Hkkjh m|ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=ky;
¼Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx½
ubZ fnYyh] 12 uoEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 1-—lkoZtfud ifjlj ¼vukfèd`r n[kydkjksa dh
csn[kyh½ vfèfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh èkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk
'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq,] bl foHkkx }kjk Qkby
la- 1¼12½@2008&ihbZ&II fnukad 30-10-2009 ds rgr tkjh dh xbZ
vfèlwpuk ds Øe esa dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk lEink vfèdkjh
¼Jh gfj 'kadj pV~Vksik/;k;] dkfeZd vkSj Vkmuf'ki vfèdkjh] LVkQ
lañ 5566] #iukjk;.kiqj bdkbZ] fgUnqLrku dscYl fyfeVsM]
dksydkrk] fQygky fgUnqLrku dscYl fyfeVsM] #iukjk;.kiqj bdkbZ
Vkmuf'ki ds ifjljksa ds lkFk&lkFk ,plh,y] {ks=h; dk;kZy;]
dksydkrk ds ifjljksa ds fy, lEink vfèdkjh ds :i esa dk;Zjr½
ds {ks=kfèdkj dh lhek dks fuEufyf[kr ifjljksa ds fy, c<+krh gS%—
(i) 315] tksèiqj ikdZ] dksydkrk&700068 fLFkr ifjlj
(ii) xksYQ fyad vikVZesaV~l] 50 paMhyrk ysu] dksydkrk&
700040 fLFkr pkj ¶ysV ¼¶ysV lañ ts&vksñ] bZ&1] bZ&2
vkSj ,y&2½
(iii) e'khu Vwy oDlZ] ihñvksñ ujsUnziqj] dksydkrk&700103
[la- 1¼12½@2008&ihbZ&II]
,y- lh- jke] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC
ENTERPRISES
(Department of Heavy Industry)
New Delhi, the 12th November, 2013
S.O. 1.—In exercise of the powers conferred by
section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government
in continuation of this Department's Notification issued
under F. No. 1(12)/2008-PE-II dated 30.10.2009, hereby
extends the limit of Jurisdiction of the Estate Officer
(Shri Hari Shankar Chattopadhyay, Personnel & Township
Officer, Staff No. 5566, Rupnarainpur Unit, Hindustan
Cables Limited, Kolkata, presently working as Estate Officer
for premises of Hindustan Cables Limited, Rupnarainpur
Unit Township as well as premises of HCL, Regional Office,
Kolkata) for the following premises:—
(i) Premises at 315, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata-700068.
(ii) 4 flats at Golf Link Apartments, 50 Chanditala Lane,
Kolkata -700040 (Flat Nos. J-O, E-1, E-2 & L-2).
(iii) Machine Tool Works, P.O. Narendrapur, Kolkata-
700103.
[No. 1(12)/2008-PE-II]
L. C. RAM, Under 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- 1]
ubZ fnYyh, fnlEcj 29] 2013—tuojh 4] 2014] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 8—ikS"k 14] 1935
No. 1]
NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 29, 2013—JANUARY 4, 2014, SATURDAY/PAUSA 8—PAUSA 14, 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)
5362 GI/2013
(1)
2
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dks;yk ea=ky;
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 2-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds v/fku tkjh
Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad dkñvkñ
497 ¼v½] rkjh[k 28 Qjojh] 2013] tks Hkkjr ds jkti=] vlkèkj.k]
Hkkx II, [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii), rkjh[k 1 ekpZ] 2013 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij
mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k
ml ij ds vfèdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k
gS½] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh
foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr
gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk lekèku gks x;k gS fd osLVuZ
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~
ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj bl fufeRr vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds
fy;s jtkean gS(
vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh
mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh
gS] fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml Hkwfe esa ;g ml ij ds
vfèdkj rkjh[k 01 ekpZ] 2013 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr
cus jgus dh ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs
gq,] ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
1- ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu ;Fkk
voèkfjr 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 vèhu] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls
fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj ,sls mDr vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy,
fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh O;; ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu
fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa
ds fy, ;k muds lacaè esa] tSls vihy vkfn lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa
dh ckcr~ mixr lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu
fd, tk,axs(
3- ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr
mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k
mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa
vko';d gks(
4- ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds
vfèdkjksa dks fdlh vU; O;fDr;ksa dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha
gksxh( vkSj
5- ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krks± 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 vfèjksfir fd, tk,a] ikyu djsxhA
[ Qk-la- 43015@12@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
oh- ,l- jk.kk] voj lfpo
MINISTRY OF COAL
ORDER
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 2.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, Number S.O. 497(E), dated the 28th February, 2013,
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II,
Section 3. Sub-Section (ii), dated the 1st March, 2013, 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 Scheduled
appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to
as the said land) vested absoloutely in the Central
Government free from all emcumbrances under Sub-Section (1)
of Section 10 of the said Act;
And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied
that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (Maharashtra)
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Compay) 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 directs that the said land and the rights
in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect from
1st March, 2013, 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
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
3
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 rights 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
directions 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. 43015/12/2010-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 3-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu
vkSj fodkl½ vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds
i'pkr~ mDr vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 7 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds
vèhu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;y ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk
la[;k dkñvkñ 2857 rkjh[k 12 flrEcj] 2012 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=
Hkkx II] [k.M 3] mi[k.M ¼ii½] rkjh[k 15 flrEcj] 2012 esa izdkf'kr
dh xbZ Fkh]ml vfèlwpuk ls lyaXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V 809-508
gsDVs;j ;k 2000-29 ,dM+ dh Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vfèdkjksa dk
vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh(
vkSj l{ke izkfèdkjh us mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 8 ds vuqlj.k
esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS( vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk
iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~vkSj NÙkhlx<+ ljdkj ls
ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd blls layXu
vuqlwph esa of.kZr 721-313 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1782-36 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe ds lHkh vfèdkj vftZr fd, tkus pkfg,aA
vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj
fodkl½ vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk
¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd
blls layXu vuqlwph esa ;Fkk of.kZr 721-313 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k
1782-36 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½ eki okyh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij Åij ds
vfèdkj vftZr fd, tkrs g®A
bl vfèlwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks= ds js[kkad la[;k
,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@442] rkjh[k 22 vizSy]
2013 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] jk;x<+ ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa ;k
dks;yk fu;a=d] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk & 700001 ds
dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk dksyfQYM~l fyfeVsM ¼jktLo vuqHkkx½ lhir
jksM] fcykliqj& 495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk
gSA
vuqlwph
Nky foo`r foLrkj Cykd]
jk;x<+ {ks=] ftyk ¼NÙkhlx<+½
¼js[kkad la[;k&,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e¼ih,yth½@Hkwfe@442] rkjh[k 22 vizSy] 2013½
lHkh vfèdkj%
¼d½ jktLo Hkwfe%
Øe
xzke dk
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
fVIi.kh
lañ
uke
gYdk
esa
uEcj
1-
pan'ks[kjiqj
31
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
78-812
Hkkx
2-
uokikjk
31
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
30-188
Hkkx
3-
Nky
30
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
120-133
Hkkx
4
[ksnkikyh
31
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
79-834
Hkkx
5
caèkikyh
30
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
220-032
Hkkx
6
iqlYnk
31
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
7-297
Hkkx
dqy% 536-296 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 1325-19 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
4
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
¼[k½ jktLo ou Hkwfe ¼lhtsts vkSj chtsts½%
Øe
xzke dk
iVokjh
rglhy
ftyk
{ks= gsDVj
fVIi.kh
lañ
uke
gYdk uEcj
esa
1-
[ksnkikyh
31
èjet;x<+
jk;x<+
8-307
Hkkx
dqy% 8-307 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 20-52 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
¼x½ ou Hkwfe%
Øe
ou dk uke
ou dk
jast
fMohtu
{ks=
fVIi.kh
lañ
izdkj
gsDVj esa
1-
ykr ¼1115@478½
ih,Q
Nky
èjet;x<+
176-710
iw.kZ
dqy% 176-710 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 436-65 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
dqy ;ksx ¼d+[k+x½% 721-313 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½
;k 1782-36 ,dM+ ¼yxHkx½
1- xzke panz'ks[kjiqj ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV
la[;k%—
2 ls 78] 92 ls 115] 141] 147] 148] 150] 151] 266 ls
271] 277 ls 279] 395] 428-
2- xzke uokikjk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV
la[;k%— 445] 466] ls 515] 517] 518] 521 ls 523-
3- xzke Nky ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%—
1031 ls 1038] 1061 ls 1064] 1071 ls 1097] 1120 ls 1130] 1277]
1278] 1288 ls 1319] 1321 ls 1354] 1356 ls 1359] 1364] 1365]
1367 ls 1416-
4- xzke [ksnkikyh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV
la[;k%— 1 ls 18] 30] 31] 33] 34] 36] 80 ls 95] 103 ls 107]
2@134-
5- xzke caèkikyh ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV
la[;k%— 1 ls 24] 33] 34] 36 ls 38] 48] 49] 55 ls 76] 85] 86]
114 ls 127] 168] 169] 171] 173 ls 179] 183 ls 412-
6- xzke iqlYnk ¼Hkkx½ esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV
la[;k%— 1 ls 3-
lhek o.kZu %
Cykd—I%
d&[k
js[kk] ^^d** fcUnq ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke ykr&[ksnkikyh
dh lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gS vkSj ^^[k** fcUnq ij feyrh
gSA
[k&x
js[kk] ^^[k** fcUnq ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj lajf{kr ou ds mÙkjh]
if'peh vkSj nf{k.kh lhek rFkk xzke ykr&panz'ks[kjiqj ds
lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj ^^x** fcUnq ij
feyrh gSA
x&?k
js[kk] fcUnq ^^x** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke panz'ks[kjiqj ds
IykV la[;k 147] 148 dh if'peh lhek] IykV la[;k 148
dh nf{k.kh lhek]] IykV la[;k 150@1d dh iwohZ lhek] IykV
la[;k 269@2] 268] 267@2 dh if'peh lhek] IykV la[;k
256@2x dh iwohZ] IykV la[;k 269@1d] 279] 277 dh
nf{k.kh] 277] 271@1d] 270 dh iwohZ] 270] 269@1x] 269
dh mÙkjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^?k** ij
feyrh gSA
?k&³
js[kk fcUnq ^^?k** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 106@2d
dh iwohZ lhek] 107@1d dh nf{k.kh lhek] 107@1d] 103@1N]
95@12] 85@8N] 95@7] 95@11] 95@6] 95@5] 95@4 dh iwohZ
lhek] 94@3] 94@4 dh nf{k.kh lhek] 94@3] 80@1d] 20@5
dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 18] 30 dh nf{k.kh lhek] IykV
la[;k 30 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 34] 33] 36@1 dh
nf{k.kh lhek] IykV la[;k 36@1 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k
5@2 dh nf{k.kh vkSj iwohZ lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xzke [ksnk ikyh ls
xqtjrs gq, fcUnq ^^³** ij feyrh gSA
³&p
js[kk fcUnq ^^³** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke [ksnkikyh&caèkikyh]
xzke caèkiyh&iqlYnk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek] xzke iqlYnk
ds IykV la[;k 2@2] 2@3] 3@3] 4@4 dh nf{k.kh vkSj iwohZ
lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^p** ij feyrh gSA
p&N
js[kk fcUnq ^^p** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke uokikjk dh
Hkkxkr% nf{k.kh vkSj iwohZ lhek ls gksdj xzke uokikjk ds
IykV la[;k 521 ds mÙkjh] la[;k 518] 445 ds iwohZ] 445 ds
mÙkjh] IykV la[;k 515 ds iwohZ] IykV la[;k 515] 493]
466@5] 466@6] 466@7] 466@4 ds mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh
gqbZ vkSj fcUnq ^^N** ij feyrh gSA
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
5
N&t
js[kk fcUnq ^^N** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke caèkikyh&uokikjk
ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksdj xzke caèkikyh ds IykV
la[;k 188] 187] 186] 183] 179] 176] 171] 169] 168]
127 dh mÙkjh lhek] IykV la[;k 127 dh if'peh lhek]
IykV la[;k 114 dh mÙkjh lhek] IykV la[;k 85] 86 dh
mÙkjh lhek vkSj if'peh lhek] IykV la[;k 76] 55] 56@1]
56@2] 49] 48 dh mÙkjh lhek] IykV la[;k 38@2] 38@1]
36@3] 36@2] 36@1] 37] 34] 33] 21 dh iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh
gS vkSj fcUnq ^^t** ij feyrh gSA
t&>
js[kk fcUnq ^^t** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke caèkikyh ds
Hkkxr% mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj xzke Nky ds IykV la[;k 1278]
1337] 1336] 1335] 1334] 1333] 1332] dh mÙkjh lhek
IykV la[;k 1321] 1319 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 1319]
1318] 1288] 1290] 1289] 1128] 1129] 1130] 1126]
1124] 1123] 1122 dh mÙkjh lhek] IykV la[;k 1122]
1121 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 1097] 1096] 1095] 1071]
1072] 1064 dh mÙkjh lhek] IykV la[;k 1061] 1062]
1038] 1036] 1035] 1034] 1031] 1076] 1077] 1078]
1019 dh if'peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq
^^>** ij feyrh gSA
>&d
js[kk fcUnq ^^>** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke Nky&ykr ds
Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ tkrh gS fQj xzke Nky ds
IykV la[;k 1354] 1356 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 1359]
1364@4] 1364@5] 1402 dh nf{k.kh lhek] IykV la[;k
1395] 1367] 1368] 1376@3] 1375@1 dh if'peh lhek
vkSj xzke Nky&ykr] ykr&caèkikyh ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr
lhek ls gksrh gqbZ xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij
feyrh gSA
Cykd—II%
´&V
js[kk xzke panz'ks[kjiqj&ykr ds lfEefyr lhek esa fcUnq ^^´**
ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke panz'ks[kjiqj&ykr ds Hkkxr%
lfEefyr lhek ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq ^^V** ij feyrh gSA
V&B
js[kk fcUnq ^^V** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj ekaM unh ds mÙkjh
fdukjs ls xqtjrh gS vkSj mlh fdukjs ds fcUnq ^^B** ij feyrh
gSA
B&M
js[kk fcUnq ^^B** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke panz'ks[kjiqj ds
IykV la[;k 78] 76@1 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 76@1]
75@1] 92@2 dh nf{k.kh vkSj iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 92@1
dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 95 dh nf{k.kh vkSj iwohZ lhek]
IykV la[;k 115] 114 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 110@1]
141@1&141@3 dh nf{k.kh lhek ls xqtjrh gS vkSj fcUnq
^^M** ij feyrh gSA
M&´
js[kk fcUnq ^^B** ls izkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke pan'ks[kjiqj ds
IykV la[;k 141@1&141@3 dh iwohZ lhek] IykV la[;k 107@2
ls gksdj] IykV la[;k 111@1] 106@1 dh iwohZ lhek vkSj
IykV la[;k 107@1 ls xqtjrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^´**
ij feyrh gSA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@19@2010& ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013 i
S.O. 3.—Whereas by the notification of the
Government of India in the Ministry of Coal Number S.O.
2857 dated the 12th September, 2012 issued under
sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas
(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957)
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in
the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii),
dated the 15th September, 2012 the Central Government
gave notice of its intention to acquire 809.508 hectares or
2000.29 acres land as all rights in or over such lands
specified in the Scheduled appended to that notification;
And whereas the competent authority in pursuance
of section 8 of the said Act, has made his report to the
Central Government;
And whereas the Central Government after
considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the
Government of Chhattishgarh, is satisfied that the land
measuring 721.313 hectares (approximately) or 1782.36 acres
(approximately) all rights in or over such land as described
in schedule appended hereto, should be acquired.
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred
by sub -section (1) of section 9 of the said Act, the Central
Government hereby declares that the land measuring 721.313
hectares (approximately) or 1782.36 acres (approximately)
as all rights in or over such land as described in schedule
appended hereto are hereby acquired.
The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/Land/
442, dated the 22nd April, 2013 of the area covered by this
notification may be inspected in the Office of the Collector,
Raigarh (Chhattishgarh) or in the office of the Coal
Controller, 1 Council House Street, Kolkata - 700001 or in
the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue
Section) Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh);
6
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
SCHEDULE
Chhal Opencast Expansion Mine Block,
Raigarh Area, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
(Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/Land/442, dated the 22nd April, 2013)
All Rights: (A) Revenue Land:
Sl.
Name of
Patwari
Tahsil
District
Area in
Remarks
No.
village
halka number
hectares
1.
Chandra-
31
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
78.812
Part
shekharpur
2.
Nawapara
31
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
30.188
Part
3.
Chhal
30
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
120.133
Part
4.
Khedapali
31
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
79.834
Part
5.
Bandhapali
30
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
220.032
Part
6.
Pusalda
31
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
7.297
Part
Total: 536.296 hectares (approximately) or 1325.19 acres (approximately)
(B) Revenue Forest Land (CJJ & BJJ):
Sl.
Name of
Patwari halka
Tahsil
District
Area in
Remarks
No.
village
number
hectares
1.
Khedapali
31
Dharamjaigarh
Raigarh
8.307
Part
Total: 8.307 hectares (approximately) or 20.52 acres (approximately)
(C) Forest Land:
Sl.
Name of
Type
Range
Division
Area in
Remarks
No.
Forest
of Forest
hectares
1.
Lat
PF
Chhal
Dharamjaigarh
176.710
Full
(1115/478)
Total: 176.710 hectares (approximately) or 436.65 acres (approximately)
Grand Total (A+B+C)=721.313 hectares (approximately)
or 1782.36 acres (approximately)
Boundary Description:
Block-I:
A-B Line starts from point 'A' and passage along the
common boundry of villages Lat - Khedapali and
meets at point 'B'.
B-C
Line starts from point 'B' and passes along northern,
western and southern boundary of Protected Forest,
along partly common boundary of villages Lat-
Chandrashekharpur and meets and point 'C' .
C-D
Line starts from point 'C' and passes through village
Chandrashekharpur along western boundary of plot
number 147, 148, southern boundary of plot number
148, eastern boundary of plot number 150/1k, western
boundary of plot number 269/2, 268, 267/2, eastern
boundary of plot number 256/2g, southern boundary
of plot number 269/1k, 279, 277, eastern boundary of
1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village
Chandrashekharpur (Part):- 2 to 78, 92 to 115, 141, 147, 148,
150, 151, 266 to 271, 277 to 279, 395, 428.
2. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Nawapara
(Part):- 445, 466 to 515, 517, 518, 521 to 523.
3. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Chhal (Part):-
1031 to 1038, 1061 to 1064, 1071 to 1097, 1120 to 1130, 1277,
1278, 1288 to 1319, 1321 to 1354, 1356 to 1359, 1364, 1365,
1367 to 1416.
4. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Khedapali
(Part):- 1 to 18, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 80 to 95,103 to 107, 2/134.
5. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Bandhapali
(Part):-1 to 24, 33, 34, 36 to 38, 48, 49, 55 to 76, 85, 86,114 to
127, 168, 169, 171, 173 to 179, 183 to 412.
6. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Pusalda
(Part):- 1 to 3.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
7
plot number 277, 271/1k, 270, northern boundary of
plot number 270, 269/1g, 269 and meets at point 'D'.
D-E
Line starts from point 'D' and passes through village
Khedapali along eastern boundary of plot number
106/2k,southern boundary of plot number 107/1k,
eastern boundary of plot number 107/1k, 103/1chha,
95/12, 85/8 chha, 95/7, 95/11, 95/6. 95/5, 95/4, southern
boundary of plot number 94/3, 94/4, eastern
boundary of plot number 94/3, 80/1k, 20/5, southern
boundary of plot number 18, 30, eastern boundary of
plot number 30,southern boundary of plot number
34, 33, 36/1, eastern boundary of plot number 36/1,
southern and eastern boundary of plot number 5/2
and meets at point 'E'.
E-F
Line starts from point 'E' and passes along partly
common boundary of villages Bandhapali-Khedapali,
Bandhapali-Pusalda, through village Pusalda along
southern and eastern boundary of plot number 2/2,
2/3, 3/3, 4/4 and meets at point 'F'
F-G
Line starts from point 'F' and passes along partly
southern and eastern boundary of village Nawapara,
along northern boundary of plot number 521, eastern
boundary of plot number 518, 445, northern boundary
of plot number 445, eastern boundary of plot number
515, northern boundary of plot number 515, 493,
466/5, 466/6, 466/7, 466/4 and meets at point 'G'
G-H
Line starts from point 'G' and passes along party
common boundary of villages Bandhapali -
Nawapara, through village Bandhapali along
northern boundary of plot number 188, 187, 186,
183,179, 176, 171, 169,168,127 western boundary of
plot number 127, northern boundary of plot number
114, northern and western boundary of plot number
85, 86, northern boundry of plot number 76, 55,
56/1,56/2, 49, 48, easters boundary of plot number
38/2 38/1, 36/3 36/2, 36/1, 37, 34, 33, 21 and meets at
point 'H'.
H-I
Line starts from point 'H' and passes along partly
northern boundary of village Bandhapali then passes
in village Chhal along northern boundary of plot
number 1278, 1337, 1336, 1335, 1334, 1333, 1332 eastern
boundary of plot number 1321, 1319, northern
boundary of plot number 1319, 1318,1288, 1290,1289,
1128,1129, 1130,1126, 1124,1123, 1122, eastern
boundary of plot number 1122, 1121,northern
boundary of plot number 1097, 1096, 1095, 1071, 1072,
1064, western boundary of plot number 1061, 1061,
1038, 1036, 1035, 1034,1031, 1076, 1077, 1078,1019
and meets at point 'I'.
1-A
Line starts from point 'I' and passes along partly
common boundary of villages Chhal -Lat then passes
in village Chhal along eastern boundary of plot
number 1354, 1356, southern boundary of plot number
1359, 1364/4,134/5, 1402, western boundary of plot
number 1395, 1367, 1368, 1376/3, 1375/1, along partly
common boundry of villages Chhal-Lat, Lat-
Bandhapali and meets at starting point 'A'.
Block-II:
J-K
Line starts from point ''J'' on the common boundary
of villages Lat-Chandrashekharpur and passes along
partly common boundary of villages Lat-
Chandrashekharpur and meets at point 'K'
K-L
Line starts from point 'K' and passes along northern
bank of Mand River and meets at point 'L' on the
same bank.
