written statement did not appear and produce any witness
in evidence despite several opportunities given for the
purpose. Vide order dated 6.3.2012 the case was ordered to
proceed ex parte against management and the statement
of the claimant was recorded.
Written arguments were filed on behalf of claimant. I
went through the written argument of the claimant and the
evidence on record.
The written arguments of the claimant are generally
the reiteration of the statement of claim. The first and
foremost question for consideration in reference is whether
the claimant is a workman for the purpose of the Act. As
per Section 2(s) of the Act,
Workman "means any person (including
an apprentice) employed in any industry to do
any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,
clerical or supervisory work for higher or reward,
.............................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
.....................but it does not include any such person-
(i) ................................................................................................
(ii) ...............................................................................................
(iii) Who is employed mainly in a managerial or
administrative capacity, or ......................................................
.....................................................................................................
It may be mentioned that admittedly the claimant's
appointment was as an Agency Manager with the
respondents and the respondents have filed a copy of
appointment letter of the claimant as Annexure M2 of the
written statement. In Annexure C of the appointment letter
the functions and duties of an Agency Manager have been
mentioned. According to it, the Agency Manager shall
locate, identify and recruit suitably persons to be enlisted
as insurance agents for the company, who shall form a
team which shall work under the management and control
of the Agency Manager. He will retain and assist insurance
agents required by him or assigned to him by the company
in practical training to enable the agents to acquire
proficiency as per Agents' Regulations. He will manage the
agents working under him, help them in improving their
5830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
selling skill and ensure that the agents under his control
procure business better than the minimum levels prescribed
by the company. He is further required to exhibit qualities
of leadership, managerial skills and inspire confidence in
the insurance agents.
It is also mentioned in the appointment letter
Annexure C that an Agency Manager will be attached with
one of the Sale Branch/Unit Offices of the company and
shall work under the direction and supervision of the Branch
Head or Center Head as applicable.
From the appointment letter it is clear that though
the Agency Manager is required to work under the
directions and supervision of the Branch Head or Center
Head as alleged by the claimant in his rejoinder, but it does
not change the nature of his duties. From the Annexure C
of the appointment letter it is clear that the job of an Area
Manager is that of a Manager. He cannot be regarded as a
workman under the Act.
There is nothing in the evidence of the claimant to
show that in fact the company was taking any manual,
unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work, instead of the work mentioned in his
appointment letter, from the claimant. I am, therefore, of the
view that the claimant was not a workman and since he was
not a workman hence the dispute referred is not an
industrial dispute. An industrial dispute, as per definition
given in Section 2(K) may be a dispute between the
employer and employer, employer and workman or between
workman and workman only. The reference is therefore
answered against the claimant. Hard and soft copies of the
award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2159-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh
bUVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ fyfeVsM ,oe vkbZ lh ,l flLVe izkñ fyñ]
fnYyh 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;] fnYyh&1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 77@2013½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2-9-2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@3@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2159.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Delhi-1 now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. and
M/s. ICS System Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 2.9.2013.
[No. L-11012/3/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI
I.D. No. 77/2013
Shri Surinder Kumar Solanki S/o Sh. Ram Pal Solanki,
R/o VPO : Shahbad Mohamad Pur,
Near IGI Airport, Terminal II,
New Delhi-110061
...Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd.,
New Uddan Bhawan, Terminal-III,
IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
2.
M/s. ICS System Pvt. Ltd.,
B-371, Third Floor, Mera Bagh,
New Delhi-110063
...Management
AWARD
In the year 2008, Airport Authority of India entered
into an agreement for operation, management and
development of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New
Delhi with M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. (in short
the management). On the strength of the agreement,
referred above, job of operation of passenger boarding
bridges (in short PBB) at Indira Gandhi International Airport
and domestic airport came within the purview of the
management. The management engaged M/s. ICS System
Ltd. (in short the contractor) for operation and maintenance
of PBB at IGI Airport as well as domestic airport at New
Delhi. The contractor employed 230 workers consisting of
clerks, executives and workmen of various categories.
Persons employed by the contractor formed their union
with the name of IGIA Aerobridge Workers Union (in short
the union). When the contractor came to know about
formation of the said union, it withheld photo identity cards
of Shri James Massey and Shri Praveen Sharma, President
and Vice President respectively of the union, with a view to
coerce and restrain the workers not to organize for the
purpose of collective bargaining. A complaint was made to
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5831
the Conciliation Officer on 02.12.2011 against the said unfair
labour practice, who entered into conciliation proceedings.
2. On 12.02.2012, an official of the management
misbehaved with the Vice President and two other active
workers of the union. It resulted into an alteration. The
management initiated action and did not allow the workers
to enter the premises of the Airport. The union served
strike notice on 14.03.2012. Again conciliation proceedings
were initiated, which failed on 30.03.2012. Workers
participated in the strike on 12.04.2012 and as such the
contractor dismissed 36 workmen from service. The union
raised an industrial dispute in that regard. On failure of
conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government
referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide
order No. L-11011/7/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated
30.01.2013, with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ICS
Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in dismising 36 workmen
(list enclosed) from service with effect from 10.05.2012
without holding any disciplinary proceedings and
further in violation of section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the said workmen are entitled to?"
3. Industrial dispute, referred above, has been
registered as ID No. 23/2013 and claimant union filed its
claim statement on 13.03.2013. The management as well as
the contractor also filed their written statement, which were
followed by rejoinder. Thereafter, the matter is listed for
19.08.2013 for evidence of the parties.
4. During pendancy of the aforesaid dispute for
adjudication, the appropriate Government referred the
present dispute, vide order No. L-11012/3/2013-IR(M), New
Delhi dated 11.04.2013 with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of ICS
System Pvt. Ltd. in dismissing the workman,
Shri Surinder Kumar Solanki S/o Shri Ram Pal Solanki
with effect from 10.05.2012 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?"
5. It would not be out of place to mention that the
name of Shri Surinder Kumar Solanki finds place at serial
No. 33 of the list annexed by the appropriate Government
along with industrial dispute, registered as ID No. 23/2013.
Thus, it emerges that during pendancy of ID No. 23/2013,
present dispute has been referred for adjudication on the
same proposition, which would be adjudicated in ID No.
23/2013.
6. I have heard the claimant as well as Shri Amit
Sharma, authorised representative of the management,
besides perusal of record of the aforesaid industrial dispute.
I have given my careful considerations to the arguments
advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:—
7. Powers of the appropriate Government, to make
reference of an industrial dispute, were considered by the
Apex Court in Secretary, India Tea Association [2000 (2)
LLN 25] and summarized as follows:
"1. The appropriate Government would not be
justified in making a reference under Section 10 of
the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and
circumstances brought, to its notice that an industrial
dispute exists or apprehended and if such a reference
is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the
government to indicate the nature of dispute in the
order of reference;
2. The order of the appropriate Government making a
reference under Section 10 of the Act is an
administrative order and not a judicial or quash-
judicial one and the Court, therefore, cannot canvass
the order of the reference closely to see if there was
any material before the Government to support its
conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quail-judicial
order;
3. An order made by the appropriate government
under Section 10 of the Act being an administrative
order no lis is involved, as such an order is made on
the subjective satisfaction of the Government;
4. If it appears from the reasons given that the
approrpiate Government took into account any
consideration irrelevant or foreign material, the Court
may in a given case consider the case for a writ of
mandamus and;
5. It would, however, be open to party to show that
what was referred by the Government was not an
industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act."
8. Appropriate Government has no power, either
express or implied, to cancel or withdraw a reference after it
has made order of reference. Order cancelling or
withdrawing or superseding the reference would therefore
be incompetent and invalid and would be liable to be struck
down being ultra vires the powers of the appropriate
Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short
the Act) ruled the Apex Court in D.N. Ganguly [1958 (2) LLJ
634)]. However, the appropriate Government under section
10 of the Act, has powers to add to or amplify the matter
already referred for adjudication. It has no power to
supersede the old reference in such a way as to effect
withdrawal of the reference validly made. Any amendment,
addition or modification which the Government can make
subsequent to the order of reference cannot go to the
length of superseding or withdrawing the original
reference.Though Government has power to rectify or
correct previous order of reference, under the guise of
amending or correcting the previous order of reference,
order of amendment or corrigendum tantamounting to
suppression of the previous order of reference, cannot be
5832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
allowed to be made because such order would be ultra
vires the powers of the Government.
9. The appropriate Government can amend the
reference by way of addition or modification so long as
amendment does not have the effect of withdrawing or
superseding the reference already made. Cardinal principle
in determination of the question as to whether amendment
amounts to correction or clerical error or entertaining of
fresh material, is whether the relief claimed by the aggrieved
party in the original notification can be granted in the
proceedings which are to take place in pursuance of the
amended notification. Though the Government has
inherent powers to correct apparent errors in its reference
order, yet that does not mean that the Government has
power to review or articulate its earlier order of reference.
Reference can be made to the precedent in Modern Foundry
and Machine Systems Ltd. (1999 LLJ 1137).
10. In the light of legal principles, referred above, it
would be taken note of as to whether the present reference
order amounts to withdrawal of the reference order relating
to the dispute concerning the present claim. As pointed out
above, reference order, which has been registered as I.D.
No. 23/2013, requires this Tribunal to adjudicate as to
whether action of the management of ICS Systems Pvt. Ltd.