L-M Line starts from point 'L' and passes through village
Chandrashekharpur along eastern boundary of plot
number 78, 76/1, southern and eastern boundary of
plot number 76/1, 75/1, 92/2, eastern boundary of
plot number 92/1, southern and eastern boundary of
plot number 95, eastern boundary of plot number
115, 114, southern boundary of plot number 110/1,
141/1-141/3 and meets at point 'M'
M-J
Line starts from point 'M' and passes through village
Chandrashekharpur along eastern boundary of plot
number 141/1-141/3, through plot number 107/2,
eastern boundary of plot number 111/1, 106/1,
through plot number 107/1 and meets at starting
point 'J'
[F. No. 43015/19/2010-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 4-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh]
Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM (ii)]rkjh[k 14 vizSy] 2012
esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk la[;kad
dk-vk- 1335] rkjh[k 10 vizSy] 2012] ij] mDr vfèlwpuk ls
layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe
dgk x;k gS½ ds 110-663 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 273-448 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ esa ;k ml ij ds Hkwfe vkSj vfèdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh
èkjk 10 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj]
vkR;kafrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd osLVuZ
dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dksy ,LVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½
¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gS½] ,sls
fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk] ftudk dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeRr vfèjksfir
djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy;s jtkean gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh
mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh
8
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
gS fd mDr Hkwfe ds 110-663 gsDVj ¼yxHkx½ ;k 273-448 ,dM+
¼yxHkx½ esa ;k ml ij ds bl izdkj fufgr vfèdkj] rkjh[k
14 vizSy] 2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus dh
ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh
dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
¼1½ ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu
;Fkk voèkfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~
fd, x, lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(
¼2½ 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk] dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, mDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls
fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj mDr vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr
O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,
tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds
fy, ;k muds lacaè esa vihysa] vkfn] tSlh lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa
dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
¼3½ ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr
mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k
mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa
vko';d gks(
¼4½ ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds bl izdkj fufgr vfèdkjksa
dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
¼5½ ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krks± 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 vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qk-la- 43015@16@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2013
S.O. 4.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 1335, dated the 10th April, 2012, in the
Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, Sub-Section (ii), dated
the 14th April, 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 rights in or over 110.663
hectares (approximately) or 273.448 acres (approximately)
of land as 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, Coal Estate, Civil Lines,
Nagpur (Maharashtra) (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 directs that the 110.663 hectares
(approximately) or 273.448 acres (approximately) of land in
all rights in or over the said land so vested shall, with effect
from the 14th April, 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 condition (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 rights 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
directions 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. 43015/16/2009-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
vkns'k
ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 5-—dks;yk èkjd {ks= ¼vtZu vkSj fodkl½
vfèfu;e] 1957 ¼1957 dk 20½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
9
vfèfu;e dgk x;k gS½ dh èkjk 9 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu tkjh]
Hkkjr ds jkti=] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi[kaM ¼ii½] rkjh[k 27 vDrwcj]
2012 esa izdkf'kr] Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=ky; dh vfèlwpuk
la[;kad dkñ vkñ 3239 rkjh[k 16 vDrwcj] 2012] ds izdk'ku ij]
mDr vfèlwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml
ij ds lHkh vfèdkj ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k
gS½ mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 10 dh mièkjk ¼1½ ds vèhu] lHkh
foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;kafrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr
gks x, Fks(
vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lekèku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk
bZLVuZ dksyQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60] ftyk &
fcykliqj&495006 ¼NÙkhlx<+½ ¼ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr
ljdkjh dEiuh dgk x;k gSA] ,sls fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj bl fufeÙk vfèjksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds
fy, jtkean gS(
vr% vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vfèfu;e dh èkjk 11 dh
mièkjk ¼1½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh gS
fd mDr Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ;g ml ij ds bl izdkj fufgr
vfèdkj rkjh[k 27 vDrwcj] 2012 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj
fufgr cus jgus dh ctk;] fuEufyf[kr fucaèuksa vkSj 'krks± ds vèhu
jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh dEiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~%—
¼1½ ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vfèfu;e ds micaèksa ds vèhu
;Fkk voèkfjr izfrdj C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr]
fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh(
¼2½ 'krZ ¼1½ ds vèhu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks lans; jdeksa dk voèkj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vfèfu;e
dh èkjk 14 ds vèhu ,d vfèdj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls
fdlh vfèdj.k vkSj mDr vfèdj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy, fu;qDr
O;fDr;ksa ds lacaè esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,
tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vfèdkjksa ds
fy, ;k muds lacaè esa vihy] vkfn] lHkh fofèd dk;Zokfg;ksa dh
ckcr] mixr] lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs(
¼3½ ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds inèkfj;ksa dh]
,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds lacaè esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr
mDr Hkwfe esa ;k mlij ds vfèdkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k
mlds inèkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#) fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds lacaè esa
vko';d gks(
¼4½ ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds
fcuk] Hkwfe vkSj mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds bl izdkj fufgr vfèdkj
dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh( vkSj
¼5½ ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± 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 vfèjksfir fd, tk,aA
[Qkñ lañ 43015@18@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&I]
ohñ ,lñ jk.kk] voj lfpo
ORDER
New Delhi, the 27th December, 2013
S.O. 5.—Whereas on the publication of the
notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of
Coal, number S.O. 3239 dated the 16th October, 2012, in the
Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3, sub-section (ii), dated
the 27th 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 the 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 South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road,
Post Box No. 60, district-Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh)
(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is
willing to comply with such terms and condistions as the
Central Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf.
Now, therefore, in the exercise of the powers conferred
by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central
Government thereby directs that the said land and the rights
in or over the said land so vested shall with effect from
dated the 27th 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 condition (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
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 rights in or over the said land so
vested, to any other person without the prior approval of
the Central Government; and
10
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(5) the Government company shall abide by such
directions 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. 43015/18/2010-PRIW-I]
V. S. RANA, Under Secy.
x`g ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 6-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;
iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ¼1987 esa ;Fkk la'kksf/kr½ ds
fu;e 10 ds mi fu;e ¼4½ ds vuqlj.k esa] x`g ea=ky; ds fuEufyf[kr
dk;kZy;ksa esa fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku j[kus okys deZpkfj;ksa dh
la[;k 80% ls vf/kd gks tkus ds iQyLo:i mUgsa ,rn~}kjk
vf/klwfpr djrh gS %
1-
vkj-Vh-lh- fdfeu] Hkk-fr-lh- iqfyl cy] ¼v:.kkpy
izns'k½
2-
lsUVªy izaQfV;j eq[;ky;] Hkk-fr-lh- iqfyl cy] Hkksiky
¼e-iz-½
3-
{ks=h; eq[;ky;] Hkk-fr-lh- iqfyl cy] iVuk ¼fcgkj½
4-
46oha okfguh] Hkk-fr-lh- iqfyl cy] dkuiqj ¼m-iz-½
5-
48oha okfguh] Hkk-fr-lh- iqfyl cy] dfVgkj ¼fcgkj½
[la- 12017@1@2012&fgUnh]
vo/ks'k dqekj feJ] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 6.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the
Official Languages (Use for Official Purpose of the Union)
Rules, 1976 (as amended in 1987), the Central Government
hereby notifies the following offices of the Ministry of
Home Affairs wherein the percentage of the staff having
working knowledge of Hindi has gone above 80%.
1.
R.T.C. Kimin, I.T.B.P. Police Force (Arunachal
Pradesh).
2.
Central Frontier Headquarter, I.T.B.P. Police,
Bhopal, (M.P.)
3.
Regional Headquarter, I.T.B.P. Police Force,
Patna (Bihar)
4.
46th Battalion, I.T.B.P. Police Force, Kanpur
(U.P.)
5.
48th Battalion, I.T.B.P. Police Force, Katihar
(Bihar)
[No. 12017/1/2012-Hindi]
AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director (OL)
Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;
ubZ fnYyh] 17 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 7-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ uoy dekaM
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 tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 2@1&2010½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42025@07@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2013
S.O. 7.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award of the Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai (Filed
under Section 33-A in the matter of Complaint arising out
of Ref. No. 2/1 of 2010) as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Western
Naval Command and their workman, received by the Central
Government on 17.12.2013.
[No. L-42025/07/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENU GOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT:
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
COMPLAINT No. CGIT-2/1 of 2010
(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/14 of 2010)
Indian Naval Employees Union
12/14, Rajgir Chambers
Room No. 60, 7th Floor
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Opp. Old Custom House
Mumbai-400 023. :
Complainant
V/S.
The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief
Headquarters
Western Naval Command
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road
Mumbai-400 023. :
Opponent.
APPEARANCES:
For the complainant
: Mr. J.H. Sawant, Advocate
For the opponent
: Mr. N.J. Gonsalves,
Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 9th July, 2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
11
AWARD
1. This complaint is filed under Section 33-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the complainant
the opponent has engaged 23 women workmen for the
purpose of cleaning rice for the use of officers and other
staff members. They are doing the work of permanent nature
since 1984—90. The workmen placed in similar
circumstances have been regularized in service. There are
also number of posts vacant where these women can be
absorbed and regularized. Two women died and the 21
women have raised industrial dispute and Ref. CGIT-2/14
of 2010 is pending before this Tribunal. The second party
has terminated the services of 17 workmen. Termination of
their services is illegal and improper. Therefore the union
has filed this complaint against the opponent and prays
for declaration that action of the opponent is in
contravention to the provision made under Section 33 of
the I.D. Act 1947 by refusing work and wages and
consequential benefits to the 17 women workmen and
terminating their service w.e.f. 22.09.2009 during pendency
of Ref. CGIT-2/14 of 2010. They also pray for direction to
reinstate the 17 women workmen in their services w.e.f.
22.09.2009 with full back-wages from 22.09.2009 and all
consequential benefits and also prays to award punishment
to the opponent for terminating the services of these
workmen in contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act.
2. The opponent resisted the complaint vide their
written statement at Ex-8. According to them, the complaint
is misconceived, devoid of merit and not maintainable in
law. The women workmen were engaged by the opponent
on nerrick rate of pay for cleaning rice as required basis.
The union cannot represent the casual workmen employed
on nerrick rate of pay. No post of rice cleaner was created
by Defence Ministry. Therefore though cleaning is a
continuous process question of regularization of rice
cleaners does not arise. Navy used to get un-cleaned rice
earlier from ASC of the Army and as such casual rice
cleaners were being employed. The service of rice cleaners
have been terminated since rice is not being obtained from
ASC of Army for which cleaning and processing was
required. These rice cleaners were not recruited through
Employment Exchange. In these circumstances, though
some of the casual rice cleaners have completed 240 days
in a year, they are not qualified for regularization in the
service. Neither they are eligible not entitled for
regularization. There is no employer-employee relation
between them. In the circumstances the opponent claimed
that the complaint is not tenable and prays that same be
dismissed with cost.
3. The Union filed rejoinder at Ex-9. They denied the
contents in the written statement and reiterated their case
in the complaint.
4. Following are the points for my determination.
I record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:
Sr.No. Points
Findings
1.
Whether the complainant has proved
that the opponent has altered the terms
of the services of the workmen in
question during pendency of the
industrial dispute?
Yes
2.
Whether there was contravention of
Section 33(1) A on the part of
opponent and whether the complaint
under Section 33A is maintainable?
Yes
3.
Whether the workmen are entitled to
any relief?
Yes, as per
order below.
4.
What order?
As per
order below.
REASONS
Points nos. 1 & 2:—
5. Both these points are interrelated, therefore, in
order to avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed
and decided simultaneously. In this respect the fact is not
disputed that the 17 women workmen were working as rice
cleaners. The fact is also not disputed that, they had raised
industrial dispute and their Reference bearing No. Ref.
CGIT/37 of 2006 was pending before CGIT-1, Mumbai. The
said reference is for regularization of services of these
women workmen in the establishment of the opponent.
During pendency of the said reference the opponent has
terminated the services of these 17 women workmen by its
order dt. 15.9.2009. In this respect according to the
opponent the women workmen were casual labourers
employed on nerrick rate of pay and as and when required
basis. Therefore termination of services of such employees
is not in violation of Section 33(1) (a). Therefore it is
submitted on behalf of the opponent that, the complaint is
not maintainable. In support of his argument the Ld., adv.
for the opponent resorted the Apex Court ruling in
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Uma Devi & Ors.
2006 (4) SC ALE 197. wherein the Hon'ble Court in respect
of contractual or casual labourers observed that:
"Merely because he is continued beyond his term of
appointment does not entitle him to be absorbed in
regular service or made permanent."
6. In this ruling the Hon'ble Court also held that if
original appointment was not made by following a due
process of selection, such an employee is not entitled to
be absorbed in regular service. In this respect I would like
to point out that, the ruling is not in respect of either
violation of Section 33(1) (a) or in respect of maintainability
of complaint under Section 33-A of the I.D. Act. Question
as to whether casual, temporary or contractual worker can
12
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
be absorbed or regularized in service is not the issue before
this Tribunal while adjudicating the complaint under Section
33-Aof the I.D. Act. Therefore the ratio laid down in this
ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the present
case.
7. In this respect the Ld. adv. for the complainant
submitted that during pendency of dispute in respect of
the workmen; may they be casual, temporary or contractual,
if their service conditions are changed during pendency of
dispute, it is in contravention of Section 33(1) (a) of the I.D.
Act. In support of his argument the Ld. adv. resorted to
Apex Court ruling in the Bhavnagar Municipality V/s. Ali
Bhai Karim Bhai and ors. 1977 LAB. I.C. 834. In that case
during the pendency of an Industrial dispute between a
Municipality and its daily rated workers in its Water Works
Section before the Tribunal the Municipality retrenched
these workers without obtaining the prior permission of
the Tribunal and the subject matter of the dispute was
directly connected with the convergent of the temporary
employment of such workers into permanent. In the
circumstances On Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:
".......................such tampering with status quo ante
of these workers was a clear alteration of the
conditions of their service. The alteration was in
regard to a matter connected to the pending industrial
dispute. Thus there was contravention of Section
33(1) (a) on the part of the Municipality and a
complaint under Section 33 A at the instance of such
workers was maintainable."
8. On the point the Ld. adv. also cited Gujarat High
Court ruling in Gujarat State Road Transport Corp V/s.
Shabir Hussain G. Sheikh 2012 II CLR 959 wherein Hon'ble
Court on the point held that when dispute in respect of
regularization of service of the workman is pending, the
management cannot issue an order of discharge or reversion
of the workman, without seeking approval of the Tribunal
before which the dispute is already pending.
9. In the case at hand the services of workmen were
terminated during pendency of the dispute. The dispute
was raised on behalf of these workmen for regularization of
their services. Thus it is clear that the opponent has passed
the order of termination in violation of Section 33(1) (a) of
the I.D. Act. Thus I hold that the complaint is maintainable.
Accordingly I decide this points Nos. 1 & 2 in the
affirmative.
Point No. 3:—
10. In this respect I would like to point out that the
reference between the parties was already decided and the
opponent was directed to absorb them in regular service of
the establishment of the opponent with arrears. As the
services of these workmen were terminated during pendency
of the reference, I think it proper to direct the opponent to
pay full back-wages from the date of their termination till
the date of their reinstatement. Accordingly I decide this
point No. 3 and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The order of terminating the services of the workman
was in contravention of Section 33-A of the
Industrial disputes Act.
(ii) The opponent is directed to reinstate in the service
of their establishment these 17 women workmen
forthwith with full back wages from the date of their
termination.
Date: 09.07.2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 8-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vky bafM;k jsfM;ks]
dksVk 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 57@2004½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@101@1989&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 8.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2004) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jaipur now
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of All India
Radio, Kota and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 18-12-2013.
[No. L-42012/101/1989-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 57/2004
Reference No. L-42012/101/1989-IR(DU) Dated:1.9.2004
Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Nagar
H.No. 594, Mahavir Nagar-II
Kota (Rajasthan)
V/s
The Assistant Station Director
All India Radio, Kota (Rajasthan)
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
13
Present:
For the applicant
:
Sh. R.C. Jain
For the non-applicant
:
Sh. T.P. Sharma
AWARD
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of All India
Radio, Kota in terminating the services of
Sh. Rameshwar Prasad Nagar w.e.f. 18.3.1989 is legal
& justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled?”
2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded
that he was employed by the non-applicant on 17.10.87 as
daily wages class IV employee. The non-applicant has
terminated his services on 17.3.1989 without assigning any
reason. It has further been pleaded that despite he had
worked continuously during period from 17.10.87 to 16.3.89
& had worked for more than 240 days during the said period,
his services have been terminated without any notice or
any notice pay or compensation in violation of Section 25-F
of the I.D.Act. It has been alleged that while terminating
the services of the workman no seniority list was prepared
& juniors to him were retained in the job in violation of
Section 25-G of the I.D.Act. It has also been alleged that
after terminating the services of the workman new hands
Sh.Mahendra & Sh. Balkishan were employed by the non-
applicant without any offer of re-employment to the
workman in violation of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act. Thus,
the workman has prayed for his reinstatement with back
wages & other consequential benefits.
3. Disputing the claim, the non applicant in his written
counter averred that non-applicant establishment is not an
'Industry' within the definition of 'Industry' u/s 2-J of the
I.D. Act. It has been denied that workman was employed as
daily wager class IV employees. The non-applicant has
further averred that workman was engaged only as casual
labour & as such he has worked for 195 days only during
17 months period from Oct, 87 to Feb, 89. Since, the
workman was engaged as casual worker for casual work
only, provisions of Section 25-F are not attracted.
4. Following points for determination were framed:—
I. Whether the workman was appointed as a 4th Class
employee by the non-applicant on 17.10.1987, who
continuously worked up to 16.3.89 and whose service
was terminated on 17.3.1989 in violation of the
provision under Section 25-F of the Act?
II. Whether at the time of terminating the service of the
workman, the junior employees to him were retained
by the management in violation of Section 25-G of
the Act and Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules,
1957?
III. Whether after the termination of the service of
workman the new appointments as pointed out at
para 7 of the claim statement were made by the
management in violation of Section 25-H of the Act
and Rule 78 of the Industial Disputes Rules, 1957?
IV. Whether the non-applicant establishment is not an
industry as defined under Section 2-J of the Act?
V. Relief, if any.
5. In evidence, the workman has submitted his
affidavit in support of his claim. In rebuttal, the non-
applicant has filed the counter affidavits of Sh. Ramkaran
Meena, Programme Executive & Sh. Nanu Ram Meena.
Documentary evidence has also been adduced by both
the sides.
6. It is pertinent to mention that a application was
filed by the workman on 29.4.05 at the stage of defence
evidence to call for documents such as dispatch register,
attendance register, payment vouchers, monthly statement
of wages of the relevant period from the non-applicant
which was rejected vide order dated 24.5.05. The said order
was challenged in S.B. civil W.P. No. 5179/2005. Hon'ble
High Court while allowing the said application vide order
dated 11.8.05, set aside the order dated 24.5.05 & directed
the non-applicant to produce all the documents which were
referred in the application. Upon perusal of the record it
appears that certain documents were produced by the non-
applicant on 14.10.05. Thereafter, an additional affidavit
was filed by the workman on 18.11.05 wherein it was stated
that the documents which were required by the workman
have not been produced. On 12.12.05, it was submitted on
behalf on the non-applicant that documents which were
available with the departments have been produced & an
affidavit of Sh. Ramkaran Meena was filed in support of
the reply. It further reveals that an application on behalf of
the workman was moved on 31.5.06 for taking documents
enclosed with the application on the record. Since, the
non-applicant did not object, the said documents were taken
on record vide order dated 11.11.10.
Point No. 1
7. To attract the provision of Section 25-F of I.D.Act
one of the conditions required is that the workman is
employed in any industry for a continuous period which
would not be less than one year.
8. The expression "continuous period" occur in
Section 25-F has been defined in Section 25-B of the I.D.Act.
Under sub-section (1) of the Section 25-B, if a workman
has put in uninterrupted service of establishment including
the service which may interrupted on account of sickness,
14
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
authorize leave, accident, a strike which is not illegal, a lock
out or secession of work that is not due to any fault on the
part of the workman shall be said to be continuous service
for one year i.e. 12 months in respect of number of days he
has actually worked with interrupted service permissible
under sub-section (1) of section 25-B.
9. Sub-Section 2 of section 25-B of the I.D. Act says
that even if a workman has not been in continuous service
for a period of one year as envisaged under sub-section (1)
of 25-B of I.D. Act, he shall be deemed to have been in such
continuous service for a period of one year if he has actually
worked under the employer for 240 days in preceding period
of twelve months from the date of his termination. The said
sub-section provides for a fiction to treat a workman in
continuous service for a period of one year despite the fact
that he has not rendered uninterrupted service for a period
of one year.
10. In the background of the legal provisions set
forth above, factual scenario in the present case is to be
examined.
11. The initial burden was on the workman to prove
that he had remained under the employment of the non-
applicant as a workman for a continuous period of at least
one year as evisaged u/s 25-F of the I.D.Act therefore, his
termination without notice or compensation in lieu of notice
was in violation of the said section.
12. The workman has stated in his affidavit that he
had worked with the non-applicant during period 17.10.87
to 16.3.89. He has further stated the due to accident in
June, 1998, he remained under treatment for a period of
about five months & had joined his duties on 1.11.88. The
workman has stated that including the said period of five
months he had worked for more than 240 days.
13. The management witness Sh. Ramkaran Meena
has stated that the workman was engaged as casual beldar
& he had never worked for 240 days with the non-applicant
& during period March, 87 to Feb, 99, the workman had
worked for 138 days only. The management witness
Sh. Nanuram Meena has stated that during period of 17
months the workman has worked for 195 days only.
14. As per version of the workman his services were
terminated by the non-applicant on 17.3.89, therefore,
burden was upon the workman to prove that he had worked
for at least 240 days during period of preceding 12 months
from the said date of termination. In this regard, the period
from 17.3.88 to 16.3.89 only is relevant.
15. As per pleadings in the reply & statements of the
management witnesses the actual working days of the
workman during relevant period of preceding 12 months
from the date of alleged termination i.e. 17.3.89 are as
below:—
Year
Working days as Working days
Working days as
reply of the non- as per statement per statement of
applicant
of MW1 Sh.
MW2 Sh. Nanuram
Ramkaran
March, 88
22
Nil
22
April, 88
24
Nil
24
May, 88
20
Nil
20
June, 88
Nil
24
Nil
July, 88
Nil
13
Nil
Aug, 88
Nil
Nil
Nil
Sep, 88
Nil
Nil
Nil
Oct, 88
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nov. 88
26
Nil
26
Dec, 88
4
Nil
4
Jan, 89
0
Nil
Nil
Feb, 89
0
14
Nil
Total
96
51
96
16. The Ld. Representative on behalf of the workman
contends that there is inconsistency as regards actual
working days stated by the management witnesses
Sh. Ramkaran Meena & Sh. Nanuram Meena. He further
contends that if working days shown by both the witnesses
are taken into account, it is established that the workman
had worked for more than 240 days.
17. The workman in his affidavit has deposed that
the had worked continuously during period 17.10.87 to
17.3.89 & in support of his statement he has produced
documents Ex-w-1 to w-29. Ex-w-1 is permit to enter
protected place for the period 17.10.87 to 31.12.87 & the
period has been extended up to 31.3.88. Ex-w-2 is a note
sheet of approval for appointment of daily wagers which
reveals that approval to engage the workman as security
guard during 16.5.88 to 31.5.88 was accorded. Ex-w-3, w-4
& w-5 are the wages statements of daily wagers which
reveals that during period 1.1.88 to 23.1.88, 1.3.88 to 31.3.88
& 1.4.88 to 30.4.88 the total working days of the workman
were 19,22,24 days respectively. Ex-w-6 to Ex-w-14 are
pertaining to wages & other expenditure for the period
Oct, 87 to Dec, 88. Thus, the only documents Ex-w-2, w-4,
w-5 & Ex-w-11 to Ex-w-14 are relevant for the period under
consideration i.e. 17.3.88 to 17.3.89. According to Ex--w-11,
w-12, w-13 & w-14 the actual working days of the workman
in the month of March 88, April 88, Nov. 88 & Dec. 88 were
19 days, 24 days, 26 days & 20 days respectively.
18. Documents Ex-w-15 to Ex-w-29 are photocopies
of the alleged attendance register for the period Sep., 87 to
March, 88. Except the document pertaining to March, 88
Ex-w-27 & 28, the other documents are not pertaining to
relevant period i.e. 17.3.88 to 16.3.89. As per copy of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
15
attendance register for the month of March, 88 the total
working days of the workman were 20 days only.
19. Thus, on the basis of above documents produced
by the workman it is not established that he had worked
uninterruptedly for one year as envisaged under section
25-B(1) of the I.D. Act or had worked for at least 240 days
during preceding 12 months from the date of alleged
termination.
20. The management has produced the copies of
muster rolls of casual labour engaged on daily wages which
reveals that above muster rolls are pertaining to period
1.11.88 to 29.2.88 only. Thus, these documents are also not
relevant for period under consideration i.e. 17.3.88 to 16.3.89.
21. Upon perusal of the documents pertaining to
payment of wages & other expenditures during period April,
87 to March, 89 produced by the management, it reveals
that during preceding 12 months from the date of termination
the actual working days of the workman in the months of
March, 88, April, 88, May 88, Nov. 88 & Dec. 88 were 22
days, 24 days, 25 days, 26 days & 20 days respectively.
According to above record, the workman did not work
during period June 88 to Oct. 88.
22. As per averments in reply to the claim statement
& statement of the management witness Sh. Nanuram,
MW2, actual working days of the workman in May, 88 &
Dec., 88 were 20 days & 4 days respectively whereas as per
documents brought on record by the management working
days in the above months were 25 days & 20 days
respectively. According to Sh. Nanuram, MW2 the
workman did not work during the month of June, 88 & July,
88 but as per the statement of Sh. Ramkaran MW1, the
working days of the workman were 24 days & 13 days
respectively.
23. The workman has deposed in para 3 of his affidavit
as under:—
;g gS fd eSaus fu;kstd ds ;gka ij fnukad 17-10-87 ls ysdj
fnukad 17-3-89 rd yxkrkj dke fd;k gS rFkk bl nkSjku
twu 1988 esa dk;Z ij vkrs le; esa nq?kZVukxzLr gksus ds dkj.k
yxHkx 5 ekg esjs bykt jgk vkSj iqu% 1-11-88 dks M~;wVh ij
mifLFkr gqvk ,oa bl izdkj bykt dh vof/k dks feykdj eSaus
fu;kstd ds ;gka 240 fnuksa ls dkQh vf/kd le; rd yxkrkj
dke dj fy;k gSA bl nq?kZVuk dh lwpuk eSaus esjs fu;kstd dks
izsf"kr dj nh FkhA
24. Thus, the workman has also admitted this fact
that he did not work during period June, 88 to Oct., 88. In
view of the admitted facts by the workman, the statement
of management witness Sh. Ramkaran MW1 regarding
working days in the month of June, 88 & July 88 seems to
be incorrect. Further, his statement does not find any
support from documents brought on record.
25. Admittedly, during period of preceding 12 months
from the alleged date of termination, the workman had not
worked for five months i.e. June, 88 to Oct., 88 & had worked
during remaining seven months only i.e. 17.3.88 to May, 88
& Nov., 88 to 16.3.89. Even if, it is presumed that he had
worked on all the days in above remaining seven months
on reckoning the total number of working days in above
period, they come to 211 days only. The contention of the
workman that the period of five months during which he
remained under treatment is to be included while reckoning
the total number of working days during period of
preceding 12 months from the date of termination is not
tenable. It is evident from the admitted facts by the workman
in his affidavit that he had not worked for at least 240 days
during relevant period of preceding 12 months from the
date of termination.
26. Apart that, even on taking into account all the
working days which have been shown in the documents
produced by both the sides & days stated by the
management witnesses for relevant period of preceding 12
monhs from the date of termination, it is not established
that workman had worked during relevant period for at
least 240 days.
27. Since, the workman has failed to establish that he
had worked for at least 240 days during preceding 12
months from the date of termination, provisions of section
25-F of the I.D. Act are not attracted, accordingly, this point
is decided against the workman.
Point No. II
28. The workman has stated in his claim statement
that at the time of termination his services juniors to him
were retained in the job but no such names has neither
been disclosed by him in his claim statement nor in his
affidavit. He has not produced any documentary evidence
in support of his statement in this regard, therefore, neither
he could be able to adduce the sufficient evidence on this
point to corroborate his testimony nor his own testimony
is definite on this point as such he has failed to discharge
to the onus of this point. which is decided against him.
Point No. III
29. The workman nowhere narrated in his claim
statement the names of the persons who were given
recruitment after termination of service of the workman.
However, in his affidavit at para 10, he has stated that after
his termination Sh. Mahendra & Sh. Balkishan were given
appointment by the non-applicant. Except his own
statement, nothing has been brought on record to
substantiate his statement in this regard. Further, there is
no suggestion in the cross examination of the management
witnesses in this regard. As such, there is no reliable
evidence on this point & in absence thereof, it is decided
against the workman.
16
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Point No. IV
30. In Award passed by this Tribunal, on 27.5.2011 in
I.D. Case No. 56/2004, the copy of which is on the record
the question under consideration was whether All India
Radio is an 'industry' or not. Relying on the decision
rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in All India Radio &
Santosh Kr. & others (civil appeal No. 2135/93 & 775-776/
1998) wherein Hon'ble Court has laid down that All India
Radio & Doordarshan are 'industry' within the meaning of
the said term as defined by the section 2-J of the I.D. Act,
the point under consideration has been decided against
the non-applicant Department. Accordingly, this point is
also decided against the non-applicant.
Point No. V
31. Since, the workman has failed to prove any
violation of the provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of
the I.D. Act by the non-applicant, he is not entitled to any
relief.
32. In the result, the reference is answered in negative
against the workman in view of the findings on point No. I
to III. Resultantly, the workman is not entitled for any relief.
The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
33. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 17 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 9-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fot; cSad 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
Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV ¼11@2008½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 17@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y& 12012@117@2007&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 17th December, 2013
S.O. 9.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2008) of the Cent.
Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the management of Vijay Bank and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 17/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/117/2007-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
4th October, 2013
PRESENT
:
Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 11/2008
I Party
II Party
Shri G.B. Shankar,
The Chairman,
C/o Nirmala Bai, Shahnager,
Vijaya Bank,
Limbewadi Free Colony, No. 1,
Head Office, No. 25,
Solapur
M.G. Road,
Maharashta
Bangalore-560 001
APPEARANCES:
I Party
:
Self
II Party
:
Shri B.C. Prabhakar, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/
117/2007-IR(B-II) dated 14.02.2008 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 action of management of Vijaya Bank,
Bangalore in removal from service in respect of
Shri G.B. Shankar is justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. Shri G.B. Shankar (hereinafter refered as I Party
workman) who was appointed as Peon in the II Party Bank
while serving at its Gangavathi Branch by Order dated
19.07.1999 suffered an order of punishment of Removal
from the Service of the Bank with Superannuation Benefits
as would be due otherwise at that stage and without
disqualification from future employment for unauthorisedly
remaining absent for a period of 24 days on two occasions
between 07.04.1997 and 04.06.1997 and from 29.06.1997
onwards after holding the Domestic Enquiry had raised
this dispute.
3. After receiving the claim statement by the I Party
and counter statement by the II Party having regard to
certain allegations made in the claim statement touching
the fairness of Domestic Enquiry while framing a Preliminary
Issue as to —
"Whether the Domestic Enquiry held against the
I Party by the II Party is fair and proper?"
and was posted for Evidence of II Party on the said
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
17
Preliminary Issue. On 17.03.2011 one Manjunath claims to
be the Son of I Party workman appeared and filed a Memo
to the effect that I Party workman being dead while
producing the copy of the death extract made a submission
that he would continue the proceedings and he was advised
to file an application to bring him on record with necessary
documents but later inspite of affording several
opportunities he never turned up and on 19.10.2011 the
counsel for the II Party filed an application the LRs of the
deceased workman who expired on 11.01.2011 inspite of
providing sufficient time since failed to come on record
and proceed in the matter it may be disposed off as Abated.
On that memo observing that CPC provisions cannot be
strictly made applicable to such dispute the II Party has to
substantiate the impugned action time was given to the
II Party to lead evidence. Then on 24.05.2012 the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party while filing the Memo
the proceedings sheets of the enquiry being misplaced
and could not be traced he would lead evidence on merits
to establish the charges taken time to lead the evidence on
merits and on 31.07.2012 while filing the affidavit of
Sh. Santhosh Sen, Branch Manager, Gangavathi Branch
examined him on oath as MW 1 and got exhibited Ex M-1 to
Ex M-25, thereafter, with an intention that the LRs of the
deceased workman may come and take action to come on
record his cross-examination was deferred but as nobody
turned up and came on record he came to be discharged.
4. Since it has come on record the I Party workman
expired on 11.01.2011 and his son Manjunath who once
appeared expressing his intention to proceed with the
matter later inspite of providing number of opportunities
did not come forward, I feel there is no need to go into the
merits of the charges of unauthorised absence levelled
against the deceased I Party workman and the reference has
to be rejected as Abated. In the result, I pass the following.
ORDER
The Reference is rejected as abated due to the death
of the I Party workman and failure of his LRs to come on
record and to proceed in the matter.
(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him, corrected
and signed by me on 4th October 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 10-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj flfMadsV 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 caxykSj
Je U;k;ky; ds iapkV ¼21@2009½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y& 12011@28@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 10.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2009)
of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/12/2013.
[No. L-12011/28/2009-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated
:
3rd October, 2013
Present:
Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 21/2009
I Party
II Party
Shri Namdev J Itapi,
The Chairman,
General Secretary, Dharwad
Syndicate Bank,
District Bank Employees
Head Office,
Association, No. 9, Corporation
Manipal
Building, Broadway,
Hubli-580020
APPEARANCES:
I Party
:
Shri M. Rama Rao, Advocate
II Party
:
Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12011/
28/2009-IR (B-II) dated 12.05.2009 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 action of the Syndicate Bank
Management in refusing to take into account the
temporary service of Shri Namdev J Itapi API,
Substaff for the purpose of calculation of Annual
Increments, Pension Benefits, Gratuity, etc. are
justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. Later by issuing corrigendum dated 24.06.2009 the
address against Sl. No. 2 and 3 which were reading as The
Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, HRM Section,
Circle Office, IMA Building, Baillapanavaranagar, Hubli-
580029 and The Assistant Secretary, Canara Bank Staff
18
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Union, Santhrupthi, Near Adarsha High School, Karmar,
Presenting Officer Padil, Mangalore-575007 respectively
have been corrected to read as the Chairman, Syndicate
Bank, Head Office, Manipal and Sri Namdev J Itapi, General
Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees Association,
No. 9, Corporation Building, Broadway, Hubli-580020.
3. After receipt of the reference while registering it in
C R 21/2009 when notices were issued to both the sides the
I Party entered his appearance through M Rama Rao, General
Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees Association
and the II Party management through Ramesh Upadhayay,
advocate.
4. The I Party who filed his claim statement on
20.05.2010 asserted that he joined the services of II Party in
1982 as Temporary Sub-staff and he who worked for
20 days in 1982, 24 days in 1983, 123 days in 1984, 55 days
in 1985, 141 days in 1986, 1 day in 1987, 24 days in 1988,
9 days in 1989, 78 days in 1990, 87 days in 1991, 1 day in
1992, 2 days in 1993, 306 days in 1998, 90 days in 1999, 100
days in 2000 totalling to 1061 days made permanent in the
service on 11.09.2001 and as per clause 20.8 of the BPS the
temporary services should have been taken into account
for part of his probationary period granting annual
increments etc. and that he learnt that 240 days working is
taken as one year service as such his temporary service
should have been taken as 4.42 years of service for the
purpose of calculation of annual increments, pension
benefits, gratuity etc. and as the same was not taken into
account for the purpose of calculation of annual increments,
pension benefits, gratuity etc. when he requested for the
payment of pension he was informed by K. Chandaragi,
Branch Manager through his letter dated 14.07.2008 he
having not completed 10 years of service is not entitle for
pension. He has further asserted that he since came to be
retired from services of the II Party Bank on 31.05.2008, if
his temporary service for 18 years taken into account he
has completed more than 10 years of continuous service,
therefore, he sent a representation to the II Party bank on
25.07.2008 requesting them to consider his temporary
service of 1061 days equivalent to 4.42 years of service for
the purpose of calculation of annual increments, pension
benefits and gratuity etc., and for releasing his arrears of
annual increments, arrears of pension, arrears of gratuity
etc., and as the II Party bank did not consider his
representation for a considerable time, he raised dispute
before ALC(C), Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
Hubli with a request to interfere and prevail on II Party
bank to consider his request for taking his temporary
service into consideration and as the II Party failed to settle
the dispute it resulted in this reference. With these
assertions he prayed to pass an award declaring the non-
consideration of his temporary service for the purpose of
calculation of Annual Increments, Pension Benefits,
Gratuity etc., is not fair, legal, null and void and to direct
the II Party to consider and account the temporary period
of service for the purpose of calculation of Annual
Increments, Pension Benefits, Gratuity, etc. with cost of
Rs. 15,000.00.
5. The II Party/management opposed the claim of the
I Party contending that I Party being the retired employee,
he is not covered under the definition of workman under
Section 2(s) of ID Act and there exists no relationship of
workman and employer the present reference cannot be
considered as dispute as defined under Section 2(k) of ID
Act. It is further contended as per Para 20.7 of BPS dated
19.10.1996 temporary employee means an employee who
has been appointed for a limited period for work which is
essentially of a temporary nature or who is employed
temporarily as an additional workman in connection with a
temporary increase in work of a permanent nature and
includes a workman other than a permanent workman who
is appointed in a temporary vacancy caused by the absence
of a particular permanent employee, and as per Para 20.8 of
the same Bi-partite Settlement a temporary employee may
also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy provided
that such temporary appointment shall not exceed a period
of three months during which the bank shall make
arrangement for filling up the vacancy permanently and
when such a temporary workman eventually selected for
filling up the vacancy the period of such temporary
employment be taken into account as a part of probationary
period and in the back drop of these paras in the Bi-partite
Settlement during the joint meeting held with the
representatives of Syndicate Bank Employees Union
(recognized majority Union) at Manipal on 14.05.2005 (vide
circular No. 097/2005/BC) and with reference to the union
request in the matter of providing certain service weightage
to the temporary employees absorbed already and who
had worked continuously in permanent vacancies before
regularisation it was informed/clarified that the annual
increment date of such temporary employees absorbed in
the regular vacancy is being fixd after reckoning the first
date of joining in a permanent vacancy and besides this
the continuous service rendered from the date of joining
as temporary employee against regular vacancy would be
reckoned for the purpose of eligibility for gratuity to such
of the employees superannuating or ceasing to be in service
henceforth. Thus it is contended though there was no
provision in the Bi-partite Settlement the bank as a gesture
extended the above benefit for temporary/continuous
service for regular/permanent vacancy only and
accordingly circular No 846/0089/PD:IRD(W)/F53/PAD-1/
F-195 dated 24.06.2005 was issued and based on the service
particulars of the 1 Party his date of increment was preponed
by two months i.e. 01.01.2006 from 01.03.2006 prospectively
and 615 days of his temporary service against regular
vacancy was reckoned for purpose of eligibility for gratuity
at the time of his superannuation. It is further contended
since1 Party had joined the bank as probationary attender
on 11.03.2002 and he was confirmed in the services of the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
19
bank on 11.09.2002 and retired on superannuation on
31.05.2008 his actual service in the bank worked out to six
years two months twenty days and while extending him
the benefit regarding the date of release of annual increment
by refixing his annual increment date to 01.01.2006 instead
of 01.03.2006 the difference amount was paid from 2006
onwards and by including the continuous service rendered
by him from the date of joining as temporary attender
against the regular vacancy 615 days was taken into
account for gratuity purpose and thus working out 8 years
of service for the purpose of gratuity an amount of
Rs. 31542.00 was paid to him. It is further contended the
minimum qualifying service for payment of pension under
its pension regulations is 10 years whereas his total service
including the temporary period of service rendered by him
against permanent vacancy is only 8 years he is not entitle
for pension. It is further contended he was initially engaged
temporarily on casual basis and not against any regular/
permanent vacancy and his temporary service was engaged
for the first time against a permanent/regular vacancy on
30.01.1991 which date has been taken into account for
reckoning the annual increment date. Thus, it is contended
that as per circular No. 846/0089/PD:IRD(W)/F53/PAD-1/
F-195 he was entitle for reckoning of 615 days of his
temporary service against regular/permanent vacancy for
purpose of eligibility of gratuity at the time of his
superannuation same has been provided to him as such he
is not entitle for any of the claim now put forward by him.
6. After completion of the pleadings by raising a
Preliminary issue as to whether there exists relationship of
employee and employer between I Party and II Party matter
and was posted for Evidence of I Party, the Authorised
Representative of the I Party on 27.01.2011 while filling the
affidavit of I Party examining him on oath as WW-1 got
exhibited Attendance Certificate for having worked with
the II Party dated 26.02.1988; Attendance Certificate for
the period 01.01.1988 to 31.12.1988 dated 19.01.1989; details
of I Party having worked in different branches; Bio-data of
the I Party dated 30.01.1991; Certificate issued by the
Branch manager, Satti Branch dated 21.07.2008 to the I Party;
Relieving Letter of the I Party dated 31.05.2008; letter
addressed by the Branch Manager of the II Party to the
I Party dated 14.07.2008; salary certificate of the I Party
dated 30.04.2003; copy of the letter addressed to the
Chairman, Syndicate Bank dated 25.07.2008 by the I Party
requesting for grant of pension and other benefits; copy
of the letter addressed to the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Hubli by the I Party dated 18.09.2008 for
intervention in setting the dispute; copy of the notice
issued by the ALC(C), Hubli to The Chairman and
Managing Director, Syndicate Bank, Manipal dated
17.10.2008; copy of the notice issued by the ALC(C), Hubli
to The Chairman and Managing Director, Syndicate Bank,
Manipal dated 10.11.2008; copy of the notice dated
10.11.2008 issued by the ALC(C), Hubli to the General
Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees Association,
Hubli; objection statement of the Syndicate Bank
addressed to ALC(C), Hubli dated 18.12.2008; Report of
concilliation of failure dated 09.01.2008 and unsigned letter
of the General Secretary of the I Party Union addressed to
the I Party dated 01.04.2010 authorising him to file claim
statement as Ex W-1 to Ex W-16 respectively and after his
cross-examination by the II Party counsel he examined Sh.
M Anantha Krishna as WW-2 who deposed that he is the
President of Dharwad District Bank Employees Association
since 2007 and that this dispute was raised by their
association and closed his side. Interalia, the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party examined Sh. K S Surya
Prakash, Chief Manager of the II Party bank as MW-1.
With the above evidence, the authorised representative of
the I Party and the learned advocate appearing for the II
Party filed their written arguments on the merits. When it
was noticed that the evidence was asked to be adduced
only on the Preliminary issue as to the relationship of
employee and employer between the I Party and the
II Party and same was brought to the notice of the
authorised representative of the I Party and the counsel
for the II Party, the learned counsel for the II Party when
made a submission that the Preliminary Issue may be
answered along with all the issues arisig for disposal of the
reference and he may be permitted to put few more
questions to I Party/WW 1 by way of cross-examination
and the authorised representative of the I Party submitting
that he has no objection for further cross-examination of
WW-1 the counsel for II Party further cross-examined
WW-1 and as the authorised representative of the I Party
and counsel for II Party submitted that they have no further
evidence and they having addressed arguments on merits
as well Preliminary Issue as well as the other issues arising
for disposal may be answered by way of Award.
7. On the pleadings, evidence adduced by both the
sides and the arguments put forward for both the sides the
points that arises for my consideration in disposal of this
reference are:
Point No. 1: Whether there existed relationship of
Employee and Employer between the I Party and the
II Party when this dispute was raised?
Point No. 2: If so, whether the reference schedule
constitutes an ID as defined under Section 2(k) of ID Act?
Point No. 3: If so, whether I Party is entitle to take
into account the temporary service he rendered for the
purpose of calculation of annual increments, pension
benefits, gratuity etc.?
Point No. 4: What Order?
8. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides
in the light of the arguments put forward my finding on
points No. 1 to 3 are in the Negative No. 4 as per final order
for the following:
20
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
9. Point No. 1: The first and foremost contention of
the II Party/Management is that the I Party who retired on
superannuation on 31.05.2008 having raised this dispute
thereafter he is not covered under the definition of workman
covered under Section 2(s) of ID Act as there existed no
relationship of workman and employer between them the
present reference cannot be considered as ID as defined
under Section 2 (k) of ID Act. There is no dispute the I
Party who intermittently served as temporary sub-staff
between 1982-2000 was absorbed in the service of the II
Party bank as probationary attender on 11.03.2002 and was
confirmed in the services on 11.09.2002 and retired on
superannuation on 31.05.2008 and thereafter he raised this
dispute. This dispute came to be raised after the I Party
retired on superannuation is unequivocally admitted by
him in his cross-examination. Therefore, the point now I
have to consider is whether there existed the relationship
of Employee and Employer between the I Party workman
and the II Party management after his retirement on
31.05.2008. As far as this contention is concerned the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party in support of this
contention relied upon the decisions reported in (2003) 5
Supreme Court Cases 163 A K Bindal and Another Vs. Union
of India & others; 2006 LLR SC 335 CEAT LTD., Vs. Anand
Abasaheb Hawaldar & others; 1999 II LLJ Page 851 Kerala
High Court (DB) Everestee Vs. District Labour Court whereas
the authorised representative of the I Party failed to give
any appropriate reply to this contention and the decisions
relied upon. In the first decision relied upon by the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party reported in (2003) 5
SSC 163 it is held that once employee opt to retire under
VRS and accept the benefits there under their rights as
employee comes to an end and there after they cannot
against assert their rights and re-agitate their claim for pay
revision for preretirement period nor they can contend that
they opt for VRS under compulsion. Again in the second
decision relied upon by him reported in 2006 LLR SC 335 it
is held under clause V of the Section 3 of the Act the
expression "employee" only covers those who are workman
under clause (s) of the section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act
which relates to those who are existing employees. Again
in the last decision relied upon by him reported in 1999 II
LLJ Page 851 it is held an employee who tendered
resignation pursuant to VRS and same came to be accepted
by the management he cannot be treated as a workman
under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and that it
includes only persons who are presently employed or who
have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched from the
employers. In the present case the I Party workman being
not dismissed, discharged or retrenched from the service
his claim after superannuation being that he was entitle to
take into account his temporary service put in prior to
absorbing him as permanent employee for the purpose of
Annual Increments, Pension Benefits, Gratuity he cannot
be as on the date of raising the dispute can be treated as
workman or there existed relationship of employee and
employer between himself and the II Party/management as
defined under Section 2(s) of ID Act. Accordingly, I have
arrived at conclusion of answering this point in the
Negative.
10. Point No. 2: Infact in view of my finding on Point
No. 1 this point does not survive for consideration at all.
However, assuming for the sake of argument the point
No. 1 is answered in the Affirmative let me now proceed to
consider this aspect of the contention urged by learned
advocate appearing for the II Party. No doubt in the counter
statement filed by the II Party as urged by Authorised
Representative of I Party there is no specific contention
the present dispute individually raised by its former
workman is not an Industrial Dispute as defined under
Section 2(k) of ID Act but this contention being a question
of law on the admitted facts this has to be considered. As
defined under Section 2(k) of the ID Act any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or the conditions
of the labour of any person is an Industrial Dispute. To
enable an individual former workman under Section 2(A)
of the ID Act a provision is made where any employer
discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates
the services of individual workman any dispute or
difference between that workman and employer connected
with or arriving out of such discharge, dismissal or
retrenchment to be treated as Industrial Dispute not-
withstanding that no other workman nor any union of
workman is a Party to the dispute. Thus, it is clear the
purport behind enacting section 2(A) is to cover those
cases in which the dispute of an individual workman
relating to discharge, dismissal, termination from service
has not been sponsored by any other workman or any
union. Since the language as used under Section 2(A) very
clearly states that in order to make a dispute an Industrial
Dispute that must be sponsored by substantial number of
workman except in cases of discharge, retrenchment and
termination of workman which is by itself an Industrial
Dispute. Though the I Party categorically stated in his
claim statement that when II Party bank did not respond to
his representation dated 25.07.2008 for a considerable
period of time he only raised a dispute before the ALC(C),
Hubli with a request to intervene in the dispute and prevail
on the II Party Bank Management by examining Sh. Anantha
Krishna as WW-2 who claims to be the President of
Dharwad District Bank Employees Association since 2007
an attempt was made to show that the present dispute was
raised by the Dharwad District Bank Employees Association
for which there is no record to substantiate. The Authorised
Representative of the I Party while referring to the notices
issued by the ALC(C), Hubli dated 17.10.2008, 10.11.2008
urged that copy of these notices being marked to him
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
21
(Sh. M. Rama Rao) as General Secretary, Dharwad District
Bank Employees Association, No. 9, Corporation Building,
Broadway, Hubli urged that if the dispute was not
sponsored by the Dharwad District Bank Employees
Association the copy of these notices would not have
been marked to him and thereby tried to make believe that
this dispute was raised by Dharwad District Bank
Employees Association. But his argument falls to the
ground on the very mentioning of subject in these letters
as "Dispute raised by Sh. Namdev J. Itapi against the
management of Syndicate Bank” that the dispute was
individually raised by Sh. Namdev J. Itapi and Sh. M. Rama
Rao, General Secretary, Dharwad District Bank Employees
Association must have represented him as Authorised
Representative as he has done in the present reference.
Therefore, I am of the considered view that the present
dispute raised by the former workman of the II Party bank
after his superannuation in his individual capacity not
relating to dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or termination
cannot be an Industrial Dispute as defined under
Section2(k) of ID Act. Accordingly, I have arrived at
conclusion of answering this point in the Negative.
11. Point No. 3: Infact, in view of my finding on Point
No. 1 and 2 this point does not survive for consideration.
However assuming for a moment the Point No. 1 and 2
have been answered in the Affirmative let me now proceed
to consider this aspect relating to the claim of the I Party.