New Delhi, in dismissing the claimant (whose name is there
at serial No. 33 of the list of 36 workmen sent along with the
reference order) from service with effect from 10.05.2012
without holding any disciplinary proceedings and further in
violation of Section 33(1)(b) of the Act is legal and justified.
Thus, it is evident that in the earlier reference order, this
Tribunal is supposed to adjudicate as to whether dismissal
of the claimant by the Contractor without holding an enquiry
and in violation of provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Act
is legal and justified. Question, so raised, encompasses the
legality and justifiability of the dismissal order, along with
question as to whether such action is violative of the
provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Act.
11. In the reference order, under consideration, same
question has been projected by the appropriate
Government. Thus, it emerges that as far as present claim
is concerned, the appropriate Government attempts to
withdraw the earlier reference order and to substitute it
with the present reference order. It is not an act of amending
any clerical omission or adding some other question, which
was not earlier referred for adjudication. During pendancy
of the dispute, the appropriate Government has no power
to withdraw it from adjudication and to issue fresh reference
order on the very terms which were under consideration
with the Tribunal. Thus, it is evident that the subsequent
reference is ultra vires of the powers of the appropriate
Government.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded
that appropriate Government was not competent to make
this reference order during pendency of the industrial
dispute registered as I.D. No. 23/2013. The reference order
is, therefore, discarded, since it cannot grant jurisdiction
to this Tribunal to adjudicate it. The Tribunal is seized of
I.D. No. 23/2013, which would be adjudicated in due course.
An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2160-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fnYyh
bUVjus'kuy ,;jiksVZ fyfeVsM ,oe~ vkbZ lh ,l fllVe izkñ fyñ]
fnYyh 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;] fnYyh&1 ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 75@2013½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2@9@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&11012@1@2013&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2160.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Delhi-1 now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. &
M/s. ICS System Pvt. Ltd., Delhi and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 2/9/2013.
[No. L-11012/1/2013-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,
DELHI
I.D. No. 75/2013
Shri Manish Saini, S/o Sh. Om Prakash Saini
R/o VPO : Shahbad Mohamad Pur,
Near IGI Airport, Terminal II,
New Delhi-110061
....Workman
Versus
1.
M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd.,
New Uddan Bhawan, Terminal-III,
IGI Airport, New Delhi-110037
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5833
2.
M/s. ICS System Pvt. Ltd.,
B-371, Third Floor, Meera Bagh,
New Delhi-110063
....Management
AWARD
In the year 2008, Airport Authority of India entered
into an agreement for operation, management and
development of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New
Delhi with M/s. Delhi International Airport Ltd. (in short
the management). On the strength of the agreement,
referred above, job of operation of passenger boarding
bridges (in short PBB) at Indira Gandhi International Airport
and domestic airport came within the purview of the
management. The management engaged M/s. ICS System
Ltd. (in short the contractor) for operation and maintenance
of PBB at IGI Airport as well as domestic airport at New
Delhi. The contractor employed 230 workers consisting of
clerks, executives and workmen of various categories.
Persons employed by the contractor formed their union
with the name of IGIA Aerobridge Workers Union (in short
the union). When the contractor came to know about
formation of the said union, it withheld photo identity cards
of Shri James Massey and Shri Praveen Sharma, President
and Vice President respectively of the union, with a view to
coerce and restrain the workers not to organize for the
purpose of collective bargaining. A complaint was made to
the Conciliation Officer on 02.12.2011 against the said unfair
labour practice, who entered into conciliation proceedings.
2. On 12.02.2012, an official of the management
misbehaved with the Vice President and two other active
workers of the union. It resulted into an altercation. The
management initiated action and did not allow the workers
to enter the premises of the Airport. The union served
strike notice on 14.03.2012. Again conciliation proceedigs
were initiated, which failed on 30.03.2012. Workers
participated in the strike on 12.04.2012 and as such the
contractor dismissed 36 workmen from service. The union
raised an industrial dispute in that regard. On failure of
conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government
referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide
order No. L-11011/7/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated
30.01.2013, with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. ICS
Systems Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi in dismising 36 workmen
(list enclosed) from service with effect from 10.05.2012
without holding any disciplinary proceedings and
further in violation of section 33(1)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what
relief the said workmen are entitled to?"
3. Industrial dispute, referred above, has been
registered as ID No. 23/2013 and claimant union filed its
claim statement on 13.03.2013. The management as well as
the contractor also filed their written statement, which were
followed by rejoinder. Thereafter, the matter is listed for
19.08.2013 for evidence of the parties.
4. During pendancy of the aforesaid dispute for
adjudication, the appropriate Government referred the
present dispute, vide order No. L-11012/1/2013-IR(M), New
Delhi dated 03.04.2013 with following terms:
"Whether the action of the management of ICS
System Pvt. Ltd. in dismissing the workman,
Shri Manish Saini, S/o Shri Om Prakash Saini, with
effect from 10.05.2012 is legal and justified? What
relief the workman is entitled to?"
5. It would not be out of place to mention that the
name of Shri Manish Saini finds place at serial No. 19 of the
list annexed by the appropriate Government along with
industrial dispute, registered as ID No. 23/2013. Thus, it
emerges that during pendancy of ID No. 23/2013, present
dispute has been referred for adjudication on the same
proposition, which would be adjudicated in ID No. 23/2013.
6. I have heard the claimant as well as Shri Amit
Sharma, authorised representative of the management,
besides perusal of record of the aforesaid industrial dispute.
I have given my careful considerations to the arguments
advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.
My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as
follows:—
7. Powers of the appropriate Government, to make
reference of an industrial dispute, were considered by the
Apex Court in Secretary, India Tea Association [2000 (2)
LLN 25] and summarized as follows:
"1. The appropriate Government would not be
justified in making a reference under Section 10 of
the Act without satisfying itself on the facts and
circumstances brought, to its notice that an industrial
dispute exists or apprehended and if such a reference
is made it is desirable wherever possible, for the
government to indicate the nature of dispute in the
order of reference;
2. The order of the appropriate Government making a
reference under Section 10 of the Act is an
administrative order and not a judicial or quasi-judicial
one and the Court, therefore, cannot canvass the
order of the reference closely to see if there was any
material before the Government to support its
conclusion, as if it was a judicial or quail-judicial
order;
3. An order made by the appropriate Government
under Section 10 of the Act being an administrative
order no lis is involved, as such an order is made on
the subjective satisfaction of the Government;
4. If it appears from the reasons given that the
approrpiate Government took into account any
5834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
consideration irrelevant or foreign material, the Court
may in a given case consider the case for a writ of
mandamus and;
5. It would, however, be open to party to show that
what was referred by the Government was not an
industrial dispute within the meaning of the Act."
8. Appropriate Government has no power, either
express or implied, to cancel or withdraw a reference after it
has made order of reference. Order cancelling or
withdrawing or superseding the reference would therefore
be incompetent and invalid and would be liable to be struck
down being ultra vires the powers of the appropriate
Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (in short
the Act) ruled the Apex Court in D.N. Ganguly [1958 (2) LLJ
634]. However, the appropriate Government under section
10 of the Act, has powers to add to or amplify the matter
already referred for adjudication. It has no power to
supersede the old reference in such a way as to effect
withdrawal of the reference validly made. Any amendment,
addition or modification which the Government can make
subsequent to the order of reference cannot go to the
length of superseding or withdrawing the original
reference.Though Government has power to rectify or
correct previous order of reference, under the guise of
amending or correcting the previous order of reference,
order of amendment or corrigendum tantamounting to
suppression of the previous order of reference, cannot be
allowed to be made because such order would be ultra
vires the powers of the Government.
9. The appropriate Government can amend the
reference by way of addition or modification so long as
amendment does not have the effect of withdrawing or
superseding the reference already made. Cardinal principle
in determination of the question as to whether amendment
amounts to correction or clerical error or entertaining of
fresh material, is whether the relief claimed by the aggrieved
party in the original notification can be granted in the
proceedings which are to take place in pursuance of the
amended notification. Though the Government has
inherent powers to correct apparent errors in its reference
order, yet that does not mean that the Government has
power to review or articulate its earlier order of reference.
Reference can be made to the precedent in Modern Foundry
and Machine Systems Ltd. (1999 LLJ 1137).
10. In the light of legal principles, referred above, it
would be taken note of as to whether the present reference
order amounts to withdrawal of the reference order relating
to the dispute concerning the present claim. As pointed
out above, reference order, which has been registered as
I.D. No. 23/2013, requires this Tribunal to adjudicate as to
whether action of the management of ICS Systems Pvt.
Ltd. New Delhi, in dismissing the claimant (whose name is
there at Serial No. 19 of the list of 36 workmen sent along-
with the reference order) from service with effect from
10.05.2012 without holding any disciplinary proceedings
and further in violation of Section 33(1)(b) of the Act is
legal and justified. Thus, it is evident that in the earlier reference
order, this Tribunal is supposed to adjudicate as to whether
dismissal of the claimant by the Contractor without holding
an enquiry and in violation of provisions of section 33(1)(b)
of the Act is legal and justified. Question, so raised,
encompasses the legality and justifiability of the dismissal
order, alongwith question as to whether such action is violative
of the provisions of section 33(1)(b) of the Act.
11. In the reference order, under consideration, same
question has been projected by the appropriate
Government. Thus, it emerges that as far as present claim
is concerned, the appropriate Government attempts to
withdraw the earlier reference order and to substitute it
with the present reference order. It is not an act of amending
any clerical omission or adding some other question, which
was not earlier referred for adjudication. During pendancy
of the dispute, the appropriate Government has no power
to withdraw it from adjudication and to issue fresh reference
order on the very terms which were under consideration
with the Tribnal. Thus, it is evident that the subsequent
reference is ultra vires of the powers of the appropriate
Government.
12. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded
that appropriate Government was not competent to make
this reference order during pendency of the industrial
dispute registered as I.D. No. 23/2013. The reference order
is, therefore, discarded, since it cannot grant jurisdiction
to this Tribunal to adjudicate it. The Tribunal is seized of
I.D. No. 23/2013, which would be adjudicated in due course.
An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 26-7-2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2161-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fgUnqLrku
iSVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] eqEcbZ 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 uañ 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 33@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
31@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&30015@11@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2161.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/2003)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5835
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.,
Mumbai and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 31/07/2013.
[No. L-30015/11/2003 - IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/33 of 2003
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD.
The General Manager
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
17, Jamshedji Tata Road
Churchgate
Mumbai-400 020
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
Petroleum Employees Union
Tel Rasayan Bhavan
Tilak Road
Dadar (E)
Mumbai-400 014
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE EMPLOYER:
Mr. S.P. Dhulapkar, Advocate
FOR THE UNION
:
Mr. R.D. Bhat, Advocate
Mumbai, dated the 27th June, 2013
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-30015/11/2003-IR (M), dated
11.07.2003 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:
"1. Whether the contract between the Hindustan
Petroleum Corporation Ltd., and their contractor is a
sham and bogus one and is a camouflage to deprive
the workers of benefits available to permanent
workmen of HPCL?
2. Whether the workmen whose names are enlisted
at Ex-A & Ex-B hereto are the regular employees of the
HPCL and if yes, whether they are entitled to receive the
same pay scale and service conditions as to the pay scales
and service conditions applicable to the regular employees
employed by them?"
Ex-A
1. S/Shri Sakharam Bhiva Kasare
2. Ramesh Antu Kamble
3. Dayanand Chandrakant
4. Anil Sakharam Jadhav
5. Avinash Raghunath Kadam
6. Devidas Benu Thambe
7. Sadanand Vasant Dhotre
Ex-B
1. S/Shri Mahadev Ganu Sodaye
2. Mahendra Kisan Waghmare
3. Shankar G. Waghe
4. Mahadev B. Rawale
5. Ganpat L. Sonawane
6. Maruti Mahadev Jadhav
7. Ramchandra S. Chorge
8. Dattaram Bapardekar
9. Dinkar G. Sodaye
10. Ganpat G. Bharti
11. Appa Y. Londhe
12. Raju Mohite
13. Vasant P. Patankar
14. Gangaram Palsalker
15. Damodar S. Ghadshi
16. Vittal R. Dhuri
17. Yeshwant Bable
18. Tukaram S. Shinde
19. Janu G. Shedekar
20. Vishwas M. Jadhav
2. After receipt of the reference both the parties
were served with notice of the reference. The second party
union appeared through their legal representative and filed
their statement of claim at Ex-8. First party management
resisted the statement of claim of the union by filing their
written statement at Ex-12. Second party union led its
evidence and thereafter the matter was fixed for evidence
of management.
5836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
3. Today, both the parties jointly filed application
(Ex-58) stating that the matter has been amicably settled as
per Memorandum of Settlement dated 06.06.2013 and
therefore prayed to pass an award in terms of the
Memorandum of understanding dated 06/06/2013.
Memorandum of Understanding dated 6/6/2013
arrived between the Management of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. and the 19 Contract workmen engaged
for house-keeping activities at GMO-West Zone, R & C
Building and Marketing Headquarters office at Hindustan
Bhavan
Present:
Representing management of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd.
1. Shri R. Elango, Head-HR (MKTG)
2. Shri V.S. Bhirud DGM, HR, West Zone
3. Shri K.S. Shetty, Chief Manager-HR (ZC & DM) HB
4. Shri B.N. Rao, Sr. Manager-IR & UI Gmo/West Zone
5. Shri C.L. Devdhekar, Manager HR Admin (Mktg.) HB
6. Shri D. Mukherjee, Dy. Manager-IR, Corporate HQO
The Contract Workmen
1. Shri Mahadev Ganu Sodaye
2. Shri Mahendra Kisan Waghmare
3. Shri Maruti Mahadev Jadhav
4. Shri Ramchandra Shripat Chorage
5. Shri Appa Yadu Londhe
6. Shri Dattaram Keshav Bapardekar
7. Shri Dinkar Ganu Sodye
8. Shri Tukaram Shankar Shinde
9. Shri Damodar Sahadev Ghadshi
10. Shri Janu Ganu Shedekar
11. Shri Gangaram Poonaji Palsamkar
12. Shri Vasant Pandurang Patankar
13. Shri Vishwas Mahadev Jadhav
14. Shri Vithal Rama Dure
15. Shri Sakharam B. Kasare
16. Shri Dayanand Chandrakant Dhotre
17. Shri Anil Sakharam Jadhav
18. Shri Avinash Raghunath Kadam
19. Shri Sadanand V. Dhotre
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
THE SETTLEMENT
Applicability:
The terms of the settlement would be applicable to
the 14 contract workmen at Hindustan Bhavan, under WP
417 of 1997 and 5 contract workmen under the aforesaid
Writ Petition 175 of 1997 whose services are being continued
at the Corporation's establishment at R & C Bldg., and are
the signatories to the present settlement.
TERMS :
1. The Corporation has no employer-employee nexus
or relationship with the 19 contract workmen, who are
signatories to the present settlement and is thus not liable
under any law in any respect to provide work and payment
of any compensation to them. However, in order to amicably
resolve the present dispute expeditiously in the large
interest of all concerned, including the Corporation and
the 19 contract workmen represented through the Union,
in principle have agreed to continue the services of these
19 workmen through contractor(s) for performing the
contractual obligation at the Corporation's establishment at
West Zone Office at R & C Building and Marketing
Headquarters office, at Hindustan Bhavan till attaining the
age of their superannuation, save and except misconduct.
Petroleum Employees' Union as well as the 19 contract
workmen on whose behalf the union has espoused the case,
agree to withdraw their claim of regularization in connection
with the pending reference case CGIT-II 33 of 2003.
2. The Corporation after adhering to the purchase
procedures of the Corporation would appoint independent
contractors and agree to specify in the tender conditions
the mutual agreed terms for continuation of these 19
contract workmen under the respective contractors at its
establishment at West Zone Office and Marketing
Headquarters Office for performing the contractual
obligation of house-keeping till attaining the age of
superannuation. In the event of indiscipline or misbehaviour
or any misconduct committed by these 19 workmen, the
respective contractor engaged at the relevant point of time
would have the right to take disciplinary action including
discontinuation of these workmen after adhering to due
process of law.
3. It is agreed that the 19 contract workmen would be
paid an additional fixed allowance of Rs. 3,500 p.m. over
and above the applicable minimum wages payable in their
respective category. The applicable statutory payments
viz. EPF, ESIC, leave with wages etc. would be also payable
with regard to the aforesaid additional fixed allowance.
4. It is also mutually agreed that irrespective of the
contractor having their independent code under PF/ESIC,
the contribution in respect of these 19 workmen would be
deposited through the Corporation's separate code allotted
for the contract labourers engaged across Corporation's
locations.
5. It is agreed that upon attaining the age of
superannuation (60 years) the applicable gratuity would
be disbursed to the respective contract workmen for their
services through various contractors in the Corporations'
location. For the purpose of calculating gratuity, the date
of joining the services would be reckoned effective 1997
onwards (i.e. the date of filing of the writ petition before
the Mumbai High Court).
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5837
6. It is also agreed upon that consequent to the
additional fixed allowance of Rs. 3,500 p.m. the 19 contract
workmen would be entitled to receive applicable bonus
amount @ 8.33% of Rs. 3,500 (bonus ceiling limit for
calculation as applicable) irrespective of the fact that the
gross wages exceeds Rs. 10,000 per month.
7. The 19 contract workmen agree that in future no
dispute/claim/demand of whatsoever nature, monetary or
non-monetary shall be raised by them or through any other
Union espousing their cause before any court of law under
issue of permanency/regularisation in the services of the
Corporation.
8. The 19 contract workmen covered under the
present case shall not cite this settlement arrived at between
the parties under the present facts and circumstances of
the case in order to amicably resolve the matter, before any
competent court of law/tribunal/authority for seeking
wages and benefits at par with regular employees or
otherwise for present or in future at any stage.
9. It is agreed and understood by and between the
parties that the 19 contract workmen, to whom the benefit
of continuity as contract workmen under the respective
contractors at the Corporation's locations at West Zonal
Office and Marketing Headquarters Office had been
extended shall not resort to any agitation, stage
demonstration/coercive picketing or indulge in any other
act against the first party or its officers affecting the working
of the Corporation (first party) in support of their any or
alleged demands of permanency/regularisation in the
employment of the Corporation/parity of wages along with
regular workmen of the Corporation or whatsoever nature
and indeed no such demand shall hereinafter be made in
future.