Of course, there is no much dispute the I Party having
worked or the II Party for 20 days in 1982, 24 days in 1983,
123 days in 1984, 55 days in 1985, 141 days in 1986, 1 day in
1987, 24 days in 1988 , 9 days in 1989, 78 days in 1990, 87
days in 1991, 1 day in 1992, 2 days in 1993, 306 days in 1998,
90 days in 1999, 100 days in 2000 totalling to 1061 days
before he was absorbed in permanent service as
probationary attender on 11.03.2002 and being confirmed
on 11.09.2002 but it is the specific case of the II Party that
as per Para 20.8 of the Bi-partite Settlement a Temporary
Employee may also be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy
provided that such temporary employment shall not exceed
a period of three months during which the bank shall make
arrangement for filling up the vacancy and if such a
temporary workman is selected for filling up the vacancy
the period of such temporary employment will be taken
into account as a part of probationary period and then on
the request of the recognized majority union i.e., Syndicate
Bank Employees Union in the matter of providing certain
service weightage to the temporary employees absorbed
already and who had worked continously in permanent
vacancies before regularisation it was agreed that "the
annual increment date of such temporary employees
absorbed in regular vacancy is being fixed after reckoning
the first date of joining in a permanent vacancy; And
besides this, the continuous service rendered from the date
of their joining as temporary employee against a regular
vacancy would be reckoned for the purpose of eligibility
for gratuity; it was further informed that this (the above)
will be applicable to such of them superannuating or
ceasing to be in service henceforth" by issuing circular
No. 846/0089/PD:IRD(W)/F. 53/PAD-1/F-195 dated
24.06.2005 and as the temporary service of the I Party against
the regular vacancy was only from 30.01.1991 onwards for
a period of 615 days for the purpose of payment of gratuity
after his superannuation the same was reckoned and added
to his actual service of six years two months and twenty
days to make him eligible for gratuity for a period of eight
years and accordingly he has been paid gratuity amount
for a period of eight years amount to Rs. 31542.00. This
contention taken in the counter statement is not denied by
filling rejoinder by the I Party or he being paid gratuity
calculating service of eight years amounting to Rs. 31542.00
is also not denied in the evidence given by him thereby
this contention of the II Party that they have added his
temporary service against the regular vacancy calculated
@ 615 days is taken into consideration by adding it to his
actual service and accordingly he has been paid gratuity
cannot be disbelieved. Under clause 20.8 of the Bi-partite
Settlement on which the heavy reliance is placed by the
Authorised Representative of the I Party to substantiate
his claim only speaks that a temporary workman who is
appointed to fill a permanent vacancy and if such a
temporary workman is eventually selected for filling up the
vacancy the period of such temporary employment be taken
into account as part of his probationary period but do not
support his claim that the temporary period of service has
to be treated as period of regular service which is the actual
claim i.e. tried to be made out in this reference. The I Party
workman in his cross-examination while admitting the
suggestion that the management has given what all he was
entitle to volunteers and states that he request to provide
him pension thereby his claim is to take all the 1061 days of
his temporary service into consideration and to add it to
his actual service of six years two months and twenty days
and to make it more than 10 years to qualify him for pension
which is the required period. Since as already discussed
by me above there is no scope under clause 20.8 of Bi-
partite Settlement for the same and his temporary service
against the regular vacancy of 615 days being added to his
actual service for the purpose of computing the gratuity
his claim for annual increment, pension benefits is not
justified as such the action of the Syndicate Bank refusing
his representation to take into account his Annual
Increments and Pension Benefit is justified. Accordingly, I
have arrived at conclusion of answering this point in the
nagative.
12. Point No. 4: In view of my finding on Point Nos.
1 to 3 the reference is liable for rejection and I Party is not
entitle for any relief. In the result, I pass the following.
ORDER
The Reference is rejected holding that the action of
22
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the management of Syndicate Bank in refusing to take into
account the temporary service of Shri Namdev J. Itapi, Sub-
staff for the purpose of calculation of Annual Increments,
Pension Benefits, Gratuity, etc. is justified and that I Party
is not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him corrected and signed
by me on 3rd October 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 11-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k&190@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
17&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y& 42011@108@2012&vkbZvkj¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 11.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Goverment hereby
publishes the Award (Ref. No. 190/2012) of the Cent. Govt.
Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi as
shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/
12/2013.
[No. L-42011/108/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. No. 190/2012
Sh. Satender Kumar
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh,
Through Delhi Udyan Karamchari Union,
B-5, Ram Gali, North Ghonda,
Delhi-110053
...........Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi-110006.
...........Management
AWARD
One Shri Jai Pal Singh, S/o Shri Mahender Singh was
appointed as Mali by Delhi Development Authority on
28.12.1979. His services were transferred to Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (in short the Corporation) on
06.04.1993. He was posted in Horticulture Department,
Shahdara North Zone, Delhi. He breathed his last on
27.12.2007. Gratuity and pensionery benefits were granted
to Smt. Chando Devi, mother of the deceased. Since
Shri Jai Pal had nominated Smt. Kamlesh, his sister in law,
for benefits such as leave encashment. DLI, GPF and GIS,
hence those benefits were released in favour of the nominee.
Shri Satender Kumar son of Shri Har Pal Singh, younger
brother of the deceased, moved an application seeking
compassionate appointment with the Corporation. His
demand was not conceded to. He approached the Delhi
Udyan Karamchari Sangharsh Union (Regd.) (in short the
union) for redressal of his grievance. The Union raised a
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the
Corporation contested the claim, hence conciliation
proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of failure
report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the dispute
was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the
appropriate Government, vide order No. L-42011/108/2012-
IR(DU), New Delhi dated 07.12.2012, with following terms:
"Whether the workman Shri Satender Singh, S/o
Shri Har Pal Singh is entitled to employment on
compassionate grounds with Municipal Corporation
of Delhi and if so, what relief is he entitled to?"
2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Satender
Singh, pleading therein that Shri Jai Pal Singh was serving
on the post of mali in Horticulture Department of the
Corporation since 28.12.1979. He was suffering from cancer.
He met his death on 27.12.2007. Shri Jai Pal Singh was
unmarried. He nominated Ms. Kamlesh Devi, Devender
and Shri Ravinder for his provident and other benefits. As
such, Smt. Kamlesh Devi received all benefits after death
of Shri Jai Pal Singh.
3. He applied for appointment on compassionate
grounds, which application was not conceded to by the
Corporation. Action of the Corporation amounts to
violation of provision of Articles 14, 16 and 29 of the
Constitution of India. The Corporation has not formed any
policy for compassionate appointment. Non appointment
of the claimant on compassionate grounds amounts to sheer
exploitation of labour. He claims that the Corporation may
be commanded to appoint him in its services on
compassionate grounds.
4. Claim was demurred by the Corporation pleading
therein that the claimant is not covered within the definition
of 'dependent family member'and as such, is not entitled to
compassionate appointment. Appointment on
compassionate grounds is given to one of the family
members of the deceased on whom the family was
dependent for their subtenance. Since the claimant was
not a dependent family member of the deceased Jai Pal
Singh, he has no claim for compassionate appointment.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
23
5. Smt. Chando Devi, being the only legal heir of the
deceased Shri Jai Pal Singh, was granted gratuity and
pensionery benefits. For other benefits, such as leave
encashment, GPF and GIS etc. Shri Jai Pal Singh had
nominated Ms. Kamlesh Devi, his sister in law. Therefore,
other benefits were released in favour of Smt. Kamlesh
Devi. Claimant had projected wrong claim since he was not
dependent on the deceased Shri Jai Pal Singh. His claim is
liable to be dismissed, pleads the Corporation.
6. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were
settled:
(1) Whether the claimant was one of the dependent
family members of the deceased, Shri Jai Pal Singh?
(2) As in terms of reference.
7. Shri Satender Kumar has examined himself in
support of his claim. He opted not to examine any other
witness. Corporation also opted not to examine any witness
in support of its defence.
8. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.M. Sharma,
authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf
of the claimant. Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized
representative presented facts on behalf of the Corporation.
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. 1
9. Out of facts pleaded by the parties and those
deposed by Shri Satender in his testimony, it emerged that
Shri Jai Pal Singh was serving on the post of mali in
Horticulture Department at Shahdara North Zone of the
Corporation. Shri Jai Pal Singh died on 27.12.2007. At the
time of his death, Shri Jai Pal Singh was survived by his
mother, namely Smt. Chando Devi. It has emerged over the
record that Shri Jai Pal Singh, being unmarried, was not
survived by a spouse or any children. Resultantly it is an
established fact that at the time of his death, Shri Jai Pal
Singh was survived by his old aged mother.
10. Shri Satender deposed that Smt. Kamlesh Devi,
his mother, was the nominee of Shri Jai Pal Singh. In his
testimony, he presents that benefits such as for leave
encashment, GPF and GIS were released by the Corporation
in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Devi. Facts in this regard are not
disputed by the Corporation. It was pleaded in the written
statement that benefits towards GPF, leave enchashment,
GIS etc. were released in favour of Smt. Kamlesh Devi, who
was nominated as such by the deceased, Shri Jai Pal Singh.
However, gratuity and pensionery benefits were granted
in favour of Smt. Chando Devi, mother of deceased,
Shri Jai Pal Singh. It has not been disputed by the
Corporation that certain benefits were released in favour
Smt. Kamlesh Devi, being nominee of the deceased.
11. Shri Gupta argued that Corporation had adopted
scheme for compassionate appointment, formulated by
Government of India, Shri Sharma could not dispel these
facts. Therefore, it would in the fitness of things to consider
provisions of scheme of compassionate appointment,
formulated by the Government of India. Scheme of
compassionate appointment applies to dependent family
member—
(A) of a Government servant who—
(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide), or
(b) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the
CCS (Medical Examination) Rules, 1957, or
(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, or
(B) of a member of the Armed Forces who—
(i) dies during service; or
(ii) is killed in action; or
(iii) is medically boarded out and is unfit for civil
employment
12. Government servant for the purpose of the scheme
means, a Government servant appointed on rugular basis
and not one working on daily wage or casual or apprentice
or ad hoc or contract or re-employment basis. Dependent
family members have been defined under the scheme, which
category of persons are detailed below:
" Dependent family members has been advised to
mean:
(a) supouse; or
(b) son (including adopted son); or
(c) daughter (including adopted daughter); or
(d) brother or sister in the case of unmarried Government
servant or member of the Armed Forces referred above,
who was wholly dependent on the Government
servant/member of the Armed Forces at the time of
his death in harness or retirement on medical
grounds, as the case may be".
13. Question for consideration would be as to
whether claimant, who happens to be son of Shri Har Pal
Singh, Younger brother of Shri Jai Pal Singh, would fall
within the above category of persons, defined as dependent
family members. Answers lies in negative. It is not the case
of the claimant that he was an adopted son of the deceased.
In his testimony, claimant made a candid admission that he
does not fall within the definition of dependent family
member of the deceased. Therefore, it is crystal clear that
as per his own admission, claimant is not a dependent
family member of the deceased, Shri Jai Pal Singh
Resultantly, issue is answered in favour of the Corporation
and against the claimant.
24
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Issue No. 2
14. For an answer to the issues referred by the
appropriate Government in the reference order, it would be
expedient to take not of the other provisions of the scheme
of compassionate appointment. Those provisions of the
scheme contemplate that compassionate appointment can
be made to Group 'C' or Group 'D' posts against direct
recruitment quota. For consideration of application for
compassionate appointment family of the Government
servant who died in harness or retired on medical grounds
should be indigent and deserves immediate assistance for
relief from financial destitution and applicant for
compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable
for the post in all respects. Compassionate appointments
are exempted from observance of:
(a) Recruitment procedure
(b) Clearance from the Surplus Cell of the Department of
Personnel and Training/Directorate of Employment
and Training
(c) The ban orders on filling of posts issued by the
Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure).
15. Upper age-limit could be relaxed wherever found
to be necessary. The lower age-limit should, however, in
no case be relaxed below 18 years of age. Age eligibility is
to be determined with reference to the date of application
and not the date of appointment. Secretary to the Ministry/
Department concerned is competent to relax temporarily
educational qualifications as prescribed in the relevant
recruitment rules. In case of appointment at the lowest
level, that is Group 'D' or LDC post, in exceptional
circumstances where the condition of the family is very
hard, such relaxation will be permitted up to a period of
2 years beyond which no relaxation of educational
qualification will be admissible and services of the persons
concerned, if still unqualified are liable to be terminated.
Where widow is appointed on compassionate ground to a
Group 'D' post, she will be exempted from the requirement
of possessing the educational qualification prescribed in
the relevant rules, provided the duites of the post can be
satisfactorily performed by her without possessing such
educational qualifications.
16. Appointment on compassionate grounds should
be made only on regular basis and that too only, if regular
vacancies meant for that purpose are available. Such
appointments can be made upto 5% of the vacancies falling
under direct recruitment quota in any Group 'C' or 'D" posts.
Ceiling of 5% for making compassionate appointment
against regular vacancies should not be circumvented by
making appointment of dependent family members of
Government servant on casual, daily wage, ad hoc, contract
basis against regular vacancies. There is no bar in
considering him for such appointment if he is eligible as
per the normal rules/orders governing such appointments.
17. Application for compassionate appointment can
be considered, if it is made belatedly, say moved after
5 years of the death of the Government servant or so. While
considering such belated requests, it should however, be
kept in view that concept of compassionate appointment
is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to
the family of the Government servant in order to relive it
from economic distress. The very fact that the family has
been able to manage somehow all these years should
normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had
some dependable means of subsistence. So such belated
requests call for a great deal of circumspection. Request
for compassionate appointment is belated or not may be
decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on
medical grounds of Government servant and not the age of
the applicant at the time consideration.
18. The person appointed on compassionate grounds
under the scheme should give an undertaking in writing
that he/she will maintain properly other family members
who were dependent on the Government servant and in
case it is provide subsequently that the family members
are being neglected or are not being maintained properly,
his appointment may be terminated forthwith. While
considering request for appointment on compassionate
grounds, balanced and objective assessment of financial
condition of the family is to be made taking into account its
assets and liabilities (including benefits received under
various welfare schemes) and all other relevant factors,
such as, presence of an earning members, size of the family,
age of the children and the essential needs of the family.
The whole object of granting compassionate appointment
is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crises and to
relive the family from financial destitution and to help it get
over the emergency.
19. The Apex Court in G. Anantha Rajeshwara Rao
[1994 (1) SCC 192] had considered the scheme of
compassionate appointments formulated by the
Government of India and ruled that appointment on
grounds of descent clearly violates article 16(2) of the
Constitution, but if the appointment is confined to the son
or daughter or widow of the Government servant who die
in harness, who need immediate appointment on the ground
of immediate need of assistance in the event of there being
no other earning member in the family to supplement the
loss of economies from the bread winner to relieve to distress
of the members of the family, it is unexceptionable. Again
in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [JT 1994 (3) SC 5325] the Apex
Court considered the scheme and laid down following
principles in that regards:
(1) Only dependents of an employee dying in harness,
leaving his family in penury and without any source
of livelihood can be appointed on compassionate
grounds.
(2) The posts in group "C" and "D" are the lowest posts
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
25
in non managerial and managerial categories and
hence those posts alone can be offered on
compassionate grounds.
(3) The whole object of granting compassionate
appointments is to enable the family to tide over the
crisis and to relieve the family of the deceased from
destitution and to help it get over the emergency.
(4) Offering compassionate appointments as a matter of
course, irrespective of financial condition of the
family of the deceased or medically retired
government servant, is legally impermissible.
(5) Neither the qualification of the applicant (dependent
family member) nor the poast held by the deceased
or medically retired government servant is relevant.
If the applicant finds it below his dignity to accept
the post offered, he is free not to accept it. The post
is not to be offered to cater his status but to see
family through the economic calamity.
(6) Compassionate appointment cannot be granted after
lapse of a reasonable period and it is not a vested
right which can be exercised at any time in the future,
and
(7) Compassionate appointment cannot be offered by
an individual functionary or on ad hoc basis.
20. In Asha Ram Chander Ambedker and others
[Jt 1994 (2) SC 183] the Apex Court ruled that the High
Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give directions
for appointment of a person on compassionate ground but
can merely direct consideration of the claim for such
appointment. In Dinesh Kumar [JT 1996 (5) SC 319] and
Smt. A Radhika Therumalai [Jt 1996 (9) SC 197] it was
announced that appointment on compassionate ground
can be made only if a vacancy is available for that purpose.
In Rami Devi and others [Jt 1996 (6) SC 646] it was ruled
that if the scheme relating to appointment on compassionate
ground is accepted to all sort of casual, ad hoc employees,
including those who are working as apprentice, then the
scheme cannot be justified on constitutional grounds.
21. Now, factual matrix of the countroversy is to be
considered. As concluded above, claimant is not a
dependent family member of deceased, Shri Jai Pal Singh.
Therefore, he is not entitled to relief of appointment on
compassionate grounds on that count only. Even otherwise,
claimant had not been able to forge a case that owing to
the death of Shri Jai Pal Singh, his survivors were in severe
economic distress. The very fact that the family of Shri Har
Pal Singh, of which the claimant happens to be a member,
has been able to maintain its affairs, well, make his claim
unacceptable. No evidence was brought over the record to
project that due to death of Shri Jai Pal Singh, state of
penury was faced by his survivor. No case could be
projected to show that compassionate appointment of
Shri Satender Singh was essential to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis and relieve it from financial
destitution to get over the emergency. Thus, on other
standards too, as projected above, claimant had not been
able to show a case in his favour. Consequently, it is
announced that Shri Satender Singh is not at all entitled
for appointment on compassionate grounds with the
Corporation. His claim is laible to be dismissed. Dismissing
the claim, an award is passed in favour of the Corporation
and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate
Government for publication.
Dated : 26-8-2013
R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 12—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izsflMsaV] Hkkjrh;
etnwj la?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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] pw:] jktLFkku ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
50@2005 dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@1@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 12.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 50/2005) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of The
President, Bhartiya Mazoor Sangh, Churu, Rajasthan and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/12/13.
[No. L-40012/1/2005-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 50/2005
Reference No. L-40012/1/2005-IR(DU)
The President
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh
B-72, Sector-I, Sainik Colony,
Churu Distt. (Raj.)
V/s.
26
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
1. The General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Churu Distt. (Raj.).
2. The Junior Telecom Officer
BSNL, Electrical Sub-Division,
Churu Distt. (Raj.)-331001.
PRESENT
For the applicant Union:
Sh. R.C. Jain.
For the non-applicants:
Sh. B.L. Ahir.
AWARD
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Churu in terminating the services
of claimant Shri Kanta Prasad Sharma, Generator
Operator w.e.f. 26.2.2002 is legal & justified? If not,
what relief the claimant is entitled to and from which
date?"
2. The union in its statement of claim has contended
that the workman Sh. Kanta Prasad was employed by an
oral order as a generator operator in the branch of
non-applicant establishment at Sahava, Distt. Churu by
the J.E.O. Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal. The workman had
worked there from 15.4.2001 to 26.2.2002. The workman
used for bring diesel from Shiv Filling Station & in the
receipts his name was also mentioned. It has further been
contended that despite the workman had worked for 240
days in a calender year, his services were terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act on 26.2.2002 without
any notice, notice pay or compensation. It has been alleged
that no seniority list was prepared & while terminating
services of the workman, juniors to him were retained in
the job in violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act. It has
also been alleged that in violation of Section 25-H of the
I.D. Act., new hands were given recruitment without any
offer of re-employment to the workman. Thus, the union
has prayed for setting aside the termination order dated
26.2.2002 & reinstatement of the workman with back wages
& other consequential benefits.
3. In reply, the claim of the union has been denied.
The non-applicant has submitted that contract for
operation & maintenance of the generator was given to
M/s Devendra Construction Co., Bikaner. The workman
was not employed by the non-applicant; therefore, the
claim of the union is not maintainable. It has been denied
that workman was employed by Sh. Suresh, JEO & before
employment any training was imparted to the workman.
The non-applicant has also denied that payment of the
salary to the workman was being made by the
non-applicant. It has been submitted that merely on the
basis of bills of the petrol pump, it cannot be said that
workman was an employee of the non-applicant
establishment.
4. In rejoinder, it has been denied that workman was
an employee of the M/s Devendra Construction Company.
5. In evidence, the union has filed the affidavit of
workman Sh. Kanta Prasad. In rebuttal, the non-applicant
has filed the counter affidavits of Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal,
Sub-Divisional Eng. (Electric), Sh. Devendra Lohia, Partner
M/s. Devendra Construction Company.
6. It is pertinent to mention that an application was
submitted on behalf of the union on 28.9.2005 to call for
certain documents i.e. seniority list, log book & payment
receipts. The said application was partially allowed & vide
order dated 7.3.2006 the non-applicant were called to
produce those receipts of the relevant period whereupon
the signature of the workman were stated to have been
affixed. In pursuance of the said order bills pertaining to
diesel purchased from Shiv Filling Station Ex-M-2 to M-21
were produced along with photocopies of other documents
pertaining to agreement with contractor M/s. Devendra
Construction Company.
7. Vide order dated 7.4.2011, document Ex-M-1 of the
non-applicant was taken on record at the stage of
non-applicant's evidence & applicant was provided an
opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal of the said
document & in pursuance thereof, an additional affidavit
of the workman was filed on 21.7.2011.
8. Following points for determination were framed
on 6.9.2005:—
(i) Whether the workman was employed as a Generator
Operator on 15.4.2001 at Sahewa Exchange, Distt.
Churu by a verbal order of non-applicant No. 2, who
had completed 240 days of continuous work with
the non-applicant establishment and whose service
was terminated in violation of Section 25-F of the
Act?
(ii) Whether at the time of terminating the service of the
workman, the junior persons to him were retained by
the non-applicants in violation of Section 25-G of
the Act?
(iii) Whether subsequent to the termination of workman's
service, the new appointments were made by the
non-applicants in violation of Section 25-H of the
Act & Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central)
Rules, 1957?
(iv). Relief, if any.
Point No. I
9. The workman has stated in his affidavit that he
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
27
was employed by Sh. Suresh Kumar, JEO by oral order as
generator operator at Sahewa Exchange of the non-applicant
on 25.4.2001. He has also stated that prior to appointment
training was imparted to him on 13th & 14th of April, 2004
by Junior Eng. (Electronics). He has also stated that register
& log book were provided to him for work report & the
same were being verified by the senior officers. He has
further stated that he had continuously worked as generator
operator from 15.4.2001 to 26.2.2002 & had worked for more
than 240 days during a calender year. He was being paid
Rs. 2500/- per months as salary after obtaining his signature.
He has also stated that he used to bring diesel from the
Shiv Filling Station & bills Ex-W-1 to W-21 which have
been produced by the non-applicant bear his signature &
above bills have been verified by Sh. Suresh Kumar. He
has alleged that his services were terminated on 26.2.2002
without any notice, notice pay or compensation.
10. The workman in his additional affidavit dated
21.7.2011 has denied the alleged signatures on receipt
Ex-M-1. He has also denied that endoresement C to D was
made by him & amount shown in the receipt was received
from M/s Devendra Construction Company. In cross
examination he has said that his signatures on Ex-M-2 &
other receipts are dissimilar to disputed signature A to B
on Ex-M-1.
11. Countering above statement of the workman, the
management witness Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal, Sub-
Divisional Eng. (Electric) has stated that the work of
maintenance & operation of the generator was being done
through contractor. He has denied that Sh. Kanta Prasad
was appointed by him as generator operator. He has also
denied that any training was imparted to the workman by
him. He has stated that post of generator operator never
existed in the non-applicant establishment & the workman
had not worked as generator operator under the
employment of non-applicant.
12. The management witness Sh. Suresh Singhal has
stated in cross-examination that two persons were
deployed by the construction company, one of them was
Sh. Kanta Prasad & he was operating generator during
period from 15.4.2001 to 26.2.2002. He has also stated that
the payment of the bills Ex-W-1 to W-21 was made by the
department & the above bills bear signature of the workman.
13. From the evidence of the management it is evident
that the version of the workman has been admitted by the
non-applicant to this extent only that he was operating the
generator of the non-applicant during period 15.4.2001 to
26.2.2002 & bills of diesel of Shiv Filling Station Ex-W-1 to
W-21 which are in favour of JEO bear signature of the
workman.
14. Thus, the question survives for consideration is
whether the workman was working as an employee of the
non-applicant Department & employer employee relations
existed between the workman & the non-applicant.
15. The Id. Representative on behalf of the workman
contends that workman was appointed as generator
operator by sh. Suresh Singhal & he was not operating the
generator on behalf of the M/s. Devendra Construction
Company. Had he been the employee of the construction
company, the bills of Shiv Filling Station should have been
in the name of the construction company or in the name of
the workman. He further contends that the workman has
denied his alleged signature on receipt Ex-M-1 & the
admitted signatures of the workman differ from the disputed
signature of the workman on Ex-M-1. He also contends
that it is not believable that an amount of Rs. 25000/- for
the period from 15.4.2001 to 15.2.2002 was paid to the
workman at a time by the said receipt. It is evident from the
receipt itself that the same is not genuine & such receipt
cannot be relied upon.
16. Per contra, the Id. Representative on behalf of
the non-applicant submits that no post of generator
operator ever existed. The workman was never employed
by the non-applicant as generator operator. Sh. Suresh
Singhal has denied that the workman was employed by
him as generator operator. He further submits that the non-
applicant establishment is an Government establishment
& no appointment can be made without following due
procedure. He also submits that signature of the workman
on receipt Ex-M-1 resembles with the admitted signature of
the workman on Ex-M-2. From the oral & documentary
evidence produced by the non-applicant it is establishment
that the workman was operating the generator as an
employee of the Construction Company & employer
employee relation never existed between the workman &
the non-applicant.
17. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the
above rival submissions.
18. The workman has stated that he was appointed
by the non-applicant & has asserted the employer employee
relationship. The non-applicant has denied such
relationship; therefore, it is for the workman & not for the
non-applicant to prove the fact by adducing evidence.
19. The workman in his claim statement has not
alleged that the contract entered into by & between the
management & the contractor M/s. Devendra Construction
Company being sham & bogus & he was direct employee
of the management. He has taken a definite stand that he
was appointed as generator operator by JEO Sh. Suresh
Singhal.