10. It is further mutually agreed upon that the benefit
accruing out of the present settlement shall be binding and
in full and final settlement of all claims/demands of
whatsoever nature as may be conceived under any law
arising out of their engagement/non-engagement in the
establishment of the Corporation through the contractors
or otherwise.
This memorandum of understanding signed at
Mumbai on 6th day of June, 2013.
For and on behalf of HPCL
Sd/-
1. Shri R. Elango, Head-HR (MKTG)
Sd/-
2. Shri V.S. Bhirud DGM, HR, West Zone
Sd/-
3. Shri K.S. Shetty, Chief Manager-HR (ZC & DM) HB
Sd/-
4. Shri B.N. Rao, Sr. Manager-IR & UI GmO/West Zone
Sd/-
5. Shri C.L. Devdhekar, Manager-HR Admin (Mktg.) HB
Sd/-
6. Shri D. Mukherjee, Dy. Manager-IR, Corporate HQO
The contract workers
Signatures of all the workers mentioned below:
1. Shri Mahadev Ganu Sodaye
2. Shri Mahedra Kisan Waghmare
3. Shri Maruti Mahadev Jadhav
4. Shri Ramchandra Shripat Chorage
5. Shri Appa Yadu Londhe
6. Shri Dattaram Keshav Bapardekar
7. Shri Dinkar Ganu Sodye
8. Shri Tukaram Shankar Shinde
9. Shri Damodar Sahadev Ghadshi
10. Shri Janu Ganu Shedekar
11. Shri Gangaram Poonaji Palsamkar
12. Shri Vasant Pandurang Patankar
13. Shri Vishwas Mahadev Jadhav
14. Shri Vithal Rama Dure
15. Shri Sakharam B. Kasare
16. Shri Dayanand Chandrakant Dhotre
17. Shri Anil Sakharam Jadhav
18. Shri Avinash Raghunath Kadam
19. Shri Sadanand V. Dhotre
Witnesses
Sd/-
1. Shri D.N. Vidhate,
Vice-President, Petroleum Employees Union
Sd/-
2. Shri N.A. Khanvilkar,
Secretary General, Petroleum Employees Union.
4. Since the dispute is settled, I think it proper to
dispose of the reference in terms of the above settlement.
Hence the order:
ORDER
The reference is allowed in terms of the settlement.
Date: 27.06.2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
5838
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2162-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bafM;u
vk;y fyñ eqEcbZ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 8@2005½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3@8@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&30011@50@2004&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2162.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No.
8/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court
No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to
the management of M/s. Indian Oil Ltd. Mumbai, and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 3/8/2013.
[No. L-30011/50/2004-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT :
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT -2/8 of 2005
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
(1)
The Deputy General Manager (HR)
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
254-C, Dr. Annie Besant Road
Prabhadevi
Mumbai-400025.
(2)
The Proprietor
M/s. Rosemary & Thyme
38, BDD Building
Ground floor, No. 12,4
Worli, Mumbai - 400 018.
AND
THEIR WORKMEN
The Vice President
Sarva Shramik Sangh
Nilkant
In front of Dr. Bhadkamkar Hospital
Mahagiri
Thane 400601.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
:
Mr. R.V. Paranjpe,
Advocate.
For the Employer No. 2 :
Mr. Umesh Nabar,
Advocate.
For the Workmen
:
Mr. M.B. Anchan,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 11th June, 2013
AWARD
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-30011/50/2004 -IR (M) dated
06/10/2004 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 action of the management of M/s.
Rosemary & Thyme and IOC Ltd. being principal
employer by not paying the wages for the period
from May, 2002 to 7/5/2003 to the workers is justified?
If not, to what relief these workers are entitled ?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
party union filed its statement of claim at Ex-7. According
to the union the workmen under reference are the employees
of Canteen of the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. They are
working in the said canteen since 1990. To avoid the
liabilities and to deny the workmen regular employment in
the said canteen, the Corporation had engaged the services
of several contractors. Lastly M/s. Rosemary and Thyme
was the contractor who failed to pay the wages of 23
workmen for the period 01/12/2002 to 19/07/2003. In the
order of reference by the Ministry period is wrongly
mentioned from May 2002 to 07/05/2003. The union has
written to the Labour Ministry to make the necessary
correction and to rectify the error in the order of reference.
The union has made several representations to the
Corporation and the contractors. However they did not
pay the wages to the workmen. Therefore they have raised
the dispute. As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC
(C), the Labour Ministry has sent the reference to this
Tribunal. The workers were getting pay about Rs. 4214
p.m. After deductions workman was entitled to get Rs. 3226
p.m. The union therefore prays for declaration that action
of the management and M/s. Rosemary & Thyme be
declared as not justified and also sought for direction to
them to pay the wages from 01/12/2002 to 19/07/2003 with
10% interest thereon from 01/07/2003 and also prays for
the cost of the proceeding.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5839
3. The first party no.1 resisted the statement of claim
vide its written statement at Ex-8. According to them these
workers are not the employees of first party no. 1 and they
are not liable to pay any such amount. The first party no. 1
had entered into an agreement with first party no. 2. By the
said agreement first party no. 2 agreed to run and conduct
Cafeteria for the Corporation in their premises with certain
equipment. It was also agreed to run the cafeteria for a
period of one year from 01/12/2002 to 30/11/2003. As per
the directions and status-quo order of Hon'ble High Court,
the first party no. 2 took the persons concerned under
reference on its roll. As per the terms of the agreement the
first party no. 2 has accepted the responsibility of payment
of wages to their staff employed for the purpose of running
canteen. The first party no. 1, Corporation is in any way
not liable or responsible for any payment to the employees
employed by the first party no. 2. The first party no. 2 had
also agreed to pay the wages as per the provisions of
Minimum Wages Act. In the circumstances, first party no.1
Corporation is not liable to pay the amount claimed by the
second party. In the notice, first party no. 2 has admitted
the liability and shown their willingness to pay the dues to
the workmen. It shows that first party no.2 has admitted
the liability to pay the wages. In the circumstances, first
party no.1 is not liable to pay any dues. It is further
contended that present reference is seized with arbitrator
therefore this reference is not tenable which is a parallel
proceeding. Therefore they pray that the reference be
dismissed with cost.
4. The first party no. 2 resisted the statement of claim
vide its written statement at Ex-15. According to them they
are running the canteen for the first party no.1. However
from 08/05/2003 they are not running the said canteen at
Worli. As per the agreement with the union they have paid
the wages to the workmen for the period from 02/12/2002 to
07/05/2003. The Union Sarva Shramik Sangh representing
the workmen in the canteen in their letter have clearly
mentioned that each workmen have received their dues
and there is nothing due and payable by the first party no.
2. They have also obtained receipts from each worker in
respect of payment of their wages. Nothing is due and
payable by the first party no. 2. Therefore they pray that
the reference be dismissed with cost.
5. Following are the issues framed at Ex-12 for my
determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons
to follow:
Sl.
Issues
Findings
no.
1.
Whether the action of the
Yes.
management of M/s. Rosemary
& Thyme and IOC Ltd. in not
paying the wages for the period
from May 2002 to 7/5/2003 is
justified?
2. If not, what relief the workers
Does not
under reference are entitled to?
arise.
3. What order?
As per order
below.
REASONS
Issue No. 1:—
6. In this reference at the outset I would like to point
out that none of the parties have led any oral evidence. On
the other hand the first party no. 1 has raised the point in
their written statement at Ex-8 that the reference is pending
before Arbitrator for adjudication of the same point.
Therefore this reference in respect of the same issue is not
tenable. The first party no. 1 has also given an application
at Ex-10 and contended that the Arbitrator has passed the
award wherein it is held that first party no. 2 is primarily
liable to pay canteen workers' wages, therefore held that it
is liable to pay to the canteen workers their wages. In view
of these observations the first party submitted that the
dispute raised by the second party has become infructuous.
Therefore it is prayed that the reference be disposed of as
infructuous. The first party has given another application
at Ex-17 to dismiss the reference. According to them as per
the order of reference the wages are shown due from May
2002 to 07/05/2003 whereas in the statement of claim the
union has not claimed wages from May 2002. On the other
hand they have claimed wages from 01/12/2002. Further
more the first party no. 1 has disputed their liability saying
that the workmen are not their employees. On the other
hand they are employees of first party no. 2. The first party
no. 2 has accepted that the workmen under reference are
their employees. In the circumstances they pray that the
reference be dismissed against them.
7. In this respect I would like to refer the version of
the first party no.2 in their written statement at Ex-15
wherein they have contended that, the reference is in respect
of wages for the period from 02/12/2002 to 07/05/2003. They
further pointed out that the union Sarva Shramik Sangh in
its letter dated 02/12/2009 has admitted that, "After
protracted negotiations the contractor M/s. Rosemary &
Thyme paid the wages of the workmen for the period from
01/12/2001 to 06/05/2003." It almost covers the period under
reference. It is contended in the statement of claim that the
union has moved to the Government for correction of
period. However no such corrigendum was issued by the
Government. Furthermore the union has also not led any
evidence to show that these workmen did not receive their
payment of the period mentioned in the reference. No
workman has filed his affidavit to that effect. In the
circumstances I hold that the demand of the union is devoid
of merit and the reference deserves to be dismissed. Thus
the order:
5840
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
Reference stands dismissed with no order as to cost.
Date: 11.06.2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2163-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ foHkwfrxwMk
ekbal izkñ fyñ cSykjh 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; cSaxyksj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2010 ,oa 2@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-07-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26012@5@2009&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2163.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Common Award (Ref.
No. 01/2010 and 02/2010) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/
Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure, in
the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of M/s Vibhutiguda Mines Pvt. Ltd. Bellary
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19.7.2013.
[No. L-26012/5/2009-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated: 25th April, 2013
PRESENT :
Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer
CR No. 01/2010
I Party
II Party
Sh. A.R.M. Ismail,
The Managing Director,
General Secretary,
Vibhutiguda Mines (P) Ltd.,
Iron Ore Labour Union,
Modi Bhawan, 60/356A,
Saptgiri Complex, KC. Road,
Hospet Road, Alipur,
Bellary.
Bellary.
CR No. 02/2010
I Party
II Party
Sh. A.R.M. Ismail,
The Managing Director,
General Secretary,
Vibhutiguda Mines (P) Ltd.,
Iron Ore Labour Union,
Modi Bhawan, 60/356A,
Saptgiri Complex, KC. Road,
Hospet Road, Alipur,
Bellary.
Bellary.
Appearances :
I Party : Sh. Muralidhara, Advocate
II Party : Sh. M.M. Swamy, Advocate
ORDERS ON VALIDITY OF DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
1. In these two references by the Central Government
vide Order No. L-26012/5/2009-IR(M) dated 04.01.2010 in
the first one for adjudication as to
"Whether the action of management of Vibhutiguda
Mines (Private) Ltd., Bellary in terminating the
workman Shri A K Chowdhary is justified? To what
relief the workman is entitled?"
and vide Order No. L-26012/6/2009-IR(M) dated
04.01.2010 in the second one for adjudication as to
"Whether the action of management of Vibhutiguda
Mines (Pvt.) Ltd., Bellary in retrenching the workman
Shri Swamy Naik is justified? To what relief the
workman is entitled?"
since, it is contended by the II Party they conducted
enquiry in the case of Sh. Swamy Naik in C R 02/2010 and
relying on the observation of Enquiry Officer in his enquiry
finding in the same while issuing Show cause Notice to Sh.
A.K. Choudhary workmen in CR 01/2010 after receiving his
reply being not satisfied his services came to be terminated
and Sh. Swamy Naik workmen covered in CR 02/2010 was
retrenched and common arguments were addressed on the
Preliminary Issue touching the fairness of Domestic Enquiry,
I have taken up both these matters for disposal through
this common order on the Domestic Enquiry issue.
2. In both the cases the II Party counsel while filing
the affidavit of H Ramachandray General Manager
examining him oath as MW 1 got exhibited Ex M-1 to Ex M-
9 in C R 01/2010 and Ex M-1 to Ex M-14 in C R 02/2010 and
while filing the affidavit of Mahendranath, Enquiry Officer
examined him on oath as MW 2 and in C R 02/2010 got -
exhibited Ex M-15 to Ex M-30. Interalia, the I Party workmen
in both the cases while filing their affidavit examining them
on oath as WW 1 subjected themselves for cross-
examination. The detailed description of the documents
got exhibited by the II Party are narrated in the Annexure.
3. After closure of evidence of both the sides on
Preliminary Issue, the common arguments addressed by
learned advocate of both the sides were heard.
4. The learned advocate appearing for the I Party
while taking me through the Oral and Documentary
Evidence brought on record by the management urged
that Ex M-1 produced in C R 02/2010 claims to be a Show
Cause Notice and proceeded with the Domestic Enquiry
against him by appointing MW 2 as Enquiry Officer and it
is claimed as in that enquiry the I Party in CR 01/2010 gave
a statement he also having involved along with I Party in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5841
CR 02/2010 in diverting two trucks bearing no. 1983 and
4285 with an intention of cheating the company after issuing
a Memo and Show Cause Notice and being not satisfied
with his reply he too has been Terminated from service,
there being no Charge Sheet issued by the II Party either
against Swamy Naik the I Party in C R 02/2010 or against A
K Chowdhary, I Party in C R 01/2010, it cannot be said that
a proper Domestic Enquiry has been conducted against
both of them and as the enquiry is proceeded without
serving any Charge Sheet on both of them the very initiation
of enquiry is bad and the punishment imposed against
both of them do not sustain and even this tribunal cannot
proceed to receive evidence in either of these case and
that they are entitle for reinstatement with full backwages,
continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
The learned advocate in support of his arguments cited
the decision reported in 2004 I-LLJ-36 (HC)
Aswathanarayana GV vs. Central Bank of India by
Chairman, Bombay and other. Interalia, the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party urged that in the enquiry
conducted by MW 2, Defence Representative
having,cross-examined all witnesses examined for the
management and Swamy Naik, CSE examined himself and
thereafter affording opportunity to submit written
submission, enquiry finding being submitted by the Enquiry
Officer all fair and proper opportunities were given to Swamy
Naik and as in the same enquiry A K Chowdhary gave
statement copy of which is produced at Ex M-9 involving
himself in aiding Swamy Naik in diverting two truck loads of
Iron Ore, after issuing him show cause notice with the copy
of the Enquiry Finding since he did not give a proper reply
to escape from his liability the Disciplinary Authority having
retrenched Swamy Naik and Terminated the Services of A K
Chowdhary the I Party covered in CR 02/2010 and 01/2010
respectively, the enquiry be held as fair and proper.
5. On appreciation of the evidence placed on-record
by both the sides with the arguments addressed by their
learned advocates, my finding on Preliminary Issue in both
the references are in the Negative i.e., No Proper Domestic
Enquiry is held by the II Party against both of them and as
the Enquiry against I Party workman in C R 02/2010 was
proceeded without serving any Charge Sheet and the
observation of Enquiry Officer in his Enquiry Finding in
that Enquiry is based for Termination of the I Party workman
covered in C R 01/2010 there is no possibility of even calling
upon the II Party to substantiate the Charges against them
as urged on behalf of the workman covered in both the
references and they are entitle for reinstatement with full
backwages, continuity of service and all other benefits
that they would have received in the absence of the
impugned retrenchment and, termination orders with a
liberty to II Party to proceed afresh if they are so advised
after serving appropriate charge sheet on both of them for
the following reasons:
REASONS
6. It is borne out from the records relied upon by the
II Party that under the signature of authorised signatory of
VML, Mr. Swamy Naik the workman covered in C P 02/2010
was informed by letter dated 02.05.2008 that
"They have come to know that he has very much
involved in Iron Ore theft by two trucks bearing No.
1983 & 4285 as per the written statement of Weigh
Bridge Operators who are also equally responsible
and pending the enquiry, he has been suspended
from duty for three months and that he is permitted
to represent the facts and if found guilty,
management may dismiss him from the services with
immediate effect"
which document is got exhibited as Ex M-1. On his
reply dated 09.05.2008 which is produced at Ex M-2 stating
that he is surprised to receive the notice dated 02.05.2008
and that the alleged theft has not been done during his
working hours and that he is innocent, being not satisfied
with the" same the II Party issued him show cause notice
dated 20.05.2008 which is produced at Ex M-3 as under: .
"Please refer to our Suspension Notice dt: 2nd inst.
We have information that you are involved in
diverting two trucks bearing No. 1983 & 4285 with an
intention of cheating the company.
Show cause for the same with your written
explanation within seven days time in order to enable
us to take action in accordance with law. If your reply
do not reach us within the time stipulated, the
management has no option except to terminate you"
and then by the letter of Vice President
(Administration) of VML dated 17.06.2008 ARM Ismail,
General Secretary, Iron Ore labour Union was informed that
the Show Cause Notice sent to Sh. Swamy Naik involved
in diverting of two iron ore trucks for his personal gain
being returned as not available they write to inform him to
inform Sh. Swamy Naik to visit their office for Departmental
Enquiry and that they have appointed Sh. Mahendranath
as Enquiry Officer and he may come to their office on any
of-the working day from 1100 a.m. to 0200 p.m. On such a
intimation to the General Secretary, Iron Ore labour Union
it is claimed that MW 2 Enquiry Officer issued notice dated
25.06.2008"(Ex M-6) to Swamy Naik to submit his relevant
documents in three sets enabling him to start enquiry and
that within three four weeks time he may submit fact finding
report and that he claims that he received the statements of
Ayub Shaik, Veerana, Gouda and A K Choudhary witnesses
for the management and after cross-examination by the
Defence Representative A R M Ismail, he submitted the
enquiry finding produced at Ex M-7 as Swamy Naik is
involved in diversion of two trucks referred in the order
containing Iron Ore material in the early morning hours on
28th and 29th of April-2008 from the company premises
5842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
without. proper documentation and on the basis of the
same the II Party while sending the copy of the Enquiry
Finding to Swamy Naik and A. K. Chowdhary who as a
witness alleged to have stated that he too is involved in
assisting Swamy Naik in diverting the trucks to show cause
and after receiving their replies passed the impugned order
retrenching Swamy Naik and Terminating A. K. Chowdhary
from Service. Thus, as urged on behalf of the I Party
workman the II Party proceeded with the Disciplinary
Enquiry against Swamy Naik appointing Mahendranath as
Enquiry Officer even without a Charge Sheet and on a
statement allegedly given by A. K. Chowdhary as witness
for management produced at Ex M-9 admitting that he
assisted Swamy Naik in diverting two trucks without valid
documents without holding any enquiry against him only
on a notice to show cause and his reply his services have
been terminated. Even it is borne out from the proceedings
of the enquiry produced at Ex M-19, M-20 and Ex M-21 in
C R 02/2010 a strange procedure has been followed by the
Enquiry Officer unknown to the principles of natural justice
i.e., receiving three written statements for the management
and asking the Defence Representative of workmen to
cross-examine them on such written statements and giving
his finding on such statements as witnesses not supported
by any documentary evidence. Therefore, I have arrived at
conclusion the management/II Party retrenched Swamy
Naik and Terminated A. K. Chowdhary without fair and
proper enquiry and as even they are not served with charge
sheet it is not possible in these references to receive the
evidence of II Party to substantiate the specific charges
against them and to proceed to give a finding on merit and
that they are entitle for Reinstatement with full backwages,
continuity of services and all other consequential benefits
that they would have received in the absence of the
impugned retrenchment and termination of service with
liberty to the II pary if they are so advised to serve
appropriate charge sheet and to hold fair and proper
Domestic Enquiry and to take appropriate action. In the
result, I pass the following Order: .