20. Thus, burden was upon the workman to establish
that he was in fact employed by the non-applicant.
21. The workman has stated that he was orally
employed by Sh. Suresh Singhal, JEO as generator operator.
The workman has also stated that after interview two day's
28
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
training was imparted to him but he has not produced any
document in this regard. The workman has stated that salary
was used to be paid to him by Sh. Suresh Singhal, JEO after
obtaining his signature on the receipt but he has not
produced any record in this regard also. In statement of
claim, it has been pleaded by him that he was allotted
government accommodation & he was residing there but
to substantiate his statement he has not produced any
documentary evidence. He has admitted that government
accommodation was for BSNL employees only. In cross
examination he could not state whether there was any post
of generator operator in the non-applicant establishment.
Thus, except his own statement in the affidavit in his favour,
he has not produced any documentary evidence to establish
that he was in fact an employee of the non-applicant.
22. The management has produced docuemnts Ex-
M-2 to M-21 which are photocopies of the bills given by
Shiv Filling Station regarding diesel supplied. These bills
have been issued in favour of JEO (Electrical) & some of
these bills bear signature of the workman. It has been
contended on behalf of the workman that above bills show
that the workman used to bring diesel from the Shiv Filling
Station for operating generator at Sahava Exchange of the
non-applicant as an employee of the non-applicant.
23. Upon persual of the record it reveals that the
diesel required for the generator was to be supplied by the
department however, the contractor was required to make
his own arrangements for transportation from the petrol
pump to generator installation. It reveals that payment of
diesel was to be made by JEO & diesel from filling station
was to be brought by the contractor.
24. In view of the above, I find considerable force in
the contention of the ld. Representative for the non-
applicant that even if, the workman was bringing diesel for
operating generator & bills were given in favour of the
JEO, it cannot be inferred on the basis of Ex-M-2 to M-21
that he was an employee of the non-applicant.
25. The mangement witness Sh. Suresh Singhal has
stated that the work of operation & maitenance of the
generator was being done by the contractor M/s Devendra
Construction Company & log book was to be maintained
by the contractor. The payment for performing the said
work was used to be made to the contractor.
26. The above statement of the management witness
also finds support from the statement of the management
witness Sh. Devendra Lohia, partner M/s Devendra
Construction Company who has stated that contract for
the work related to generator operator for the period
15.4.2001 to 21.6.2002 was given to the company & for this
purpose, the workman was engaged by the company for
operating generator & payment was made to him by the
company. He has also stated that as per agreement payment
of the bills regarding diesel was made by the non-applicant.
In this regard, the management has also produced the
receipt Ex-M-1.
27. The workman has denied the disputed signature
on the receipt Ex-M-1 whereas the management witness
Sh. Devendra Lohia has stated that the said receipt bears
signature of the workman. Upon careful persual of the
receipt, it appears that there is similarity in the disputed
signature on the Ex-M-1 receipt & admitted signature on
the bill Ex-M-2, therefore, the contention advanced on the
behalf of the union in this regard cannot be sustained which
is repelled accordingly.
28. In view of above discussion, the workman has
failed to prove that he was employed by the non-applicant
as generator operator against the post of generator operator
& employer employee relation existed between him & the
non-applicant. Thus, the provisions of Section 25-F of the
I.D. Act are not attracted. Accordingly, this point is decided
against the applicant.
Point No. II
29. The workman has stated in his affidavit that while
terminating his services no seniority list was prepared &
juniors to him where retained in the job.
30. Management witness Sh. Suresh Kumar Singhal
has stated that the workman was neither given any
appointment nor his services were terminated, therefore,
there was no need to prepare any seniority list. He has also
denied alleged violation of Section 25-G of the I.D. Act.
31. The workman has not disclosed the name of the
person who was junior to him & allegedly retained by the
non-applicant. Except his bald statement there is nothing
on record to substantiate his statement that any junior
person was retained in job in violation of Section 25-G of
the I.D. Act. Thus, on this point the applicant union has
failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of its
plea & testimony of the workman on this point is feeble.
Accordingly, this point is decided against the applicant
union.
Point No. III
32. The union has pleaded in its claim statement that
after terminating the services of the workman other person
has been appointed on the post of generator operator. The
non-applicant has denied the above facts.
33. The workman in his affidavit has stated that after
terminating his services, Sh. Premprakash was appointed
as Generator Operator without any offer of re-employment
to him.
34. The management witness has stated that the
workman was never given any appointment by the non-
applicant; therefore, question did not arise for offer of re-
employment.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
29
35. The union has not produced any document in
support of the statement of the workman that new hand
Sh. Premprakash was appointed as Generator Operator.
Apart that, the name of Sh. Premprakash as a new appointee
has not been disclosed in the statement of claim & it is
only in the affidavit of the workman, his name has been
disclosed which is an after thought statement & cannot be
relied upon. Further, he has failed to prove that employer
employee relations existed between him & the non-
applicant. Therefore, the workman has failed to prove
violation of the provisions of Section 25-H of the I.D. Act.
Therefore, this point is also decided against the workman.
Point No. IV
36. In view of the conclusion drawn in respect of
points no. I to III, the workman has failed to prove that the
alleged action of the management of the non-applicant was
in violation of provisions of section 25-F, 25-G & 25-H of
the I.D. Act.
37. To conclude, the applicant union has not
succeeded in establishing its claim which deserves to be
rejected.
38. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is
answered in negative against the applicant union & in
favour of the non-applicant. Resultantly, the workman is
not entitled to any relief.
39. Award as above.
40. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central
Government for publication u/s 17(1) of the I.D. Act.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 13-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkWjiksjs'ku vkWQ MsYgh 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k &
¼196@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
17&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@139@2012 & vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 13.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 196/2012) of the Cent.
Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi
as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between
the management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
17.12.2013.
[No. L-42012/139/2012 - IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. No. 196/2012
Smt. Angoori, W/o Sh. Badri,
Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,
Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624,
Sultanpuri, Delhi - 110045.
.......Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi - 110006.
.......Management
AWARD
Shri Badri, S/o Shri Shiv Singh was working as beldar
on daily wage basis at Alipur Store, Narela Zone, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (in short the Corporation). He breathed
his last on 24.01.1996. Smt. Angoori, survived the deceased
employee. She claimed for grant of family pension. Since
the deceased. Shri Badri was a casual employee, the
Corporation denied claim of family pension, put forward
by Smt. Angoori, widow of the deceased employee. Shri
approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh (in short
the union) for redressal of her grievances. The union raised
a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the
Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings
ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report, so
submitted by the Conciliation Officer, appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication vide order No. L: 42102/139/2012-IR(DU) New
Delhi dated 07.12.2012, with following terms:
"Whether action of the management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in denying family pension to
Smt. Angoori Devi, wife of late Shri Badri from the
date of death of the deceased workman, Shri Badri
with effect from 24.01.1996 is justified or not? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, complete with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions, so given, Smt. Angoori opted
30
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
not to file her claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Notice was sent to Ms. Angoori by registered post
on 27.12.2012, calling upon her to file claim statement before
the Tribunal on or before 17.01.2013. This notice was sent
to her through the union, at P-2/624, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the
address provided by the appropriate Government in order
of reference. Neither the claimant nor the union responded
to the notice, so sent.
4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant
to file her claim statement, fresh notice was sent to her by
registered post on 22.01.2013 calling upon her to file claim
statement before the Tribunal on 11.02.2013. Notices were
also transmitted to the claimant by registered post on
12.02.2013 and 12.03.2013 asking her to file her claim
statement on or before 08.03.2013 and 09.04.2013
respectively. Lastly, notice dated 10.04.2013 was sent by
registered post commanding the claimant to file her claim
statement before the Tribunal on or before 24.05.2013.
Neither the postal articles, referred above, were received
back nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services
remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,
every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the claimant. Despite service of
these notices, claimant opted to abstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on her behalf.
5. Since onus of the question referred for adjudication
was there on the Corporation, it was called upon to file its
response to the reference order. In its response to the
reference order, the Corporation projects that the claim is
not maintainable on the grounds of delay and latches, since
the dispute has been raised after along gap of 16 years. No
notice of demand was served on the management prior to
raising of dispute, hence it has not acquired status of an
industrial dispute. Even otherwise, Shri Badri never worked
with the Corporation as a regular employee and as such,
the claimant is not entitled for any family pension, after his
death. It has been projected that the claim is liable to be
dismissed.
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came
forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.
Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, raised
submissions on behalf of the Corporation. 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. Corporation contests the dispute on the count
that no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising a
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also
remained uncontroverted. The object of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in the short the Act) is to protect
workman against victimization by the employer and ensure
termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The
Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and
economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests.
Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial
adjudication, keeping in view the social and economic
conditions, the needs of the workmen, the requirement of
the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties
and common good. These norms have given rights to the
industrial employees what may be called industrial rights,
as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes
as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by
resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining.
This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of
employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy behind this
is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour
practices. What imparts to the dispute of a workman the
character of an "industrial dispute" is that it affects the
right of the workmen as a class.
8. An industrial dispute comes into existence when
the employer and the workman are at variance and the
dispute/difference is connected with the employment or
non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions
of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when
a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it is
rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has
held that mere demand, asking the appropriate Government
to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by
the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,
cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial
dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand
is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and
it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation
Pvt. Ltd. [1970 Lab.I.C.421], High Court of Delhi went a
step ahead and held that "......demand by the workman
must be raised first on the management and rejected by it,
before an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist
and that the making of such a demand to the Conciliation
Officer and its communication by him to the management,
who rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an
industrial dispute."
9. The above decision was followed by Orissa High
Court in Orissa Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1976 Lab.I.C. 285] and
Himachal Pradesh High Court in village Paper Pvt. Ltd.
[1993 Lab.I.C. 99]. However, the Apex Court in Bombay
Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an
industrial dispute must be in existence or apprehended on
the date of reference. If, therefore, a demand has been made
by the workman and it has been rejected by the employer
before the date of reference, whether direct or through the
Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an industrial dispute.
In Shambhunath Goyal [1978(1) LLJ 484], the Apex Court
appreciated facts that the workman had not made a formal
demand for his reinstatement in service. However, he had
contested his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer and
claimed reinstatement. Against the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
31
claiming reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal
was bad in law. Then again, he claimed reinstatement before
the Conciliation Officer in the course of conciliation
proceedings, which was contested by the employer.
Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court inferred that
there was impeccable evidence that the workman had
persistently demanded reinstatement rejection of which
brought an industrial dispute into existence.
10. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979 (39)
FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal
had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it had
distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out that
decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement
Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge
bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded
that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of
any conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The
High Court held that making of the demand by the workman
on the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an
industrial dispute.
11. The High Court of Madras in Management of
Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute
or difference between management and the workman,
automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from
service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference
between the management and the workman. The Court
further observed that "it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,
particularly in section 2(k), that existence of the dispute as
such is not enough but then there should be a demand by
the workman on the management to give rise to an industrial
dispute". However, this decision appears to be inconsistent
with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union of Journalists
(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No doubt, for
existence of an industrial dispute, there should be a demand
by the workman and refusal to grant it by the management.
However, a demand should be raised, cannot be a legal
notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the workman
and demand for its redressal must be communicated to the
management. Means and mechanism of the communication
adopted are not matters of much significance, so long as
demand is that of the workman and it reaches the
management. Reference can be made to the precedent in
Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984 (2) LLJ 259].
12. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial
dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific
or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or prescribed
manner in which refusal should be communicated. For an
industrial dispute to come into existence, written claim is
not sine qua non. To read into the definition, requirement
of written demand for bringing an industrial dispute into
existence would tantamount to rewriting the section,
announced the Apex Court in Shambunath Goyal (supra).
In other words, oral demand and its rejection will as much
bring into existence an industrial dispute, as written one. If
facts and circumstances of the case show that the workman
had been making a demand, which the management had
been refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an
industrial dispute between the parties.
13. Since the claimant had not come forward to project
that demand notice was served on the Corporation, under
these circumstances, stand taken by the Corporation is to
be believed. The Corporation projects that no notice of
demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was
raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging
over the record that it has not been established that demand
was raised on the Corporation, which was rejected by it
and as such, dispute has not acquired status of an industrial
dispute.
14. The Corporation further projects that a stale claim
has been made, since it has been raised after a long gap of
16 years. Section 10(1) of the Act does not prescribe any
period of limitation for making reference of the dispute for
adjudication. The words 'at any time' used in sub section
(1) of section 10 of the Act, does not admit of any limitation
in making an order of reference. Law of limitation, which
might bar any Civil Court from giving remedy in respect of
lawful rights, cannot be applied by Industrial Tribunals.
However, policy of industrial adjudication is that stale claim
should not be generally encouraged or allowed unless there
is satisfactory explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works
Ltd. [1959 (2) LLJ 26], the Apex Court pointed out that
though there is no limitation prescribed in making reference
of the dispute to Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only
reasonable that disputes should be referred as soon as
possible after having arisen and on failure of conciliation
proceedings. In Western India Match Company [1970 (2)
LLJ 256] the Apex Court observed that in exercising its
discretion, Government will take into account time which
has lapsed between its earlier decision and the date when
it decides to consider it in the interest of justice and
industrial peace to make the reference for adjudication.
Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills Ltd. [1975 (2)
LLJ 326]. In Gumali Singh [2000 (1) LLJ 1080] Industrial
Adjudicator dismissed the reference on the ground that
there was delay of 8 years in raising the dispute, which
delay was condoned by the Apex Court and it was ordered
that the workman would not be entitled to any back wages
for the period of 8 years but would be entitled to 50% of
wages from the date it raised the dispute till the date of his
reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh [2000 (2) LLJ 1653], the
Apex Court approved the Award of the Tribunal in not
granting any relief to the workman who preferred the claim
after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or
justifiable grounds. From above decisions, it can be said
that the law relating to delay in raising or reference of dispute
is bereft of any principles, which can be easily
comprehended by the Litigants.
15. Claimant raised the dispute is respect denial of
32
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
family pension to her after death of the deceased workman,
Shri Badri with effect from 24.01.1996. The dispute was
raised by her in the year 2012. Thus, it is emerging over the
record that the claimant had raised the dispute after a long
gap of 16 years. No explanation has been offered for this
inordinate delay. It appears that there was no industrial
dispute in existence or could be even said to have been
apprehended in the year 2012, when the appropriate
Government applied its mind to the facts of the present
controversy.
16. For claim of family pension, it was incumbent
upon the claimant to establish that her husband was
appointed with the Corporation against a sustentative post.
As projected in response to the reference order, Shri Badri
was engaged as a casual beldar. This fact finds
corroboration from the claim statement, which was filed by
the claimant before the Conciliation Officer. The
Corporation made me to go through copy of the claim
statement wherein it has been mentioned that Shri Badri
was employed as beldar on daily wage basis at Alipur Store,
Narela zone of the Corporation. Therefore, it is evident that
as per own case of the claimant, her husband was not
working on any substantive post. Casual beldar is not borne
on the strength of the Corporation where he was engaged
intermittently in exigencies of service. Therefore, such
casual employee would not render any service within the
meaning of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. In
view of these facts, widow of deceased, Shri Badri is not
entitled to raise a claim for family pension. Resultantly, it is
concluded that action of the Corporation in denying family
pension to Smt. Angoori is found to be justified. Smt.
Angoori is not entitled to any relief on factual proposition
too.
17. The foregoing reasons make me to conclude that
Smt. Angoori is not entitled to any family pension. Action
of the Corporation in denying family pension to
Smt. Angoori is found to be justified. No relief can be granted
in favour of Smt. Angoori. An award is, accordingly, passed.
It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.
R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
Dated: 26-08-2013
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 14-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chñ,lñ,uñ,yñ]
fMczwx<+ 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;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
07@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@111@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O.14.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2011) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of BSNL, Dibrugarh and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/111/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
PRESENT: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati,
Ref. Case No. 07 of 2011.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—
The Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh.
-Vrs-
Their Workman Miss Anjali Dutta.
APPEARANCES:
For the Workman.
:
Mr. S.K. Barkataki, Advocate.
Ms. B. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Management.
:
Mr. B.C. Pathak, Advocate.
Date of Award: 24-10-13
AWARD
1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial
Dispute raised between the employer in relation to the
Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short
BSNL), Dibrugarh, and their workman, which was referred
by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi
vide their Order No. L-40012/111/2010-IR(DU) dated
05.05.2011. The Schedule of this Reference is as under.
SCHEDULE
"Whethere the action of the Management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Diburgarh represented by the
General Manager, BSNL, Dibrugarh, in terminating
the Services of Miss Anjali Dutta w.e.f. May, 2009, is
legal and justified? What relief the workman is
entitlted to?"
2. On receipt of the order in Reference, this Reference
case has been registered and notices were served upon
both the parties. Accordingly the workman and the
Management appeared and submitted their claim statement/
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
33
written statement respectively. On 23.9.2011 this Tribunal
received a petition by Post from the workman with prayer
for withdrawal of the reference while notice was issued
upon the workman directing her to appear before this
Tribunal to submit her evidence-on-Affidavit for withdrawal
of the case but she did not appear on the fixed date. On
4.1.2013 Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned Advocate appeared
and filed a petition being No. 122 on behalf of the workman
stating that the workman is willing to proceed with the
case and prayed for adjournment and allowing time.
Accordingly petition was allowed. Thereafter, Mr. Barkataki,
learned Advocate appeared and adjournments were
allowed in favour of the workman on 20.2.2013 and
08.04.2013. Again on 3.7.2013 Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned
Advocate by filing a petition prayed for time for filing
Vakalatnama and additional claim statement by the workman
showing cause of illness, which was allowed. On 01.08.2013,
Smti B. Sarma, learned Advocate submitted another petition
No. 513/13 stating that the workman did neither appeared
before them nor contact them and even the workman did
not response in spite of making telephonic contact by the
learned Advocate and hence, prayed for allowing the
learned Advocate to withdraw from this Reference.
Accordingly the petition was allowed and notice was issued
upon the workman with direction to appear before this
Tribunal in person through his engaged counsel and to
attend the proceeding. The said notice was served upon
the workman as it appears from the A/D card returned after
service but the workman did not turn up as such, the
Reference proceeded ex-parte against the workman and
the Management was allowed opportunity to be heard
ex-parte vide order dated 9.10.2013. But the Management
is found absent and hence, this Reference has been taken
up for disposal on the material available on record.
3. On perusal of claim Statement submitted by the
workman Miss Anjali Dutta, it appears that the workman
was in continuous service of the BSNL, Dibrugarh since
November, 2005 to August, 2009 for more than 4 years in
the Data Entry Department of BSNL and its allied works on
various pay amounts. But the workman was suddenly
terminated from her service without serving any notice or
assigning any reason whatsoever by the Management of
BSNL, Dibrugarh. Hence, the workman raised this dispute
before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh
filing written complaint. Accordingly, the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh notified the same to the
Manager, BSNL, Dibrugarh asking them to file written
answer of the said complaint when the Management
submitted its written comment stating therein, amongst
other irrelevant things, that the workman was working under
a contractor on contract basis but inspite of having given
several chances by the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(C), Dibrugarh the Management did not prove in any manner
whatsoever that the said workman was working under any
contractor or that she was a temporary worker. Then the
workman was given another chance by Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C) to submit additional written statement in
support of her case while the workman applied for some
information of her service in the BSNL through the RTI but
the same was refused. Subsequently the conciliation
proceeding held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner
(C) but it failed and this Reference has been initiated. The
workman mentioned that unless appropriate adjudication
is made after taking into account all the relevant documents
submitted herewith and by considering all the aspects
including the workman's age, qualification, length of service
and the humanitarian ground, the workman will suffer great
loss and injustice and hence, the workman prayed to pass
orders giving appropriate relief and compensation to the
workman.
In support of her contention the workman submitted
the photo copies of the documents namely the complaint
raised by the workman before the ALC (C), Dibrugarh, the
letter issued by the ALC, Dibrugarh asking the Management
in submitting their comments/views on the complaint, the
comment of the Management, the Notices issued upon the
parties for holding conciliation, the proceedings of
conciliation, the certificate issued by the Management in
favour of the workman, the report of the ALC and the copies
of other qualification certificate of the workman.
4. The Management, on the other hand, submitted
their written statement stating, inter-alia, that the workman
being a contract labourer engaged by the contractor should
have impleaded the contractor as her immediate employer
and as the Management is a Corporation of the Government
of India and a Government Company duly registered and
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its
various administrative and functional offices in different
states including one Telecom District at Dibrugarh and
hence, the Management is a State within the meaning of
Article12 of the Constitution of India and as such the
Reference case with the schedule appended is not
maintainable in this Forum for adjudication of the matter.
The Management stated that considering the increasing
works of contingent nature they decided to get the work
done by tender system and then the Management floated
tender on 22.12.2006 issuing notice inviting tender for the
work of Data feeding and record creation in computer in
various offices of Telecom District, BSNL, Dibrugarh. The
Notice Inviting Tender incorporated all the regulating terms
and conditions including payment of contractor's bills etc.
including an arbitration clause relating to any dispute
between the contractor and the BSNL and in Annexure-A
the schedule of the rates of works were indicated.
Accordingly as many as six Contractors participated by
the said Notice Inviting Tender was cancelled on 13.7.2007.
Again another Notice Inviting Tender was issued on
29.9.2007 for the similar works and on the said terms and
conditions was published in the Newspaper namely the
Assam Tribune, Dibrugarh dated 4.10.2007. Ultimately the
34
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
contractors namely Electro Power Associates, Dibrugarh,
R.M. Enterprise, Dibrugarh, Data Com Computer Service,
Dibrugarh, H.I. Electricals, Dibrugarh, S.M. Electricals,
Dibrugarh and R.K. Traders, Dibrugarh were selected and
they also entered into an agreement with the BSNL.
Subsequently on 21.11.2008 again Notice Inviting Tender
was issued for Data Feeding and record creation in computer
for the Management and the said Notice Inviting Tender
incorporated other terms and conditions and altogether
three contractors are found qualified and the work orders
were issued. The Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh received
a letter dated 22.9.2009 from the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh including representation
relating to the dispute raised by the workman Anjali Dutta.
In response to the said notice the Management appeared
before the ALC(C), Dibrugarh and submitted written
comment refuting the allegations brought against the
Management and accordingly the conciliation was held
but in the final round of conciliation it ended on failure.
The Management contended that the documents
submitted by the workman along with her claim statement
i.e. copies of certificate allegedly issued by the SDE (Group),
Dibrugarh, on 28.7.2008 certifying her to be working in
computer data entry activities of BSNL from June, 2006 till
date but no such officer having any power or authority
under any circumstances to issue any such alleged
certificate and hence, the Management decided to issue
show cause notice during the pendency of this Reference
and explanation were called for from Sri S.K. Duarah &
Sri G.P. Chetia, JTO (Mobile) asking them as to what
authority they had issued the certificates. The Officer
concerned by their show cause stated that the said
certificate was never issued by them and the signature is
also not their own which is a forged one. The Management
also issued letter seeking details of the workman but no
response from the contractor so far.
Management further mentioned that the workman
was never engaged by the BSNL and there is no Data
Entry Operator in the BSNL as alleged by the workman.
However the workman might have been engaged by the
contractor of BSNL who were given work orders from time
to time; and there is no prove to show any record as to
what specific period and what duration in hours per day
the workman was engaged by the contractor, if she was
engaged as a contract labourer. The workman made some
averments in her claim statement which are baseless, false
and not supported by any documentary proof, as such,
the case of the workman deserves to be dismissed. The
Management also mentioned that they neither engaged
the workman in any service nor terminated from service
and hence, there is no question of any notice or to assign
any reason relating to her alleged termination. The workman,
if at all, engaged by the contractor as contract labourer,
she had suppressed that fact and never impleaded the
concerned contractor. It is also averred that the contract
with the contractor came to an end as per agreement as
there was no further need, now new tender was invited
subsequently. In order to get the benefit under the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and the legality and validity of
termination/retrenchment under Section 25-F the workman
must show that he was worked for 240 days in continuous
service as defined under Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) of the said
Act lies on the workman. But the workman was never
engaged by the BSNL and there is nothing on the record to
show that the workman had ever completed 240 days in
engagement during 12 consecutive months in continuous
service. Hence, the workman is not entitled to any relief
and the Reference is liable to be dismissed. In support of
their contention the Management submitted certain
documents namely the copies of Notice Inviting Tender,
the paper advertisement, the agreements entered into
between the BSNL and the service provider i.e. contractor,
the reference made by ALC (C), Dibrugarh along with the
documents submitted by the workman, the show cause
notice issued upon the JTO (mobile) and their reply
thereupon etc.