ORDER
The Preliminary issue raised in both the references
touching the fairness of the Domestic Enquiry are answered,
in the Negative i.e. the II Party without providing fair and
proper opportunity even without serving charge sheet
passed the impugned orders of Retrenchment and
Termination of Service of Swamy Naik and A. K. Chowdhary
respectively and that they are entitle for Reinstatement
with full backwages, Continuity of Service and all other
consequential benefits that they would have received in
the absence of their respective Retrenchment and
Termination of Service with liberty to the II Party if they are
so advised to serve appropriate charge sheet and to initiate
Domestic Enquiry and after receiving the enquiry finding
to pass appropriate orders following the requisite
procedure. The amount paid by the II party to the I Party
workman as terminal benefits may be adjusted from arrears
of backwages payable to them. This Order shall be , treated
as Award in both the references and shall be sent for
notification. The Original Order shall be sent kept in C R
01/2010 and its copy in C R 02/2010 for reference.
S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ANNEXURE—I
Witnesses examined in C R 01/2010:
M W I - Sh. H. Ramachandra, General Manager
MW 2 - Sh. D. Mahendranath, Enquiry Officer
WW l - Sh. A. K. Choudhary, CSE/I Party workman
Documents exhibited before this Tribunal on Domestic
Enquiry for II Party:
Ex M-1 - Letter dated 19.09.2008 addressed by Vice
President -Admn. of II party to I party
Ex M-2 - Reply of the I Party dated 24.09.2008 to Vice
President -Admn.
Ex M-3 - Letter dated 25.10.2008 addressed by Vice
President - Admn. of II party to I party
Ex M-4 - Letter dated 27.01.2009 addressed by II party to I
party regarding payment of terminal benefits
Ex M-5 - Copy of Cheque dated 30.01.2009 amounting Rs
40594.00 in favour of I party .
Ex M-6 - Copy of Acknowledgement
Ex M-7 - Enquiry finding dated 15.09.2008
Ex M-8 - Letter of I party dated 07.02.2009 to Sh K K
Bagaria, Agent for II party
Ex M-9 - Letter of I party dated 29.04.2008 to II Party.
Witnesses examined in C R 01/2010:
MW 1 -
Sh. H. Ramachandra, General Manager
MW 2 -
Sh. D. Mahendranath, Enquiry Officer
WW I -
Sh. Swamy Naik, CSE/I Party workman
Documents exhibited before this Tribunal on Domestic
Enquiry for II Party:
Ex M-1 - Letter dated 02.05.2008 addressed by II party to
I party
Ex M-2 - Reply of the I Party dated 09.05.2008 to II Party
Ex M-3 - Letter dated 20.05.2008 addressed by Vice-
Prisident - Admn. of II party to I party.
Ex M-4 - Letter dated 07.06.2008 addressed by II party to
I Party.
Ex M-5 - Letter dated 17.06.2008 addressed by Vice
President - Admn. of II party to Sh. ARM Ismail,
General Secretary, Iron Ore Labour Union
intimating resfusal of letter addressed to I Party.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5843
Ex M-6 - Letter of Enquiry Officer dated 25.06.2008 fixing
the date of enquiry
Ex M-7 - Enquiry finding dated 15.09.2008
Ex M-8 - Letter dated 19.09.2008 addressed to I party
forwarding copy of Enquiry Finding
Ex M-9 - Reply of I party dated 26.09.2008 to the letter
dated 19.09.2008
Ex M-10 - Letter 24.10.2008 addressed to I party to appear
on 31.10.2008 for personal hearing
Ex M-11 - Letter dated 31.10.2008 addressed to I party
Terminating his Services.
Ex M-12 - Letter dated 27.01.2009 intimating the I party
about his terminal benefits
Ex M-13 - Letter dated 27.01.2009 intimating the RLC(C),
Bellary about the terminal benefits paid to I Party.
Ex M-14 - Objection statement filed before RLC (C), Bellary
dated 17.01.2009.
Ex M-15 - Letter dated 17.06.2008 addressed by Vice
President -Admn. of II party to Sh. ARM Ismail,
General Secretary, Iron Ore Labour Union
intimating refusal of letter addressed to I Party
Ex M-16 - Complaint dated 01.05.2008 addressed from
Suraksha Security and Intelligence to II party
Ex M-17 - Deployment Chart
Ex M-18 - Enquriy Proceedings date 07.07.2008
Ex M-19 - Enquiry Proceedings dated 14.07.2008
Ex M-20 - Enquiry Proceedings dated 22.07.2008
Ex M-21 - Enquiry Proceedings dated 02.08.2008
Ex M-22 - Statement of Ayub Shaik, Weigh Bridge Operator
Ex M-23 - Statement of Veeranna Gouda, Weigh Bridge
Operator
Ex M-24 - Statement of A K Chowdary, Weigh Bridge
Operator
Ex M-25 - Enquiry Proceedings dated 05.08.2008
Ex M-26 - Cross-examination of CSE
Ex M-27 - Enquiry Proceedings dated 16.08.2008
Ex M-28 - Letter of Enquiry Officer dated 12.09.2008
addressed to Defence Representative intimating
the pronouncement of Order in respect of
Domestic Enquiry held against the CSE/I party
Ex M-29 - Letter of Enquiry Officer dated 15.09.2008
forwarding the copy of enquiry finding.
Ex M-30 - Enquiry report dated 15.09.2008
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2164-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ dqnzeq[k
vk;ju vksj dñ eSaxyksj 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; cSaxyksj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 121@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&26011@1@2007&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2164.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No.
121/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s Kudremukh Iron Ore Co.
Mangalore and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19/07/2013.
[No. L-26011/1/2007-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED
:
24th June, 2013
PRESENT
:
Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer
C R No. 121/2007
I Party
II Party
The General Secretary,
The Manager (P),
Kudremukh Shram Shakti
Kudremukh Iron Ore Company
Sanghatan, B-64,
Limited, Panambur,
Kudremukh Quarters,
Mangalore-575 010.
Kavoor,
Mangalore-575 015
APPEARANCES
I Party : Nil
II Party : Smt. K Subha Ananthi, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government vide order No. L-26011/1/
2007-IR(M) dated 22.08.2007 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
5844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of
Kudremukh Iron Ore Company Ltd., by way of
imposing punishment with deduction of one
increment of Sh. B M Vasudeva, Staff No. 1145,
Reporgraphic Operator Gr. I w.e.f. 20/12/2004 is just
and legal? If not, what relief the workmen is entitled
to?"
2. Though it was directed in the order of the reference
itself the parties raising the dispute shall file the statement
of claim complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen days of the
receipt of this order of reference and also forward a copy of
such a statement to each one of the opposite parties
involved in this dispute under Rule 10(B) of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and no compliance was made
as directed therein after receipt of the reference by this
tribunal while registering it in C R 121/2007 notices were
issued to both the sides with direction to the I Party to file
claim statement but inpsite of its service the I party raising
the dispute did not care to appear and file claim statement.
After service of second notice on the I party to appear and
file claim statement on 22.12.2010 since I Party did not
appear and file claim statement the matter was posted for II
Parties statement/Counter Statement. The learned advocate
appearing for the II party after availing several
adjournments on 19.06.2013 filed a Memo reporting that
workman involved in this reference Sh. B M Vasudev, Staff
No. 1145 expired on 12.10.2007 along with his Death
Certificate and submitted that inspite of service of notice
on the I Party it has not responded and filed claim statement
the reference do not survive for consideration. Agreeing
with the said submission on 19.06.2013 the proceedings
was closed.
3. Since the I Party did not care to appear and file
claim statement inspite of service of notice twice it appears
due to the death of the workman involved in this reference
they did not appear and file claim statement and under this
circumstance, I am of the opinion that reference is Abated.
Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
The reference is Rejected as Abated due to the death
of the workman covered in this reference on 12.10.2007.