5. On perusal of the pleadings of both the sides it is
reveled that the claim of the workman is that she was
engaged by the BSNL in Data Entry Department and its
allied works on various pay amounts from November, 2005
to August, 2009 and she was suddenly terminated from
that service without serving any notice whatsoever from
the end of BSNL. But the workman has neither been able to
substantiate her claim by adducing evidence and filing
relevant document regarding her appointment as well as
the mode of appointment, such as appointment letter/
discharge letter nor she could appear before this Tribunal
and to prove her contention adducing supporting
evidence. The Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh on the
other hand, took the plea that the workman might be a
contract labourer under the contractors selected for the
works of Data Entry etc. in computer and as they are not
the immediate employer of the workman the question of
issuing any discharge notice, payment of benefits of
dicharge/retrenchment does not arise. The Management
also took another plea that the copy of certificate produced
by the workman is a forged and fake one as the officer S.K.
Dohara, JTO (mobile) in his explanation submitted before
the Management clearly mentioned that the said certificate
was never issued by him and the signature appear in the
said certificate is also not of his own which is a forge one.
6. It is well established principle of law that the onus
of proving continuous service in order to get the benefit
u/s 25(f) of the ID Act lies on the workman to prove that he
has worked for 240 days in continuous service as defined
u/s 25 (B) (ii) (a) (ii) of the Act. In this connection I am to
inclined to rely upon the cases of (1) Range Forest Officer-
Vs-S.T. Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25; (2) Ranip
Nagar Palika-Vs-Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & Others reported
in (2007) 13 SCC 343.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
35
In the present reference the workman after filing
written statement found reluctant to appear before this
Tribunal and to prove her pleading. Even the workman was
found willing to withdraw the proceedings by filing petition
by Post and the learned Advocate appeared on behalf of
the workman and ultimately prayed for withdrawal from the
Reference due to lack of communication with the learned
Advocate. Even the workman is found disobeying the
process of the Court. Thus it is clear from the above
discussion that the workman has failed to prove her case
and as such, the workman is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for. Accordingly this reference is disposed of
without granting any relief.
7. Send the no relief Award to the Government as per
law.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
24th day of October, 2013, at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 15-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]
,lñohñ,uñvkbZñvkjñVhñvkj 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 ,o Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 11@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@53@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 15.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2009)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bhubaneswar-2 now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of The Director, SVNIRTAR, Olatpur,
Cuttack and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/53/2008-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
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. 11/2009
Date of Passing Award-24th October, 2013
Between:
The Director, SVNIRTAR
At/Po. Olatpur, Cuttack
1st Party-Management
(AND)
Their workman Shri Banku Bhoi,
S/o, Shri Birabar Bhoi, At. Damodarpur,
(Pradhan Sahi), Po. Kantapara, Cuttack
.... 2nd Party
Workman
APPEARANCES:
Shri S.N. Majhi,
For the 1st Party-
Auth. Representative
Management
Shri Banku Bhoi
For himself the 2nd
Party-Workman
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of SVNIRTAR
and their workman 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 vide its letter No. L-42012/
53/2008-IR (DU) dated 16.2.2009 in respect of the following
matter.
"Whether the action of the management of Swami
Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation
Training and Research in terminating the services of
Shri Banka Bhoi w.e.f. 26.09.2007 is legal and justified?.
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. The 2nd Party-workman has filed his statement of
claim stating that the 1st Party-Management is an industrial
establishment under the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, Government of India. The main object of
the said establishment is to give medical facilities to the
orthopedic and physically handicapped persons and also
manufacture artificial limbs and provide the same of the
physicially handicapped persons. Previously it was known
as National Institute of Rehabilitation Training & Research,
but subsequently its name was changed to SVNIRTAR.
The 2nd Party-workman was initially appointed in the post
of garden mali on 20.5.1994 on daily wage basis @
Rs. 52.50 per day in the maintenance section of the
establishment. He had worked as garden mali till 30.4.2002
and thereafter was engaged in the office canteen on 2.5.2002
by the order of the Director. He had continuously worked
in the canteen till 10.10.2007, but he was not paid salary for
the period from 26.9.2007 to 10.10.2007. On 10.10.2007 he
was instructed not to come to the canteen from 11.10.2007
without assigning any reason. He requested the Director
to allow him to continue in his employment, but despite his
36
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
assurances no positive action was taken. He has not
committed any misconduct of disobedience, but had
worked sincerely and honestly to the best satifaction of
the authority. The order of refusal of employment is highly
illegal and improper and violative of the legal provisions.
He raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central). The conciliation proceedings were
started, but ended in failure. Hence this reference was made
on failure report submitted by the labour authorities. The
2nd Party-workman is therefore entitled to be reinstated in
service with full back wages and other dues, declaring his
termination as illegal and unjustified.
3. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement
has alleged that the estabilshment of the 1st Party-
Management is not doing any business or trade. As such
it does not come under the purview of Section 2(j) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 2nd Party-workman was
given the job of cleaning utensils in the canteen on his
lowest quotation on contract basis, on a lump-sum amount
of Rs. 1800/- for one year which was subseqnently
enhanced to Rs. 2000 per month with effect from 01.10.2004.
The contract was subsequently extended for a further
period of two years and was discontinued with effect from
26.09.2007. The 2nd Party-workman was accordingly paid
proportionate amount of Rs. 1666/- for cleaning the utensils
for 25 days in the month of September, 2007. The 2nd Party-
workman has not done the job of clearning of utensils from
26.9.2007 to 10.10.2007. Hence no payment was made for
the said period. The 2nd Party-workman does not come
under the definition of "workman". As such the reference
is not maintainable and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the alleged dispute. It is false to allege
that the 2nd Party-workman was initially appointed in the
post of garden mali on 30.5.1994 on daily wage basis @ Rs.
52.50 per day in the maintenance section of the
establishment of the 1st Party-Management. Since the 2nd
Party-workman was engaged purely on contract basis there
is no question of paying any salary to him and refusal of
employment with effect from 10.10.2007.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed:—
ISSUES
1. Whether Swami Vivekananda National Institute
of Rehabilitation Training and Research
(SVNIRTAR) will come under the purview of
Industrial Disputes Act?
2. Whether the Action of the Management of
Swami Vivekanand National Institute of
Rehabilitation and Research in terminating the
services of Shri Banku Bhoi with effect from
26.9.2007 is legal and justified?
3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?
5. The 2nd Party-workman has examined four
witnesses including himself and relied upon six documents
marked as Ext.-1 to 6. The witnesses examined on his behalf
are W.W.-1 Shri Banku Bhoi, the disputant himself. W.W.-
2 Smt. P. Nukama Dei, W.W.-3 Shri Basanta Kumar Pradhan
and W.W.-4 Shri Srimanta Kumar Das.
6. On the other hand the 1st Party-Management has
examined Shri Biswanath Mallick as M.W.-1 and relied upon
four documents marked as Ext.-A to D.
FINDINGS
ISSUE No. 1
7. Although the 1st Party-Management has stated
that its establishment has not been doing any business or
trade and such it is not amenable to the jurisdication of this
Tribunal not being an industry, yet it is to be mentioned
that it is running a hundred bed hospital for rendering
service to the persons with disabilities and is also running
a mess for the hospital patients. It also imparts training to
the professionals in the field of rehabilitation and
manufactures artificial limbs and provides them to the
physicially handicapped persons. It cannot be said that all
these facilities are provided free. Therefor, it cannot be
denied that the 1st Party-Management is an industrial
establishment and the employees engaged by it are
workmen. Further, it seems that the 1st Party-Management
has later given up this issue as nothing has been said by
its witness M.W.-1 Shri Biswanath Mallick in his evidence
before this Tribunal, whereas the 2nd party-workman has
categorically stated that the 1st Party-Management is an
industry. The burden to prove this issue shifts on ther 1st
Party-Management when the initial onus is discharged by
the 2nd Party-workman. But the 1st Party-Management
has failed to discharge this burden. As such it is held that
the Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation
Training and Research (SVNIRTAR) will come under the
purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. This issue is
accordingly decided in the affirmative.
ISSUE No. 2
8. According to the 2nd Party-workman he was
engaged as a daily wage labourer in the year 1994 under
the 1st Party-Management and worked as such up-to 2002.
Thereafter he was instructed to work as dish washer in the
canteen of the 1st Party Management from the year 2002
to 2007. On 10.10.2007 he was refused work as the
Management told him to work under the contractor to which
he did not agree. On the other hand the 1st Party-
Management has submitted that the 2nd Party-workman
was given the job of cleaning the utensils in the canteen
on contract basis on a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1800 per
month which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2000 per
month. Initially the contract was for one year with effect
from 1.10.2004, which was subsequently extended for a
further period of two years. But before expiry of the period
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
37
of two years it was discontinued with effect from 26.9.2007
and the 2nd party-workman was accordingly paid
proportionate amount of Rs. 1666/- for 25 days. He has not
done the job of cleaning of utensils from 26.9.2007 to
10.10.2007. Hence no payment was made for the said period.
All the allegations regarding his engagement contrary to it
have been denied by the 1st Party-Management.
9. The burden to prove this issue lies on the 2nd
Party-workman, but he has not adduced any worth reliable
evidence , either oral or documentary on this point. He
has filed six xerox copies of the attendance register from
November, 2003 to April, 2004, but these copies have not
been signed by any authority of the 1st Party-Management.
These might be falsely manufactured and even if presumed
to be proof of working in the NIRTAR for the aforesaid
period these copies of the attendance register do not
show in which capacity and in which department he was
working. These documents show his alleged engagement
for six months only, whereas he has alleged that he had
been working under the 1st Party-Management since
30.5.1994. He has admitted in his cross examination that "I
cannot show any appointment letter. I have no letter which
can prove that I had worked in the canteen". He has
admitted that "I had received Rs. 1666 vide letter dated
10.10.2007. I have signed in that letter and I had received
the said amount". This admission goes to prove the version
put-forward by the 1st Party-Management. M.W.-1
Shri B.N. Mallick has categorically stated in his evidence
before this Tribunal that "the disputant workman has
taken contract for cleaning the utensils of the canteen.
First he has taken the contract for one year and then it
was renewed for another two years". He has also proved
the quotation of the disputant workman given to the
Management, which has been marked as Ext.-A along with
work order issued to the 2nd Party-workman marked as
Ext.-B and the renewal of the work order for next two years
marked as Ext.-C and also the receipt of payment of wages
marked as Ext.-D.
10. The evidence of the three witnesses adduced
by the 2nd Party-workman does not inspire confidence
because of being shaky and inconsistent with each other's
deposition. W.W.-2 Smt. P. Nukuma Dei has stated that "I
cannot say for how many years the disputant workman
was working under the Management". W.W.-3
Shri Basanta Kumar Pradhan has stated in his cross
examination that "the disputant was working under the
canteen under a contractor. I cannot say whether any
quotation was floated for the canteen. The disputant was
not signing in the attendance register". He has also stated
that "the disputant workman was not getting wages from
the office like regular employees" which is inconsistent
with the statement of the 2nd Party-workman made in his
cross examination to the effect that "it is a fact that I was
receiving my wages from the office directly". W.W.-4
Shri Srimanta Kumar Das has also stated that "the disputant
workman was working under the contractor" and he was
getting wages directly from the office of the Management.
In his cross examination he has stated that "I know that
the disputant was given quotation to work under the
Management canteen on contract basis". Thus the stand
taken by the 2nd Party-workman cannot be said to be
believable and trust-worthy. No documentary evidence
has been filed by the 2nd Party-workman to prove that he
was engaged by the 1st Party-Management as a labourer
on a daily wage basis and continued to work under the 1st
Party-Management since 30.5.1994 to 10.10.07. Oral
evidence led by him does not suffice to hold that he had
rendered 240 days continuous service under the 1st Party-
Management as a daily wage labourer during the period
of twelve calendar months preceding his alleged
disengagement. According to the 1st Party-Management
he was a contractual worker engaged for cleaning utensils
in the canteen on contract basis and he was discontinued
to work on 26.9.2007 some days prior to the conclusion of
the contract for which he may seek damages from Civil
Court. His engagement being on contract does not entitle
to him any protection under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947. Therefore the action of the 1st Party-Management in
disengaging him from contract work cannot be held to be
illegal and unjustified under the purview of the provisions
of the Industrial Disputes Act. This issue is thus decided
against the 2nd Party-workman.
ISSUE No. 3
11. For the findings recorded above the 2nd Party-
workman is not entitled to any relief.
12. Reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñ vkñ 16-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
ch-,l-,u-,y-] t;iqj 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; t;iqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@81@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 16.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
38
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2007) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as
shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of The General
Manager. BSNL, Jaipur and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/81/2004-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh. N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 26/2007
Reference No. L-40012/81/2004 [IR(DU)] dated: 1.3.2007
Shri Mukesh Kumar
S/o Shri Nand Kishore Harijan
164, Banjara Basti, Sector-5,
Udaipur.
V/s
The General Manager,
BSNL, Udaipur.
PRESENT:
For the applicant
:
Ex-party
For the Non-applicant
:
Shr. B.L. Ahir
AWARD
Dated : 22-5-2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub- Section 1 & 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
" Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Udaipur, in
terminating the services of their workman
Shri Mukesh Kumar w.e.f. 23.9.2000 is legal & justified?
If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled
to?"
2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded
that he had worked under the non-applicant during period
28.6.1997 to 22.9.2000 & despite he had worked for more
than 240 days, his services were terminated without any
notice, notice pay or compensation. He has also alleged
that while terminating his services no seniority list was
prepared & junior to him were retained in the job & new
hands were given recruitments after terminating his
services.
3. In reply, the non-applicant has denied the claim of
the workman & it has been averred that the workman was
engaged termporarily for cleaning toilets. It has been denied
that workman was employed as worker & he had worked as
such during period 28.6.1997 to 22.9.2000.
4. None appeared on behalf of the workman on
7.11.2012, therefore, ex-party proceedings were drawn
against him.
5. Since, the workman has not filed his affidavit in
support of his claim; non-applicant has not adduced any
evidence.
6. Heard the Ld. Representative for the non-applicant
& perused the record.
7. Initial burden was on the workman to prove his
case set forth in the statement of claim but after filing
rejoinder the workman did not appear on subsequent dates
to file his affidavit in support of his claim, therefore, ex-
party proceedings were drawn against him. Thus, there is
no material on record to adjudicate the reference under
consideration on merits.
8. It appears that the workman is not interested to
contest the case further. Under these circumstances, " No
Dispute Award" is passed in this matter. The reference
under adjudication is answered accordingly.
9. Award as above.
10. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central
Government for publicaiton u/s 17 (1) of the I.D. Act.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 17-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
chñ,lñ,uñ,yñ] bZyq: 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 70@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@31@2011&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 17.—.In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, BSNL Eluru and their
workman which was received by the Central Government
on 18.12.2013.
[No. L-40011/31/2011-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
39
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 3rd day & May, 2013
Industrial Dispute No. 70/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri K.S.R. Murthy,
The District Secretary,
National Union of B.S.N.L. Workers,
Dondapadu Dibba, Sanivarapur Pet (P.O)
Elurgu-534003
...Petitioner
AND
The General Manager,
Telecom District,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Eluru. West Godavari Dsitrict
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
Sri R. Yogender Singh, Advocte
For the Respondent :
M/s. Ch. Lakshmi Kumari &
Ch. Venkateswara Rao, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-40011/31/2011-IR(DU) dated 12.10.2011 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and their
workmen. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL,
Eluru, West Godavari District, in refusing to consider
the stepping up of pay of 19 Senior Workmen (as per
the list enclosed) to bring parity with their juniors, is
legal and justified? What relief the workmen are
entitled to?”
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 70/2011 and notices were issued to the parties
concerned.
2. The case stands posted for filing of claim statement
and documents. Petitioner union representative called
absent and there is no representation since long time.
Inspite of giving fair opportunity, claim statement was not
filed by the Petitioner and the matter is coming up since the
year 2011. In the circumstances, taking that Petitioners are
not interested in the proceedings, petition is dismissed.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
trascribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day
of May, 2013.
M. VIJAY LAKSHMI, Presiding officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 18-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj
chñ,lñ,uñ,yñ] fMczqx<+ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZpkfj;ksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 04@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@110@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 18.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 04/2012) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
Between the employers in relation to the management of
BSNL, Dibrugarh and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/12/13.
[No. L-40012/110/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
PRESENT: Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LLB., Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.
Ref. Case No. 04 of 2012
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—
The Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh.
-Vrs-
Their Workman Smt. Anjumoni Dutta Hazarika.
APPEARANCES:
For the Workman
:
Mr. S.K. Barkataki, Advocate,
Ms B. Sarma, Advocate.
For the Management :
Mr. B.C. Pathak, Advocate
40
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
AWARD
Date of Award: 24.10.13
1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial
Dispute between the Management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited (in short BSNL), Dibrugarh, represented by General
Manager, BSNL, Dibrugarh and their workman
Smt. Anjumoni Dutta Hazarika on account of termination
of service of the said workman by the Management, which
was referred by the Ministry of Labour, Government of
India, New Delhi vide their order No. L-40012/110/2010-
IR(DU) dated 25.05.2011. The Schedule of this Reference is
as under.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dibrugarh represented by
the General Manager, BSNL,Dibrugarh, in
terminating the Services of Smt. Anjumoni Dutta
Hararika who was working as Data Entry Operator
upto May, 2009, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. The Ministry of Labour, Government of India,
New Delhi referred this dispute to the Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Karkardooma Court Complex, Room No. 38, Block-
A, New Delhi-110032 for adjudication and accordingly the
proceeding was initiated by the Learned Presiding Officer,
CGIT-cum-Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi and the
Management appeared there. Subsequently at the instance
of the Management the Ministry of Labour and Employment,
New Delhi vide their order No. L-40012/110/2010-IR(DU)
dated 31.10.2011 withdrawn and transferred the Reference
to this Tribunal. Thereafter the Reference has been
received on 20.12.2011 for adjudication, from CGIT-cum-
Labour Court No. 1, New Delhi on transfer and the same
has been renumbered and proceedings has been started.
3. After registration of this Reference, notices were
issued upon both the parties. Accordingly Management
appeared and sought for adjournment for filing written
statement. Notice issued upon the workman returned after
service. On 4.1.2013 Mr. S.K. Barkataki, Learned Advocate
appeared on behalf of the workman and filed petition No.
127 with prayer for time for filing claim statement along
with Vakalatnama; and on 20.2.2013 Mr. S.K. Barkataki,
Learned Advocate submitted another petition being No.
184 stating that the workman intended to withdraw the
case for failure to engage any lawyer owing to monitory
reason and the learned advocate Mr. Barkataki has come
forward to take up the Reference on behalf of the workman
and to conduct the same, and prayed for time for filing
claim statement along with Vakalatnama. Again on 8.4.2013
and 3.7.2013 Mr. S.K. Barkataki, learned Advocate
submitted petition with prayer for adjournment showing
cause that the workman could not contact them and to file
Vakalatnama due to her illness. Lastly, on 01.08.2013,
Learned Advocate Miss B. Sarma, submitted petition No.
514/13 stating that the workman did not contact them and
hence, the Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Barkataki and his
Associates wanted to withdraw from this case. Accordingly
the petition was allowed and a fresh notice was issued to
the workman directing her to appear before the Tribunal
either personally or through her engaged counsel and to
submit claim statement fixing 10.09.2013 vide order dated
01.08.2013. The said notice was returned after service upon
the workman, but the workman remained absent without
any step and hence, this Reference has been proceeded
ex-parte against the workman vide order dated 9.10.2013.
4. On perusal of the record it appears that the Ministry
of Labour and Employment has referred the dispute for
adjudication by this Tribunal on the issue i.e. whether the
action of the Management of BSNL, Dibrugarh in
terminating the service of Smt. Anjumoni Dutta. Hazarika
who was working as Data Entry Operator upto May, 2009
is legal and justified, and what relief the workman is entitled
to? But the workman in spite of getting sufficient
opportunities did neither appeared before this Tribunal
personally nor through herAdvocate/counsel and the
Learned Advocate Mr. S.K. Barkataki although appeared
and expressed his willingness to conduct this proceeding
on behalf of the workman, he ultimately expressed his
inability to conduct the proceeding due to failure of the
workman to contact them and to submit the Vakalatnama.
The Management appeared through their Learned
Advocate initially filing Vakalatnama but they did not submit
the written statement, and remained absent since last date.
Thus it is clear that the claimant/workman herself has not
been able to substantiate her claim adducing evidence both
oral and documentary. The workman is found avoiding the
notice of the Court. The Management is also found
reluctant to contest the proceedings.
5. In view of my above discussion it can safely be
held that the workman has failed to establish her claim and
hence, I am unable to decide the issues involved in the
Reference on merit. Accordingly, this Reference is disposed
of without granting any relief to the workman.
6. Send the no relief Award to the Government as per
law.
Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this
24th day of October, 2013, at Guwahati.
L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 19-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; tujy
esustj] gsoh okVj IykaV] [kEeke 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42011@63@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
41
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 19.—In pursuance of Section 7 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2012) of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute Between the employers in relation to the
management of The Chief General Manager, Heavy Water
Plant, Khammam and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/12/13.
[No. L-42011/63/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 5th day of June, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 15/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri Syed Khasim Hussain,
(Rep. of workman)
Ex. Scientific Asstt. 'D',
H.No 11-2-71, Sree Nagar Colony,
New Palvoncha (P.O.)-507115.
Khammam District.
....Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru),
Aswapuram-507116.
Khammam District.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
Sri M.V.L. Narasaiah,
Advocate
For the Respondent
:
None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
Order No. L-42011/63/2010-IR(DU) dated 28.3.2011 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act. 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Heavy Water Plant and their workmen.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Shri D. Daruga, contract
labour employed by the Heavy Water Plant
(Manuguru) SC, BC and other Land Loosers Contract
Labour Cooperative Society Ltd., Aswapuram for
payment of Bonus as per provisions of the Payment
of Bonus Act, 1965, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 15/2011 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Case stands posted for filing claim statement and
documents by the Petitioner union.
3. Petitioner union or their counsel called absent and
there is no representation. Claim statement and documents
are not filed. Inspite of giving fair opportunity. Petitioner
union is not taking interest in the proceedings though the
matter is pending since 2011. Taking that Petitioner union
is not interested in the proceedings of the case, 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 5th day
of June, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 20.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; tujy
eSustj] gsoh okVj IykaV] [kEeke 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@62@2010&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 20.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 16/2011)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
42
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation fo the
management of The Chief General Manager, Heavy Water
Plant, Khammam and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-42011/62/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT : SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of June, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 16/2011
Between:
Sri Syed Khasim Hussain,
(Rep. of workman)
Ex. Scientific Asstt. 'D',
H.No 11-2-71, Sree Nagar Colony,
New Palvoncha (P.O.)-507115.
Khammam District.
....Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru),
Aswapuram-507116.
Khammam District.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
: Sri M.V.L. Narasaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent
: None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
Order No. L-42011/62/2010-IR(DU) dated 28.3.2011 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.
Act. 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Heavy Water Plant and their workmen.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Shri M. Santosh Rao,
contract labour employed by the Heavy Water Plant
(Manuguru) SC, BC and other Land Loosers Contract
Labour Cooperative Society Ltd., Aswapuram for
payment of Bonus as per provisions of the Payment
of Bonus Act, 1965, is legal and justified? What relief
the workman is entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 16/2011 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Case stands posted for filing claim statement and
documents by the Petitioner union.
3. Petitioner union or their counsel called absent and
there is no representation. Claim statement and documents
are not filed inspite of giving fair opportunity. Petitioner
union is not taking interest in the proceedings though the
matter is pending since 2011. Taking that Petitioner union
is not interested in the proceedings of the case, 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 5th day
of June 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendex of evidence
Witnesses examined for
Witnesses examined for the
the Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 21.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ fnYyh] fnYyh MsoyiesaV vFkkWfjVh] fodkl lnu
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fu£n"V vkS|kSfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf?kdj.k ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k & ¼132@2012½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&12&2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@46@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 21.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 132/2012)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, Vikas
Sadan, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-42011/46/2012-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
43
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. No. 132/2012
Shri Om Prakash S/o Mange Ram
C/o General Secretary,
Municipal Employees, Union,
Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,
Tis Hazari, Delhi - 110054.
...Workman
Versus
1. The Commissioner (North),
North Delhi Muncipal Corporation,
4th Floor, SPM Civic Centre,
J.L. Nehru Marg,
New Delhi - 110002
2. The Secretary,
Delhi Development Authority
Vikas Sadan, INA Market,
New Delhi- 110023.
...Managements
AWARD
An Assistant Wireman was engaged on muster roll
as daily wager by Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as the Authority) in February 1981.
Subsequently, he was engaged as work charged Assistant
wireman with effect from 06.01.1983. Vide Establishment
Order No. 377 dated 08.03.1991, he was treated as regular
work charge employee with effect from 10.01.1991. Vide
notification dated 26.09.1994, Government of NCT of Delhi
placed 43 colonies under control and management of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as
the Corporation). Pay and allowance of work charged staff
are directly chargeable to works. Employees working as
work charged staff, whose pay and allowances were
chargeable to work of those 43 colonies, were transferred
to the Corporation vide order dated 19.05.1995. The
Assistant Wireman was relieved by the Authority vide letter
No. F. 5(1)ED/(8)/DDA/95/2281 dated 20.05.1995 to join
services with the Corporation. Since the Assistant Wireman,
namely, Shri Om Prakash, who was one of the employees
transferred vide letter dated 19.05.1995, felt that the
Authority cannot transfer his services to the Corporation,
he filed a civil suit, which was dismissed by the Ld. Civil
Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, vide judgement dated
05.08.2000. Appeal preferred by him also came to dismissed.
2. At that juncture, when Shri Om Prakash lost before
the civil court, he approached the Mazdoor Employees
Union (in short the union) for redressal of his grievance.
The union took up his cause and raised a demand on the
Corporation projecting therein that since the claimant was
not allowed to join his duties, the said action amounts to
termination of his service. A claim was made that Shri Om
Prakash may be reinstated in service with continuity and
full back wages. The Corporation came out with a reply
that Shri Om Prakash was supposed to join his duties,
alongwith relieving letter issued by the Authority. Since he
had not produced his relieving order, he cannot be allowed
to join his duties. When demand, raised by the Union, was
not conceded to the union approached the Conciliation
Officer. Since claim was contested before that forum also,
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-42011/46/2012-IR(DU), New Delhi dated 12.10.2012,
with following terms:
''Whether the action of the management of MCD in
not taking in the employment workman, Shri Om Prakash,
S/o Shri Mange Ram, Assistant Wireman, even though he
was transferred from DDA to MCD is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?''
3. Claim statement was filed by and on behalf of the
claimant pleading that initially he was engaged as a daily
wager Assistant Wireman by the Authority in February,
1981. Subsequently, he was taken on work charged
establishment with effect from 06.01.1983. Vide Notification
dated 26.09.1994, Government of NCT of Delhi placed
services of 43 colonies under control and supervision of
the Corproation. Work, in which the claimant was deployed
by the Authority, was transferred to the Corporation. Hence,
his services were also shown transferred to Corporation in
May 1995. No written order was issued transferring his
services to the Corporation. He filed a civil suit bearing
No. 531 of 1995 before the Civil Judge, Delhi, which was
dismissed on 05.08.2000. He preferred an appeal, which
was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi on
26.03.2008. On 06.05.2008, he sent a representation to the
Corporation seeking permission to join duties. His
representation was responded to vide letter dated
06.06.2008 asking him to submit relieving order issued by
the Authority, to enable him to join his dutes. Such plea
was uncalled for. He was not allowed to join duties by the
Corporaiton, which act resulted into presumed termination
of his services. He presents that action of the Corporaiton
in terminating of his services is violative of provisions of
section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act
1947 (in short the Act), Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial
Disputes (Central) Rules 1957 are also violated. Claimant is
unemployed since May 1995. He presents that his services
may be reinstated with continuty and full back wages,
besides cost of litigation as contemplated by sub section
(7) of section 11 of the Act.
The Authority demurs his claim pleading that service
of the claimant were transferred to the Corporation vide
Order EO No. 38 of 19.05.1995. He was relieved from Electrical
44
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Division No. 8 by the Authority on 20.05.1995. Since he
refused to receive the transfer order, it was sent to his
residential address at Village Bakner, Delhi, by registered
post. The postal article was returned back by the postal
authorities with the remarks, "Addressee was not available
despite various visits". Claimant was relieved on 20.05.1995
to join duties with the Corporation. In such a situation, his
claim is not maintainable.
5. The Corporation also disputes the claim projecting
that when the claimant opted not to submit his joining
report, he cannot be allowed to join his duties. Since he
was not taken on rolls of the Corporation, it cannot be said
that the Corporation terminated his services. Vide order
dated 06.06.2008, he was called upon to submit his relieving
orders, which he failed to do. Under these circumstances,
it does not lie in the mouth of the claimant that his services
were terminated by the Corporation. His claim, being devoid
of merits, may be discarded.
6. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were
settled:
(i) Whether, on transfer to MCD, claimant was relieved
from services of DDA on 20.05.1995?
(ii) Whether claimant reported for duties with MCD on
being relieved from DDA?
(iii) As in terms of reference.
7. In order to discharge onus resting on him, the
claimant examined himself.
8. During the course of his examination, it was
suggested to the Authority that fresh relieving order may
be issued in favour of the claimant as on date, without
payment of any wages from the date of his transfer till the
date of issuance of relieving orders and thereafter, the
Corporation may allow him to join services with continuity
and seniority. It was made clear that the claimant would not
be entitled to any pay during the intervening period, viz
from the date of his transfer till the date he would submit
his joining report to the Corporation. Pursuant to the
suggestion made, the Authority issued order No. EO 906
dated 22.10.1993, relieving the claimant to join his duties
with the Corporation. For sake of convenience, contents
of the said letter are reproduced thus:
'In compliance of the orders of the Presiding Officers,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, Karkardooma, New Delhi, Shri Om Prakash, S/o Shri
Mange Ram relieved vide order No. F. 5(1) ED-8/DDA/95/
2281 dated 20.05.1995 pursuant to the EO No. 38 dated
19.05.1995 is hereby relieved today the 22nd day of October
2012 without payment of any wages from the date of his
transfer till the date of issuance of relieving order. The text
of the EO No. 38 dated 19.05.1995 and relieving order No. F.
5(1) ED-8/DDA/95/2281 dated 20.05.1995 shall remain
unchanged.'
9. In continuation of the order referred above, the
Authority issued order No. F5(1)EE/EI.Divn.8/DDA/2013
dated 25.10.2013, contents of which order are extracted
thus:
'In continuation to this office EO 906 dated 22.10.2013
(copy enclosed), further Shri Om Parkash, wireman,
S/o Shri Mange Ram is hereby directed to report
'Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, 4th Floor, SPM Civic Center, Jawahar Lal
Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110 002' for further
necessary action.
10. When copy of order dated 25.10.2013 was served
on the claimant, he tendered his joining report with the
Corporation on 30.10.2013. He presented himself for joining
his duties and requested the Commissioner, North Delhi
Municipal Corporation, to accept his joining report and
assign duties to him. In view of the above changed
circumstances, which took place on suggestion by this
Tribunal, adjudication of above issues have become
infructuous.
11. Since the claimant has joined his duties with the
Corporation pursuant to order No. F5(1)/EE/EI.Divn.8/
DDA/2013/3788 of 25.10.2013 and concedes to the
proposition that he will not claim pay for the intervening
period, viz. 20.05.1995 till 30.08.2013, it is evident that the
dispute has reached a narrow campus. In view of facts
detailed above, it is ordered that the Authority shall transmit
all service records of the claimant, along with his last pay
certificate, to the Corporation at the earliest and the
Corporation shall fix his pay notionally for the intervening
period, for which it shall not incur any financial liability.
However, the claimant will have continuity of service with
consequential relief of reckoning that service for the
purpose of promotion, fixation of pay and retiral benefits.
The Corporation shall assign him duties at the earliest so
that his services are suitably availed. The questions, referred
for adjudication, are answered accordingly. With these
observations, an award is passed. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Date: 18.11.2013
R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 22.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsanzh; ljdkj ukWFkZ fnYyh
E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku] U;w fnYyh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] ¼QhYM vaMj lsD'ku 33&v½ vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
fnYyh ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k&¼148@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]
tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 18&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&42025@07@2013&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
45
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 22.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,
Delhi (Filed under Section 33-A in the matter of Complaint
arising out of (Ref. No.148 of 2013) as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the
management of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, New
Delhi and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-42025/07/2013-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. NO. 148/2013
Shri Jagesh Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sukhram Singh,
R/o H.No. 3259, Aryapura.
Gali Lodhi Rajput,
Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110 007.
....Claimant
Versus
The Commissioner (North),
North Delhi Municipal Corporation,
SPM Bhawan, Civic Centre,
New Delhi.
.....Management
AWARD
Shri Jagesh Kumar was working as mali/beldar on
muster roll with North Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short
the Corporation) from 26.09.1989. His services were
terminated illegally without issuance of any notice on
02.01.1993. Feeling aggrieved by the act, the mali/beldar
raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer
on 24.05.2013. Conciliation proceedings were
initiated.When no settlement could arrived at within a period
of 45 days from the date of making an application before
the Conciliation Officer, the mali/beldar filed a claim before
this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of 2A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Sub-section (2) of
section 2A of the Act empowers him to approach this
Tribunal directly, without his dispute being referred by the
appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of section
10 of the Act, in case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchement
or otherwise termination of his service. The dispute was
registered as an industrial dispute, for adjudication.
2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Jagesh Kumar
pleading that he was working as beldar on muster rolls
from 26.09.1989 to 24.04.1992. However his services were
abruptly dispensed with on 02.01.1993 without issuance of
any notice. His signatures were forcibly taken on blank
papers, which were later on used against him. He had put
in continuous service of 240 days. He raised an industrial
dispute, which was referred for adjudication to a Labour
Court constituted by NCT of Delhi, which was decided
against the claimant. A review petition filed was also
dismissed. He then filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble
High Court, which was allowed with directions to the Labour
Court to hear the parties again, check the record
meticulously with precision and clarity and give specific
finding on the issue. The case was reconsidered by the
Labour Court and an award was passed against the
workman. The claimant again preferred writ petition before
the Hon'ble High Court, which was dismissed. LPA filed
was also dismissed. Thereafter he raised a dispute before
the Conciliation Officer, who entered into conciliation
proceedings, but no settlement could arrive at. He claims
that an award for reinstatement of his services with
continuity and full back wages may be passed in his favour.
3. Arguments on maintainability of the dispute are
heard at the bar. Shri D.S. Yadav, authorised representative,
advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. 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:
4. As record projects, dispute under reference was
raised by the claimant, namely, Shri Jagesh Kumar under
sub section (2) of section 2A of the Act. Provisions of
section 2A of the Act contemplates that any dispute or
difference between the workman and his employer
connected with or arising out of discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an
industrial dispute, not withstanding that no other workman
nor any union of workman is party to the dispute.
Language, used in section 2A of the Act, very clearly states
that in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute, it must
be sponsored by a union or a considerable number of
workmen in the establishment of the management. However,
any dispute between a workman and his employer, which
is connected with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal
retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be industrial
dispute.
5. The term "industrial dispute" has been defined by
sub-section (k) of section 2 of the Act to mean "any dispute
or difference between employers and employers, or between
employers and workmen, or between workmen and
workmen, which is connected with the employment or non-
employment or the terms of employment or with the
conditions of labour, of any person". The definition of
"industrial dispute" referred above, can be divided into
four parts, viz. (i) factum of dispute, (2) parties to the dispute,
viz. (a) employers and employers, (b) employer and workmen,
46
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
or (c) workmen and workmen, (3) subject matter of the
dispute, which should be connected with—(i) employment
or non employment, or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii)
condition of labour of any person, and (iv) it should relate
to an "industry".
6. The definition of "industrial dispute" is worded in
very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the
meaning given to word "workman" it would seem to include
all "employers", all "employments" and all "workmen",
whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be.
Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute
between the employers and employers and workmen and
workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must
be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,
therefore, to be noted perhaps self evident, is that the phrase
"employer and workmen", the plural may include singular
on either side or any permutation of singular or plural, the
masculine including the feminine. I order, therefore, to
determine as to whether a controversy or difference or a
dispute is an "an industrial dispute" or not, it must first be
determined whether the workman concerned or workmen
sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of clause (s)
of section 2 of the Act. Here in the case, the management
does not dispute that the claimant is workman within the
meaning of clause(s) of Section 2 of the Act.
7. A long line of decisions, handed down by the
Apex Court, had established that an individual dispute
could not per se be an industrial dispute, but could become
one if it was taken up by a trade union or a considerable
number of workmen of the establishment. This position of
law created hardship for individual workmen, who were
discharged, dismissed, retrenched or whose services were
otherwise terminated when they could not find support by
a union or any appreciable number of workmen to espouse
their cause. Section 2A was engrafted in the Act by the
Amendment Act of 1965 and it has to be read as an
extension of the definition of industrial dispute contained
in clause (k) of section 2 of the Act. Thus by way of
extension of definition of industrial dispute, by insertion
of section 2A of the Act, the dispute of an individual
workmen connected with or arising out of his discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his
service by his employer has been brought within the ambit
of the Act.
8. Industrial workman has got a very restricted right
to move an industrial court when his service conditions
have been changed to his prejudice during pendency of an
industrial dispute or he has been dismissed or discharged
during such pendency, under section 33-A of the Act. He
has a right to recover certain dues from his employer under
section 33(c)(2) of the Act. An individual workman who
had been thrown out of employment had to rely for redress
only through aegis of the union or his co-workers where
there was no union. Sometimes he found it hard to proceed
further or get the union to take up his cause. Besides, there
are industries where so far no union have been formed.
Workers, are still, in certain industries, unorganized.
Enactment of section 2A of the Act was taken up by the
Parliament solely with a view to modify the law to raise
industrial disputes relating to discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or otherwise termination of services of the
workmen.
9. Classification between workmen unaided by union
or considerable number workmen and workman whose
cause is espoused by a union or considerable number of
workmen has been made by the legislature, when provisions
of section 2A were brought on the Statute Book. Thus, it is
evident that by way of extension of definition of industrial
dispute relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or
termination of service of the workmen, Legislature provided
remedy to the workmen who is unaided by a union or
considerable number of workmen. Section 2A of the Act
does not destroy the concept of industrial dispute and
collective dispute and such concept still remains as a major
class and in all other provisions of the Act. Consequently,
it is evident that excepting the dispute relating to dispute
of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of services of a workman, a dispute is to be
espoused by the union or considerable number of workmen
to reach the status of an industrial dispute.
10. Even in cases of dispute between a workman and
his employer connected with or arising out of his discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or termination of his service, it has
to pass through the procedure provided in the Act. For
raising a dispute, an employee has to raise a demand on
the employer and thereafter he has to raise the dispute
before the Conciliation Officer, who had to enter in to the
conciliation proceedings. In case conciliation proceedings
fails, the Conciliation Officer submits his report to the
appropriate Government. On consideration of the report,
so submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate
Government has to form an opinion that an industrial
disputes exists or is apprehended and refer that dispute to
an industrial adjudicator under sub-clause (c) or (d), as the
case may be, of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act.
Procedure, referred above, would take considerable time
and an employee had to wait for the decision of the
appropriate Government, making reference to an industrial
adjudicator for adjudication of the dispute. With a view to
do away with this hardship, Legislature, vide Amendment
Act No 24 of 2010, inserted sub section (2) and (3) in section
2A and re-numbered original section as sub section (1) in
order to enable the workman to approach an industrial
adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute, without it being
referred by the appropriate Government. For sake of
convenience, provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of
section 2A of the Act are reproduced thus:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
47
"(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section
10, any such workman as is specified in sub-section
(1) may make an application direct to Labour Court
or industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the dispute
referred to therein after expiry of forty five days from
the date he has made the application to the
Conciliation Officer of the appropriate Government
for conciliation of the dispute and in receipt of such
application, the Labour Court or Tribunal shall have
powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the
dispute, as if it were a dispute referred to it by the
appropriate Government in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and all the provisions of this
Act shall apply in relation to such adjudication as
they apply in relation to an industrial dispute referred
to it by the appropriate Government.
(3) The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall
be made to the Labour Court or Tribunal before the
expiry of three years from the date of discharge,
dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of
service as specified in sub-section (1)."
11. Provisions of sub section (2) of section 2A of the
Act empowers a workman to move an application before
an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of his dispute,
after expiry of 45 days from the date he made such
application before the Conciliation Officer. On receipt of
such application, the industrial adjudicator shall have
powers and jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute as if it
were a dispute referred to it by the appropriate Government,
in accordance with provisions of the Act. Thus, it is evident
that before moving an application before an Industrial
Adjudicator, the workman has to approach the Conciliation
Officer for conciliation of his dispute. In case no settlement
is arrived at or conciliation proceedings goes beyond a
period of 45 days from the date the workman had moved
the application to the Conciliation officer, he may approach
the Industrial Adjudicator for adjudicate of his dispute,
without being referred by the appropriate Government
under the provisions of the Act. Consequently, it is evident
that before approaching an Industrial Adjudicator, workman
whose services have been discharged, dismissed,
retrenched or terminated by his employer, shall have to
approach the Conciliation Officer and wait for expiry of a
period of 45 days, in case no settlement arrived between
them. Obligation to approach the Conciliation Officer and
allow him to enter into conciliation proceedings are
mandatory. It is also obligatory on the workman to wait for
a period of 45 days and only thereafter he can seek
indulgence of an industrial adjudicator for adjudication of
his dispute. In case he opts not to approach the Conciliation
Officer or fails to wait for a period of 45 days from the date
of moving his application, the Industrial Adjudicator will
acquire no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
12. Bare perusal of sub section (3) of section 2A
makes it clear that an application for adjudication of an
industrial dispute, relating to discharge, dismissal,
retrenchment or termination of his service can be moved
by an employee before expiry of three years from the date
of his discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise
termination of service, as the case may be. As emerged out
of the claim statement, services of the claimant was
terminated on 02.01.1993. Subsequently, he raised a dispute
before the conciliation officer for redressal of his grievances.
Claimant projects that the Conciliation Officer had certified
that he entered the conciliation proceedings on 24.5.13
and period of 45 days stood expired, vide his letter dated
27.9.2013.
13. Out of facts presented by the claimant, it emerged
over the record that his services were disengaged by the
management on 02.01.1993. Consequently, it is clear that
the claimant projects a case of termination of his services
by the management on 02.01.1993. For approaching this
Tribunal, under provisions of sub-section (2) of section
2A of the Act, limitation of three years from the date of
discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination
of service of an employee has been imposed by the
legislature. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant could
have approached this Tribunal under sub-section (2) of
section 2A of the Act till 01.01.1996. As is evident, claim
preferred is beyond the period of limitation. Under these
circumstances, this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction
for adjudication of the dispute.
14. Question for consideration comes as to whether
a dispute can be filed afresh during the period when award
dated 13.08.2008 subsists. As the facts highlight, the
subsequent reference is between the same parties on the
same facts. When award dated 13.08.2008 is in force, in
respect to the industrial dispute, the claimant is barred
from raising the dispute. Section 19(3) of the Act provides
that an award of an Industrial adjudicator remains operating
for a period of one year from the date on which it becomes
enforceable. It can be terminated by any party bound by it
by giving a notice as required by sub-section (6) of Section
19 of the Act. An award continues to be binding on the
parties only as long as it remains in operation. Therefore,
there is a statutory bar to the reference of an industrial
dispute, which is the subject matter of an operative award
so long as previous award is in force in respect of a certain
industrial dispute. Those disputes cannot be referred as
fresh to the industrial adjudicator by merely changing the
phraseology of the dispute and the tribunal will not have
jurisdiction to entertain the fresh reference in respect of
those matters of dispute. In case precedents are needed
then reference can be made to British India Corporation
Ltd., (13 FJR 352) and Bangalore Woolen, Cotton and Silk
48
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Mills Ltd., [1968(1) LLJ 555]. In view of the facts, referred
above, it is crystal clear that during the currency of award
dated 13.08.2008, the claimant cannot file the dispute afresh.
15. In view of these reasons, direct industrial dispute
raised by the claimant is not maintainable at all. His claim is
accordingly, brushed aside. An award is passed. It be sent
to the appropriate Government for publication.
Dated : 25.11.2013
R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 23.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsanzh; ljdkj E;qfufliy
dkjiksjs'ku vkWQ fnYyh] ds izca/kra= ds lac)~ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k &
160@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&12&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@40@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 23.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 160/
2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Municipal Corporation
of Delhi, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/40/2012-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
NO. 1, DELHI
I.D. NO. 160/2012
The General Secretary,
Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh,
Delhi Pradesh, P-2/624, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
...Workman
Versus
The Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi — 110006.
...Management
AWARD
Shri Ramesh Chand, was initially engaged as daily
wager mali by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short the
Corporation). He was later on regularized as mali with effect
from 01.04.1978. He raised a demand for grant of pay in pay
scale meant for the post of choudhary, from the date of his
appointment. His claim was rejected by the Corporation on
the count that neither he was having requisite qualification
nor passed the trade test for promotion as choudhary. He
approached the Nagar Nigam Karamchari Sangh (in short
the union) for redressal of his grievances. The union raised
a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since the
Corporation contested the claim, conciliation proceedings
ended into a failure. On consideration of failure report, so
submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate
Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for
adjudication, vide order No. L-42012/40/2012-IR (DU) New
Delhi dated 09.11.2012, with following terms:
"Whether action of the management of Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in denying the new pay
scale of 'Chaudhary to the workman Shri Ramesh
Chand, S/o late Shri Shankar Singh Mali, with effect
from the date of appointment i.e. 01.01.1987 till date
of retirement, i.e. 31.07.2007 is justified or not? If not,
what relief the workman is entitled to and from which
date?"
2. In the reference order, the appropriate Government
commanded the parties to the dispute to file statement of
claim, completle with relevant documents, list of reliance
and witnesses with this Tribunal within 15 days of receipt
of the reference order and to forward a copy of such
statement of claim to the opposite parties involved in the
dispute. Despite directions, so given, Shri Ramesh Chand
opted not to file his claim statement with the Tribunal.
3. Notice was sent to Shri Ramesh Chand by
registered post on 03.12.2012, calling upon him to file claim
statement before the Tribunal on or before 02.01.2013. This
notice was sent to him through the union at P-2/624.
Sultanpuri, Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate
Government in order of reference. Neither the claimant nor
the union responded to the notice, so sent.
4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant
to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to his by
registered post on 02.01.2013 calling upon his to file claim
statement before the Tribunal on 29.01.2013. Notice was
again transmitted to the claimant by reigstered post on
31.01.2013 asking him to file his claim statement on or before
20.02.2013. Lastly, notice dated 22.02.2013 was sent by
registered post commanding the claimant to file his claim
statement before the Tribunal on or before 22.03.2013.
Neither the post articles, referred above, were received back
nor was it observed by the Tribunal that postal services
remained affected in the period, referred above. Therefore,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
49
every presumption lies in faviour of the fact that the above
notices were served upon the claimant. Despite service of
these notices, claimant opted to obstain away from the
proceedings. No claim statement was filed on his behalf.
5. Since onus of the question, referred for
adjudication, was on the Corporation, it was called upon to
file its response to the reference order. In its response to
the reference order, the Corporation projects that no notice
of demand was served on it prior to raising of dispute,
hence it has not acquired status of an industrial dispute.
The Corporation further pleads that for want of espousal,
dispute has not acquired character of an industrial dispute.
It has also been claimed that the dispute has been raised at
a belated stage, since the claimant superannuated on
31.07.2007 and no dispute was raised during his tenure of
service. Claimant is not entitled to get new pay scale of
choudhary with effect from 01.04.1978, the date when he
was initially engaged as mali. His claim is not maintainable.
It is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits, pleads
the Corporation. There is a prescribed Produced for
promotion to the post of Chaudhary from the post of mali.
i.e. there must be a sanctioned/vacant post of Chaudhary,
the incumbent possesses requisite qualification and have
passed trade test conducted by the Corporation. The
claimant neither possessed the requisite qualification nor
had ever appeared in any trade test. Shri Ramesh Chand
never peformed duties of Chaudhary. It has been projected
that the claim is liable to be dismised.
6. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came
forward on behalf of the claimant to advance arguments.
Shri Umesh Gupta, authorized representative, raised
submissions on behalf of the Corporation. I have given my
careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the
bar and cautiously persued the record. My findings on
issues involved in the controversy are as follows:
7. Corporation contests the dispute on the count
that no notice of demand was served on it prior to raising a
dispute before the Conciliation Officer. These facts also
remained uncontroverred. The object of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (in the short the Act) is to proved
workman against victimization by the employer and ensure
termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manner. The
Act, however, does not provide for any set of social and
economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests.
Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial
adjudication, keeping in view the social and economic
conditions, the needs of the workmen, the requirement of
the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties
and common good. These norms have given rights to the
indusutrial employees what may be called industrial rights,
as such rights may not be available at common law. Disputes
as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by
resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining.
This tool is resorted to between an employer or group of
employers and a bonafide labour union. Policy behind his
is to protect workmen as a class against unfair labour
practices. What imparts to the dispute of a workman the
character of an "Industrial dispute" is that it affects the
right of the workmen as a class.