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 5 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2165-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,ñlhñlhñ
fyfeVsM oknh 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@07@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@10@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 5th September, 2013
S.O. 2165.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the common award (Ref. No.
19/2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure,
in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation
to the management of M/s ACC Ltd. Wadi, and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 19/07/2013.
[No. L-29011/10/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED :
24th June, 2013
PRESENT :
Shri S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C R No. 19/2012
I Party
II Party
The President,
M/s. ACC Limited,
ACC Wadi Cement Works
Wadi,
Contract Labour Union (R),
Gulbarga District,
House No. 12/39, Bheem Nagar,
Karnataka.
WADI, Gulbarga.
APPEARANCES
I Party :
Nil
II Party :
Sh. B. C. Prabhakar, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-29011/
10/2012-IR(M) dated 08.06.2012 in exercise of the power
conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section
(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14
of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the
following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the charter of demands raised by the Union
vide their letter dated 16/1/2010 (copy enclosed)
against the management of M/s. ACC Ltd., Wadi is
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5845
legal and justified? What relief the workmen are
entitled to?"
2. It was for the I Party to file its statement justifying
its demands and in its absence this tribunal cannot give an
award in its favour as such the reference is liable to be
rejected.
3. Since in the decision relied on by the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party it is held in the absence
of the party raising the dispute failing to file its statement
and lead evidence justifying its claim no award can be
passed in favour of such party, while agreeing with the
submission made by the learned advocate appearing for
the II party on 24.06.2013 the proceedings came to be closed.
In view of the above the reference is liable for rejection for
failure of the party raising the dispute to appear and justify
its demands. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The reference is rejected for failure of the I Party
raising the dispute to appear and justify its demand.
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2166-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ mM+hlk
ekbfuax dkWjiksjs'ku fyñ] mM+hlk 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] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
408@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 31@07@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@4@2001&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2166.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 408/
2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of M/s Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. Orissa
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 31/07/2013.
[No. L-29011/4/2001-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT:
Shri J. Srivastava,
Presiding Officer, C.G.I. T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 408/2001
Date of Passing Award—4th July, 2013
Between:
The General Manager, Orissa Mining
Corporation Ltd., Po. Barbil, Keonjhar -769035
..........1st Party-Management.
(And)
Their workman represented through the
Keonjhar Mines Mazdoor Union,
Po. Guruda, Keonjhar -758 034.
..........2nd Party-Union.
Appearances:
M/s. B.K. Pattnaik,
For the 1st Party-
Advocate.
Management.
M/s. B.P. Tripathy &
For the 2nd Party-
Associates, Advocate.
Union.
AWARD
This reference has been sent up to this Tribunal for
adjudication of an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of Orissa Mining
Corporation Limited, the General Manager, P.O. Barbil, and
their workman by the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India vide its letter No. L-29011/4/2001-IR(M) dated
14.6.2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)
of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with regard to the
following matter:—
"Whether the action of the management of Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd., Barbil by not giving the
designation of Work Sarkar, Grade-II in class III post
from 14.9.87 though Shri Aparti Behera is being
engaged in the job of Work Sarkar from beginning is
justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
2. The General Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union
espousing the cause of the disputant workman has filed
statement of claim alleging that Shri Aparti Behera has been
working at S.G.B.K. Mines At./Po. Guruda, Dist. Keonjhar
under the administrative control of M/s. Orissa Mining
Corporation Limited since 18.6.1982 when the 1st Party-
Management has started the mining operation after taking
over the mines from ex-mine owner Md. Sirajuddin &
Company. The disputant workman was engaged to look
after the repair and maintenance work attached with civil
section though the designation of the workman was
5846
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Chowkidar" in B-Form. The workman has been performing
the duty of Work Sarkar which is a job of Class-III
employee. On the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of
Orissa passed in O.J.C. No. 1923/93 and the Industrial
Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. case No. 7/97(C) [31/1990 (C)]
directed the Management to give fitment to 28 workmen as
per their nature of job. Accordingly 11 workmen out of 28
have been given designation of Work Sarkar, Grade-II by
the Management. All of them are working now with the
disputant workman.
3. As per direction of the Mines Management the
disputant workman was deputed as canteen supervisor for
few days. He was allotted specially to supervise the repair
and maintenance of quarters. He has never attended the
duty of security guard or chowkidar as per his designation
in B-Form. He was in-charge of canteen from 1982 to 1986
and was also deputed as canteen in-charge subsequently
vide office order dated 1.11.1994. The duty of canteen in-
charge is Grade- III job equal to Work Sarkar, Grade-II. At
the time of fitment in the cadre post in pursuance of the
order of the Hon'ble High Court the 1st Party-Management
did not consider the genuine grievance of the disputant
workman. He represented to the 1st Party-Management
several times to change his designation as Work Sarkar,
Grade-II in place of Security Guard and his pay scale as per
nature of duty. The Mines Management also recommended
the representations of the disputant workman so many
times. The disputant workman also possesses educational
qualification up to Class-IX. He has obtained technical
training from National Survey Training School in Tracer/
Amin and Work Sarkar. There is a difference of Rs. 670/-
per month in the salary of the disputant workman from the
salary of Work Sarker, Grade-II. He is entitled to get the
salary of Work Sarkar, Grade-II by re-designating him as
Work Sarkar, Grade-II. Thus the action of the management
in not giving the appropriate designation of Work Sarkar
with corresponding pay scale as per the nature of job
amounts to extreme arbitrariness of the Management and
exploitation and harassment of the disputant workman. As
such it has been prayed to give him designation of Work
Sarkar, Grade-II with corresponding pay scale as per the
nature of duty performed by the disputant workman with
effect from 14.9.1987.
4. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement
has submitted that the reference is not maintainable as no
person can claim a post as a matter of right unless he has
requisite qualification and successfully passed in the
recruitment test. The disputant workman does not possess
the requisite qualification and experience for the post of
Work Sarkar, Grade-II. He has never discharged the duties
of Work Sarkar. Hence the question of designation and
fitment in the post of Work Sarkar, Grade-II does not arise.
The minimum qualification required for the post of Work
Sarkar is matriculate with one year experience as Work
Sarkar and in the case of non-matriculate three years
experience as Work Sarkar is required and the post is to be
filled up by direct recruitment. The disputant workman at
the time of transfer of mines had worked as Chowkidar
under M/s. Sirajjudin and Company and continued as such
under the 1st Party-Management till his regularization in
the post of Security Guard with effect from 14.8.1987.
Accordingly the fitment was given to him in the post of
security guard. He has never worked in any capacity other
than the security guard. He was also not assigned any job
other than the job of security guard after regularization.
Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in
O.J.C. No. 1923 of 1993 and award given by the Industrial
Tribunal, Rourkela in I.D. Case No. 31/90 (C) the
Management on due consideration of the duties performed
by the disputant workman and his qualification etc. has
regularized him in the post of Security Guard with effect
from 14.9.1987. The disputant workman was never engaged
to look after the repair and maintenance work attached
with civil section. It is not correct to allege that the disputant
workman worked with 11 workmen designated and fitted
as Work Sarkar. The Management has never deputed the
disputant workman to work either as canteen supervisor or
supervisor of repair and maintenance of quarters. The
representations made by the disputant workman have
already been rejected. The present dispute suffers from
gross latches and negligence in as much as the same has
been raised after more than six years. The workman is not
entitled to get any relief.
5. The 2nd party-Union in its rejoinder has reiterated
that the disputant workman has been performing the duty
of Work Sarkar, Grade-II from 18.6.1982. At the time of
fitment he had already gained experience of five long years.
Recruitment Rules is applicable to new entrants not to the
workman who had already been working. He had never
attended the duty of security guard, but his services have
been regularized by the Management as security guard.
6. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable?
2. Whether the action of the Management of Orissa
Mining Corporation Ltd., Barbil by not giving the
designation of Work Sarkar, Grade-II in Class-III post from
14.9.1987 though Shri Aparti Behera is being engaged in
the job of Work Sarkar from beginning is justified?
3. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?
7. On behalf of the 2nd Party-Union Shri Aparti
Behera, the disputant workman has been examined as W.W.-
l. On the other hand the 1st Party-Management has
examined Shri Subash Chandra Panda as M.W.-l and relied
upon three documents marked as Ext.-A to C.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5847
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. This issue regarding maintainability of the
reference has been framed on the pleadings of the
Management that no person can claim a post as a matter of
right unless he has requisite qualification and passes the
recruitment test. In my view this pleading does not go to
the very root of the maintainability of the reference as it
only specifies that a person can be appointed to a post
only on having requisite qualification for that post and
gets through in the recruitment test. This is to be decided
from the evidence of the parties and does not uproot the
case itself. Taking a uprighteous approach to the facts and
pleadings of the parties it would be undoubtedly held that
the reference is maintainable. As such this issue is decided
in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO. 2
9. The 2nd Party-Union on behalf of the disputant
workman has claimed the status and fitment of Work Sarkar,
Grade-II in Class-III post from 14.9.1987 to the disputant
workman because of being engaged in the job of Work
Sarkar from the beginning. Hence the burden to prove this
issue lies on the 2nd Party-Union. But there is only oral
evidence of the disputant workman Shri Aparti Behera in
support of this contentious issue in which he has stated
that he was working as canteen supervisor under the
erstwhile M/s. Sirajuddin and Company before taking over
the mines by the Orissa Mining Corporation. After taking
over the mines by the Orissa Mining Corporation he was
fitted against the post of Canteen Supervisor and worked
in the same capacity till 1985. Thereafter, he was posted as
Supervisor to look after the civil and maintenance work till
1994. He was again posted as canteen supervisor.
Thereafter in the year 1994 he was also asked to supervise
civil work which he did till 1998. Because of work pressure
in the year 1999 on his request he was posted as a
Supervisor to look after the work of workmen engaged in
the Mines and till date he is working in the same capacity.
But the Management is not paying him the salary of Work
Sarkar. The posts of supervisor and Work Sarkar are at par.
10. The 2nd party-Union has also filed certain
documents, but those documents have not been proved
and exhibited in evidence. On throwing a glance on these
documents a letter dated 27.10.1994 has come across in
which Shri R.N. Mohanty was directed by the Management
to hand-over the charge to Shri Aparti Behera attached to
civil section who will also remain in charge of canteen until
further order. There are also copies of representations and
letters of recommendations in which request for
consideration of the case of Shri Aparti Behera for the post
of Work Sarkar was made, but these documents cannot be
read in evidence as they have not been proved and
exhibited by any witness conversant with the facts of this
case. The 2nd Party-Union or the disputant workman has
also not filed any documentary evidence to show that the
Management has ever posted him as canteen supervisor
or supervisor to look after the work of workman engaged in
the mines.
11. On the other hand, the Management Witness
No.1 Shri Subash Chandra Panda has stated in his evidence
that Shri Aparti Behera had worked with M/s. Sirajuddin
and Company, the erstwhile management as Chowkidar.
On 18.6.1982 the Orissa Mining Corporation Limited had
taken over the Management of M/s. Sirajuddin and
Company. The disputant workman was regularized in the
post of Security Guard in the year 1987 as he did not
possess necessary qualification for the post of Work Sarkar.
In the erstwhile Management the disputant workman was
working as Chowkidar. He has denied the fact that the
disputant workman was ever given the duty of Work Sarkar,
Grade-lI. He has also denied the fact that sometimes the
disputant workman was given the duty of canteen in-charge
which is equivalent to the post of Work Sarkar. It may be a
fact that the designation of the disputant workman has
been shown in B-Form as Chowkidar/Security Guard, but it
has not been shown what work was being taken from him
by the Orissa Mining Corporation? However, this fact has
to be proved by the 2nd Party-Union that he was doing the
job of Supervisor of canteen or civil work or supervisor of
works done by the workmen in the mines. But except his
oral evidence no documentary evidence has been filed to
prove upto the hilt that he had worked in the capacity of a
Supervisor or Work Sarkar continuously for three years or
to certain period with gaps making it for a total period of
three years. As per Ext.-A, the relevant extract of
Recruitment Rules necessary qualification and experience
for Work Sarkar, Grade-II has been prescribed as matriculate
with one year experience as Work Sarkar and in case of
non-matriculate three years experience is necessary. It is
not disputed that the disputant workman is a non-
matriculate and in his case three years experience as work
Sarkar is required which he failed to establish in the case.
There is no reliable evidence to hold that Shri Aparti Behera,
the disputant workman is being engaged in the job of Work
Sarkar from the beginning. Hence the action of the
management of Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, Barbil
in not giving him the designation of Work Sarkar, Grade-II,
Class-III post from 14.9.1987 is justified. This issue is
decided against the 2nd Party-Union.
ISSUE NO. 3
12. For the aforesaid conclusions the disputant
workman is not entitled to any relief claimed for.
13. The reference is answered accordingly.
J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer.
5848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 5, 2013/ASVINA 13, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ubZ fnYyh] 12 flrEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2167-—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; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼dEiysaV la[;k
1@2012] 2@2012] 1@2013] 2@2013] 3@2013] 4@2013] 5@2013 vkSj
7@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 12@09@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22013@1@2013&vkbZvkj ¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 12th September, 2013
S.O. 2167.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award of the Cent. Govt.
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad
(Complaint No. 1/2012, 2/2012, 1/2013, 2/2013, 3/2013,
4/2013, 5/2013 and 7/2013) as shown in the industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of FCI and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 12/09/2013.
[No. L-22013/1/2013-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
IN THE MATTER OF A COMPLAINT U/S 33 (A) OF
I.D. ACT, 1947.
COMPLAINT NO. l/2012
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Kumar Madan Mohan Asstt. Grade-I (Depot)
Distt Office, Firdaous Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
.....Complainant
Vs.
Executive Director, Food Corporation of India, East Zone,
10A Middleton Row, Kolkata-7l
.....Opp. Party
COMPLAINT NO. 2/2012
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Kamal Singh Asstt. Grade I (Depot) F.C.I
.....Complainant
Vs.
General Manager, Food Corporation of India
Arunachal Building 3 and 4th Floor, Exhibition Road,
Patna-1
.....Opp. Party
COMPLAINT NO. 1/2013
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
1. Agendra Nath Dubey, Ex-AG-I(D) Food Corporation of
India
2. Asif Ali, Ex-AG-I(D) Food Corporation of India
.....Complaint
Vs.
General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Arunachal
Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
.....Opp. Party
COMPLAINT NO. 2/2013
Arising out of Ref.138/97
1. Garib Das , Ex AG.-I (D) Food Corporation of India
2. Ram Saran Mandal ,Ex AG-I (D) FCI, FSD Saharsa
.....Complainant
Vs.
The General Manager, Food Corporation of India,
Arunachal Building, Exhibition Road, Patna
.....Opp. Party.
COMPLAINT NO. 3/2013
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Upendra Prasad, Ex-AG-I(D) Food Corporation of India
.....Complainant
Vs.
The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India
Zonal Office, 10 A Middleton Row, Kolkata-71
............Opp. Party
COMPLAINT NO. 4/2013
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Jai Hind Prasad Ex-AG.-1 (D) Food Corporation of India
.....Complainant
Vs.
The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India
Zonal Office, 10 A Middleton Row, Kolkata-71
.....Opp. Party
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vDrwcj 5] 2013@vkf'ou 13] 1935
5849
COMPLAINT NO. 5/2013
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Mishri Hembrum Ex-Manager,
(Depot) FSD Phulwarisarif, Patna
.....Complainant
Vs.
The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India
East Zonal,10 A Middleton Row, Kolkata-71
.....Opp. Party
COMPLAINT NO. 7/2013
Arising out of Ref. 138/97
Uma Kant Jha, Ex Manager (D) Food Corporation of India,
.....Complainant
Vs.
The Executive Director, Food Corporation of India
Zonal Office, 10 A Middleton Row, Kolkata-71
.....Opp. Party
Present: Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer
Appearances:
For Complainant :
Sri Vijayendra Kumar, Zonal President FCIESU
For Opp. Party (Zonal Office Kolkata):
Sri Avinash Kumar ,Dy. G.M. Legal
For Opp. Party (Distt. Office, Patna):
Sri Anshu Sharma, AGM (Vig) FCI (R.O.)
State : Jharkhand
Industry : Food
Dated 12/8/2013
AWARD
1. These all complaints under section 33 A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, submitted by Sri Vijayendra
Kumar, Zonal President, FCIESU, under the authority of
the complainants, on behalf of the aforesaid complainant
(workmen).
2. All Complaint cases are similar in nature and all are
arising out of Ref. case no. 138 of 1997, hence all are heard
jointly. A common award passed as hereunder.
3. The dismissed employees hereinafter called as
complaint filed application U/S 33(2) praying to declare the
action of the management illegal.
4. The case of the workmen is that a dispute of the
present group of workmen along with others is pending
before this Tribunal for disposal. But during the pendency
of the dispute the management on flimsy allegations,
dismissed the workmen without proper enquiry in violation
of Sec. 33 (2) of the I.D. Act.
5. On the other hand, the case of the management is
the present workmen were not the workmen concerned of
that dispute and as such as management they are at liberty
to initiate disciplinary action against the workman for lapses
and can take any action as per their by laws.
6. The learned workmen representative submitted that
dispute relating payment of overtime of all the employees
pending before this Tribunal bearing Ref. No. 138/97. But
the management representative submitted that for serious
lapses, management have to take stringent action. That is
true but as per U/S 33(2), the management ought to have
obtained approval from Tribunal to justify their action and
must pay one month salary after dismissal. It is not clear
from the pleadings of the Opp. Party. Whether one month
salary has been paid to the dismissed workman or not. But
whatever it may be a dispute concerning all the workman
of F.C.I, is pending before this Tribunal for disposal.
7. Asking for approval of the Tribunal, relating to
action of management would not belittle the dignity of the
management. The Hon'ble Apex Court in clear tone has
observed, while a dispute whatever sort that may be
pending before the Tribunal approval must be obtained
from the Tribunal to justify its action and a decision to that
effect reported in A.I.R 2002 SC 643(i) for deciding the
present case, this Tribunal do not want to comment on the
Reference case no. 138/97 proceeding against the workman
which is yet to be decided.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of all the
cases, I hold that the action of the management is illegal
and not justified. Hence the workman be treated as workman
in continuous service from the date of their dismissal by
the Opp. Party. Accordingly in the result the complaint is
allowed and action of the management held to be illegal.
This is my Award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.