8. An industrial dispute comes into existences when
the employer and the workman are at variance and the
dispute/difference is connected with the employment or
non-employment, terms of employment or with conditions
of labour. In other words, dispute or difference arises when
a demand is made by the workman on the employer and it is
rejected by him and vice versa. In Sindhu Resettlement
Corporation Ltd. [1968(1) LLJ 834], the Apex Court has
held that mere demand, asking the appropirate Government
to refer a dispute for adjudication, without being raised by
the workmen with their employer, regarding such demand,
cannot become an industrial dispute. Hence, an industrial
dispute cannot be said to exist until and unless a demand
is made by the workman or workmen on the employer and
it has been rejected by him. In Fedders Lloyd Corporation
Pvt. Ltd. (1970 Lab.I.C. 421), High Court of Delhi went a
step ahead and held that "...demand by the workmam must
be raised first on the management and rejected by it, before
an industrial dispute can be said to arise and exist and that
the making of such a demand to the Conciliation Officer
and its communication by him to the management, who
rejected the demand, is not sufficient to constitute an
indusutrial dispute."
9. The above decision was followed by Orissa High
Court in Orissa Indusutries Pvt. Ltd. (1976 Lab.I.C. 285)
and Himachal Pradesh High Court in Village Paper Pvt. Ltd.
(1993 Lab.I.C.99). However, the Apex Court in Bombay
Union of Journalists [1961 (2) LLJ 436] had ruled that an
industrial dispute must be in existence or apprehended on
the date of reference. If therefore, a demand has been made
by the workman and it has been rejected by the employer
before the date of reference, whether direct or through the
Conciliation Officer, it would constitute an industrial dispute.
In Shambhunath Goyal [1978 (1) LLJ 484], the Apex Court
appreciated facts that the workman had not made a formal
demand for his reinstatement in service. However, he had
contested his dismissal before the Enquiry Officer an
claimed reinstatement. Against the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, he preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority,
claiming reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal
was bad in law. Then again, he claimed reinstatement before
the Conciliation Officer in the course of conciliation
proceedings, which was contested by the employer.
Appreciating all these facts, the Apex Court inferred that
there was impeccable evidence that the workman had
persistently demanded reinstatement, rejection of which
brought an industrial dispute into existence.
10. In New Delhi Tailor Mazdoor Union [1979(39)
FLT 195], High Court of Delhi noted that Shambunath Goyal
50
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
had not overruled Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd. But it had
distinguished it on facts. It was also pointed out that
decision of three Judges bench in Sindhu Resettlement
Pvt. Ltd. could not have been overruled by two Judge
bench in Shambunath Goyal. The High Court concluded
that decision in Sindhu Resettlement Pvt. Ltd., in case of
any conflict between the two decisions, must prevail. The
High Court held that making of the demand by the workman
on the management was sine qua non for giving rise to an
industrial dispute.
11. The High Court of Madras in Management of
Needle Industries [1986(1) LLJ 405] has held that dispute
or difference between management and the workman,
automatically arises when the workman is dismissed from
service. His dismissal per se creates a dispute or difference
between the management and the workman. The Court
further observed that "it is nowhere stipulated in the Act,
particular in section 2(k), that existence of the dispute as
such is not enough but then there should be a demand by
the workman on the management to give rise to an industrial
dispute". However, this decision appears to be inconsistent
with the ratio of decision in Bombay Union of Journalists
(supra) and Sindhu Resettlement (supra). No doubt, for
existence of an industrial dispute, there should be a demand
by the workman and refusal to grant it by the management.
However, a demand should be raised, cannot be a legal
notion of fixity and rigidity. Grievances of the workman
and demand for its redressal must be communicated to the
management. Means and mechanism of the communication
adopted are not matters of much significance, so long as
demand is that of the workman and it reaches the
management. Reference can be made to the precedent in
Ram Krishna Mills Coimbatore Ltd. [1984(2) LLJ 259].
12. The Act nowhere contemplates that the industrial
dispute can come into existence in any particular, specific
or prescribed manner nor there is any particular or prescribed
manner in which refusal should be communicated. For an
industrial dispute to come into existence written claim is
not sine qua non. To read into the deifinition, requirement
of written demand for bringing an industrial dispute into
existence would tantamount to rewriting the section,
announced the Apex Court in Shambunath Goyal (supra).
In other words, oral demand and its rejection will as much
bring into existence an industrial dispute, as written one. If
facts and circumstances of the case show that the workman
had been making a demand, which the management had
been refusing to grant, it can be said that there was an
industrial dispute between the parties.
13. Since the claimant had not come forward to project
that demand notice was served on the Corporation, under
these circumstances, stand taken by the Corporation is to
be believed. The Corporation projects that no notice of
demand was served on it, before industrial dispute was
raised before the Conciliation Officer. Thus, it is emerging
over the record that it has not been established that demand
was raised on the Corporation, which was rejected by it
and as such, dispute has not acquired status of an industrial
dispute.
14. The Corporation for further argued that the
dispute has not acquired status of an industrial dispute for
want of espousal by the union or considerable number of
the workmen in its establishment. For an answer to this
proposition, definition of the term 'industrial dispute' is to
be construed Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (in short the Act), defines the term 'industrial dispute',
which definition is extracted thus:
"2(k) "Industrial dispute" means any dispute or
difference between employers and employers, or
between employers and workmen, or between
workmen and workmen, which is connected with the
employment or non-employment or the terms of
employment or with the conditions of labour, of any
person;"
15. The definition of "industrial dispute" referred
above, can be divided into four parts, viz. (i) factum of
dispute, (2) parties to the dispute, viz. (a) employers and
employers, (b) employer and workmen, or (c) workmen and
workmen, (3) subject matter of the dispute, which should
be connected with—(i) employment or non-employment,
or (ii) terms of employment, or (iii) condition of labour of
any person, and (4) it should relate to an "industry".
16. The definition of "industrial dispute" is worded
in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the
meaning given to word "workman" it would seem to include
all "employers", all "employments" and all "workmen",
whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be.
Therefore, except in the case where there can be a dispute
between the employers and employers and workmen and
workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must
be an employee or a class of employees. The first point,
therefore, to be noted, perhaps self evident, is that the
phrase "employer and workmen", the plural may include
singular on either side or any permutation of singular or
plural, the masculine including the feminine. In order,
therefore, to determine as to whether a controversy or
difference or a dispute is an "an industrial dispute" or not,
it must first be determined whether the workman concerned
or workmen sponsoring his cause satisfy the conditions of
clause (s) of section 2 of the Act. The Corporation does
not dispute status of the claimant, being a workman within
the meaning of section 2(s) of the Act.
17. The Apex Court put gloss on the definition of
"industrial dispute" in Dimakuchi Tea Estate [1958 (1) LLJ
500] and ruled that the expression "any person" in clause
(k) of section 2 of the Act must be read subject to such
limitation and qualification as arise from the context, the
two crucial limitations are (i) the dispute must be a real
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
51
dispute between the parties to the dispute (as indicated in
the first two parts of the definition clause) so as to capable
of settlement or adjudication by one party to the dispute
giving necessary relief to other, and (2) the person regarding
whom the dispute is raised must be one for whose
employment, non employment, terms of employment or
conditions of labour, as case may be, the parties dispute
for a direct or substantial interest. Where workman raised a
dispute as against their employment, the person regarding
whose employment, non employer, terms of employment
or conditions of labour, the dispute is raised need not be
strictly speaking "workman" within the meaning of the Act,
but must be one in whose employment, non employment,
terms of employment, or conditions of labour the workmen
as a class have a direct or substantial interest. The
observations made by the Apex Court are to be extracted
thus:
"We also agree with the expression "any person" is
not co-extensive with any workman, particular or
otherwise, equal with other, that the crucial test is
one of community of interest and the person
regarding whom the dispute is raised must be one in
whose employment, non employment, terms of
employment, conditions of labour (as the case may
be) the parties to the dispute have a direct or
substantial interest. Whether such direct or
substantial interest has been established in a
particular case will depend on its facts and
circumstances."
18. In Kyas Construction Company (Pvt) Ltd. [1958
(2) LLJ 660], the Apex Court ruled that an industrial dispute
need not be a dispute between the employer and his
workman and that the definition of the expression
"industrial dispute "is wide enough to cater a dispute raised
by the employer's workman with regard to non-employment
of others, who may not be employed as workman at the
relevant time. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of
Journalist [1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that in each
case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has
acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is
whether at the date of reference, the dispute was taken up
as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer
against whom, the dispute is raised by an individual
workman or by an appreciable number of workmen. In order,
therefore, to convert an individual dispute into an industrial
dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up
by the union of employees of the establishment or by an
appreciable number of the employees of the establishment.
As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is
concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally
presents little difficulty, since such workmen who are
members of such unions generally have a continuity of
interest with an individual employee who is one of their
fellow workman. But difficulty arise when the cause of a
workman, in a particular establishment is sponsored by a
union which is not of the workmen of that establishment
but is one of which membership is open to workmen of
their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a
case a union which has only microscopic number of the
workmen as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising
between the workmen and the management. A
representative character of the union has to be gathered
from the strength of the actual number of co-workers
sponsoring the dispute. The mere fact that a substantial
number of workmen of the establishment in which the
concerned workman was employee were also members of
the union would not constitute sponsorship. It must be
shown that they were connected together and arrived at
an understanding by a resolution or by other means and
collectively submitted the dispute.
19. The expression "industrial disputes" has been
construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes,
because of the scheme of the Act. In Raghu Nath Gopal
Patvardhan [1957(1) LLJ 27] the Apex Court ruled as to
what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute. It was
laid thereon that (1) a dispute between the employer and a
single workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2) it cannot
per-se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken
up by a trade union or a number of workmen. In Dharampal
Prem Chand [1965 (1) LLJ 668] it was commanded by the
Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot
become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either
by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial
number of workmen. Same law was laid in the case of Indian
Express Newspaper (Pvt.) Limited [1970 (1) LLJ 132].
However, in Western India Match Company [1970 (II) LLJ
256], the Apex Court referred the precedent in Dimakuchi
Tea Estate's case [1958 (1) LLJ 500] and ruled that a dispute
relating to "any person becomes a dispute where the person
in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment,
non employment, terms of employment or conditions of
labour, the parties, dispute for a direct or substantial
interest".
20. What a substantial or considerable number of
workmen would be in a given case, depend on particular
facts of the case. The fact that an "industrial dispute", is
supported by other workmen will have to be established
either in the form of a resolution of the union of which
workman may be member or of the workmen themselves
who support the dispute or in any other manner. From the
mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an
"industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is
referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen
of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred
that the individual dispute has been converted into an
"industrial dispute". The Tribunal has therefore, to consider
the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually
espoused the cause of the concerned workman by
participating in the particular resolution of the Union. In
the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it
52
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the
character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not
acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.
Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial
dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a
resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen.
What is necessary is that there should be some express or
collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of
the workmen treating the cause of the individual workman
as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid in P.
Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].
21. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a
registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once it
is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen
either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored
the workman's cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an
industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ
507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were
filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual
workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently
taken up by a new union formed by large number of co
workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was
not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five
representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed
workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were
espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and
unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these
disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized
union does not mean that they were not "industrial dispute".
22. It is not expedient that same union should remain
incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute
may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,
through a particular union for making such a dispute an
"industrial dispute", while the workman may be represented
before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of the Act
by a member of executive or office bearer of altogether
another union. The crux of the matter is that the dispute
should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen.
It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or
conducted only by a registered trade union. Even if a trade
union ceases to be registered trade union during the
continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would
not affect the maintainability of the order of reference. Law
to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon
India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For ascertaining as to
whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an
individual dispute, the test is whether on the date of the
reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the
union of the workmen of the employer against whom the
dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an
appreciable number of the workman. In order words, the
validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be
judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the
reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause
occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western
India Match Co. Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ 256].
23. Here in the case, not even an iota of facts are
brought over the record to the effect that the union took
up the cause of the claimant as their own. It is also not
shown that the members of the union had shown their
collective will in favour of the cause of the claimant. Thus
it is evident that there is a complete vaccum of facts to the
effect that the union espoused the cause of the claimant.
Resultantly there is no material to conclude to the effect
that the dispute acquired status of an industrial dispute.
The reference is laible to be answered against the claimant
on that score.
24. The Corporation agitates that a stale claim has
been referred for adjudication. Though pay for the post of
Choudhary has been claimed since the date of appointment
of the claimant, yet the dispute was raised in the year 2012.
The Corporation asserts that the dispute was not raised
within a reasonable time. The Corporation wants this
Tribunal to discard the claim of Shri Ramesh Chand,
projecting it to be a belated one. Section 10(1) of the Act
does not prescribe any period of limitation for making
reference of the dispute for adjudication. The words 'at
any time' used in sub section (1) of Section 10 of Act does
not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference.
Law of limitation, which might bar any Civil Court from
giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, cannot be applied
by Industrial Tribunals. However, policy of industrial
adjudication is that very state claim should not be generally
encouraged or allowed unless there is satisfactory
explanation for delay. In Shalimar Works Ltd. [1959(2) LLJ
26], Apex Court pointed out that though there is no
limitation prescribed in making reference of the dispute to
Industrial Tribunal. Even so, it is only reasonable that
disputes should be referred as soon as possible after having
arisen and on failure of conciliation proceedings. In Western
India Match Company [1970(2) LLJ 256] Apex Court
observed that in exercising its discretion, Government will
take into account time which has lapsed between its earlier
decision and the date when it decides to consider it in the
interest of justice and industrial peace to make the reference
adjudication. Same view was taken in Mahabir Jute Mills
Ltd. [1975 (2) LLJ 326]. In Gurman Singh [2000(1) LLJ 1080]
Industrial Adjudicator dismissed the reference on the
ground that there was delay of 8 years in raising the dispute,
which delay was condoned by the Apex Court and it was
ordered that the workman would not be entitled to any
back wages for the period of 8 years but would be entitled
to 50% of the wages from the date it raised the dispute till
the date of his reinstatement. In Prahalad Singh (2000(2)
LLJ 1653), the Apex Court approved the award of the
Tribunal in not granting any relief to the workman who
preferred the claim after a period of 13 years without any
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
53
reasonable or justifiable grounds. From the above decision,
it can be said that the law relating to delay in raising or
reference of dispute is bereft of any principles, which can
be easily comprehended by the litigants.
25. It would be considered as to whether a state claim
has been referred for adjudication by the appropriate
Government. As projected above, the claimant joined on
01.04.1978 and superannuated on 31.07.2007. He
approached the Conciliation Officer in the year 2012.
Consequently, it is emerging over the record that for more
than 24 years the claimant was sleeping and suddenly he
came out of slumbers and raised an industrial dispute. In
these circumstances spell of 24 years, without any action
on the part of the claimant makes his claim stale. I find that
the claimant was not justified to agitate his dispute after
such a long spell of time. He indulged in leisure litigation,
when he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer.
Delay in raising the dispute certainly creates hindrance
against the claimant, for grant of any relief to him.
26. For claim of new pay scale of Choudhary, it was
incumbent upon the claimant to establish that he had
performed duties of Choudhary. As projected by the
Corporation in the written statement, Shri Ramesh Chand
never performed duties of Choudhary and no office order
was ever issued by the Corporation assigning him duties
of Choudhary. In view of these facts, Shri Ramesh Chand
is not entitled to raise a claim for new pay scale Choudhary.
Resultantly, it is concluded that action of the Corporation
in denying the new pay scale of Choudhary to the claimant
is found to be justified. Shri Ramesh Chand is not entitled
to any relief on factual proposition too.
27. The foregoing reasons make me to conclude that
Shri Ramesh Chand is not entitled to new pay scale of
choudhary. Action of the Corporation in denying new pay
scale of Choudhary to Shri Ramesh Chand is found to be
justified. No relief can be granted in favour of Shri Ramesh
Chand. An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the
appropriate Government for publication.
Date: 28.10.2013
Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] fnukad 18 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 24.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsUnzh; js'ke cksMZ 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 ,ao
Je U;k;y;] csaxywj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 151@2007½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@115@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 18th December, 2013
S.O. 24.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 151/
2007) of the Cental Government Industial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-42011/115/2007-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL T RIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
Dated : 1st April, 2013
Present : Shri S.N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer
CR No. 151/2007
I Party
II Party
The President,
The Member Secretary,
Central Silk Board
Central Silk Board,
Employees Union,
CSB Complex,
C/o Manjunatha Stores,
BTM Layout,
3rd Main Pipeline West,
Madiwala,
Kasturba Nagar,
Mysore Road,
BANGALORE-560026
BANGALORE-560068
APPEARANCES
I Party
:
Shri V.S. Naik, Advocate
II Party
:
Shri N.S. Narasimha Swamy,
Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers
conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section
2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-42011/115/2007-
IR(DU) dated 07.11.2007 for adjudication on the following
schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of the Central Silk Board
Employees Union for enhancement of retirement age
from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale farm
workers is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief
the workmen are entitled to?"
54
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in C R No.
151/2007 on the file of this court when notices were issued
to both the sides, they entered their appearance through
their respective advocates and I Party claim statement came
to be filed on 22.02.2008, whereas the counter statement of
the II Party came to be filed on 12.10.2010.
3. In the claim statement it is claimed the Central Silk
Board (hereinafter referred as II Party) running extensive
centres and their sub-units, silk testing and conditioning
House, textile testing centres, demonstration-cum-Training
centres (for reeling and spinning), Seed production centres,
Basic Seed Farm etc., engaging the casual workers to work
in the said units and after they put in certain years of service
absorb them as Time Scale Farm Workers (TSFWs) and
since from the inception their superannuation age is fixed
at 55 years and inspite of the age of retirement of its
permanent employees enhanced from 55 to 58 years and
then from 58 to 60 years as per the pay commission
recommendations, inspite of several requests and demands
no enhancement being made in the retirement age of the
TSFWs a demand was put forward to enhance their age of
retirement from 55 to 60 years on par with regular employees
working in the board and as there was no proper response
the I Party Union raised a dispute before the Regional
Labour Commissioner in No. 8(69)/99-B3 and as II party
which undertake to took a proper decision in spite of several
discussions failed to take a positive decision ultimately
the Regional Labour Commissioner submitted his failure
report, the Central Government made this reference for
adjudication. It is also stated in the claim statement in several
statutory bodies constituted by the Central Government
like National Seeds Corporation Limited, Indian Institute
of Horticulture Research etc., the age of retirement of casual
labourers enhanced to 60 years as per the Central Pay
Commission recommendations refusal on the part of the
II party to enhance the retirement age of TSFWs from 55
years to 60 years is prejudicial to them and they are entitled
for enhancement of their retirement age from 55 to 60 years.
Inter-alia, in the counter statement the demand of the
I party is opposed on the ground that fixation of retirement
age being a policy decision this court has no jurisdiction
to adjudicate on the same and that since II party is
operating under Ministry of Textiles, Government of India
engaging workers for various manual nature of work under
CSB and they are called as Casual or Time Scale Farm
Workers and that in August 1970 a settlement was entered
into between one of the Research Institute (Central
Sericulture and Research Training Institute, CSB, Mysore)
and the then existing Labour Union and as per the said
settlement the retirement age of casual and time scale farm
workers being fixed at 55 years and same is continued uptill
now, there is no justification in asking for enhancement of
the retirement age from 55 to 60 years. It is further
contended the casual workers and TSFWs being not the
Permanent/Regular employees of the II Party they cannot
claim the benefit extended to the regular employees with
regard to their retirement age on par with the Central
Government Employees. Thus it is contended that the
demand of the I Party Union being not legal and justified.
4. After completion of the pleadings when the learned
advocate appearing for the I party was called upon to lead
evidence, he filed the affidavit of Ravish Kondancha,
treasurer of the CSB Employees Union (herein after referred
as I Party) and examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited
Original Memorandum dated 19.11.1989; copy of the
Representation submitted by the CSB Employees Union
dated 6.10.1999 and 13.10.1999; copy of the Representation
submitted by the CSB Employees Union dated 19.1.2000;
copy of the circular dated 28.07.1998 issued by the National
Seeds Corporation Limited; copy of the Circular dated
05.06.1991 issued by the Indian Council of Agricultural
research; Original Notice dated 10.05.2011; copy of the
workmen appointment, Pay and Allowances regulations
1988 of National Dairy Development Board; attested copy
of a study on Age of Superannuation of Central Government
Employees in Institute of Applied Man Power research;
copy of letter dated 04.11.2010 addressed by the II Party to
the Ministry of Textiles and letter dated 10.02.2011 given
on RTI Application and copy of the letter dated 10.11.2011
by the I Party Union to the Ministry of Textiles as Ex W-1 to
Ex W-11 and in his cross-examination by the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party copy of the letter dated
08.08.2012 issued by the Ministry of Textiles, New Delhi to
the II Party got marked as Ex M-1. Inter-alia, the learned
advocate appearing for the II party while filing the affidavit
of Shri A.N. Yadhunath Rao, Assistant Director examining
him on oath as MW 1 got exhibited copy of the agreement
between the CSRTI Union and the II Party management
dated 01.08.1970 as Ex M-2 and in his cross-examination
the learned advocate appearing for the I party got exhibited
copy of report of committee constituted during 2005 for
adopting temporary status scheme of 1993 as Ex W-12.
5. With the above pleadings and evidence placed on
record by both the sides, the arguments addressed by both
the sides were heard.
6. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by both the sides
in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned
advocates, I have arrived at conclusion the demand of the
Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement of
retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time scale
farm workers being legal and justified and that they are
entitle for enhancement of their retirement age from 55 years
to 60 years for the following reasons:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
55
Reasons
7. Admittedly, the services of the TSFWs are not
regularized and their claim in that respect being denied by
this court they have approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in W.P. No. 26513/2007 and W P No. 19130/2007
and if at all their services were regularized as per their claim
pending in their Writ Petition their age of superannuation
would have been automatically enhanced to 60 years and
there would have been no necessity to proceed with this
reference. Only because the present age of retirement of
TSFWs is 55 years as per the settlement/agreement it is
not a ground to reject their claim for enhancement of the
retirement age to 60 years. As rightly urged on behalf of
the I Party workmen the II Party itself in its letter addressed
to Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles dated 04.11.2010
marked as Ex W-9 having unequivocally stated:
"The Casual Labourers/Farm Workers working in
other autonomous bodies like coffee Board, Spices Board
IIHR and National Seeds Corporation Limited, etc., have
fixed the retirement age of their Casual Labourers/Farm
Workers at 58 years/60 years. The copies of replies received
from the said organizations are enclosed herewith for ready
reference. It is pertinent to state that there is no other
organization found to have fixed the retirement age at
55 years for such category of workers. It is also relevant to
mention that the Farm Workers of CSB are covered under
the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, and are contributing towards EPF
and other benefits under the said act. The said Act apart
from providing EPF benefits to its subscribers, also provides
for payment of monthly Pension and also Family Pension
to the subscribers/their nominees based on the qualifying
service, rate of contribution etc. The monthly Pension
under the said Act becomes payable at a subscriber on
attaining the age of 58 years. If a subscriber opts for pension
at the age of 55 years, he will get lesser pension or
alternatively a certificate giving commitment to the
subscriber to pay the pension from 58th years in which
case he will not get any pension from 55th to 58th year. In
view of the these statutory provisions, our Farm Workers
are deprived of pension immediately on their
superannuation at the age of 55 years or they will have to
be satisfied with lesser rate of pension. In these
circumstances, it is just and reasonable that their age of
retirement is enhanced to 58 years. The pendency of the
aforesaid case does not come in the way of consideration
of this proposal by the Ministry and in case the ministry
considers this proposal, the Board can seek dismissal of
the Central Reference as settled. The financial implication
of this account works out to approximately Rs. 2.05 crores
per year."
8. It is a clear admission the age of the retirement of
such type of workers in other similar organisations are
raised to 58 and 60 years there are no reasons for the
II party to disown their own recommendations or to refuse
the claim of the I Party Union. When this recommendations
was made to the Textile Ministry, the Textile Ministry
without disputing this position in its reply dated 08.08.2012
copy of which is produced at Ex M-1 while agreeing to
enhance the retirement age of TSFWs from 55 years to 58
years w.e.f. 16.07.2012 with certain other conditions imposed
a condition at clause (d) that the TSFWs and their Unions
shall withdraw all the cases filed in different courts for
grant of temporary status and undertake not to raise these
issues any further or claim temporary status in future which
clause is not accepted by I Party. Thereby the II Party as
well as its controlling Ministry practically agreed the
demand for enhancement of the age being justified but
unnecessarily insisted the Union and the TSFWs to
withdraw all cases filed in different court and to undertake
not to raise such issues any further or claim temporary
status in future is unreasonable and they should allow
such demand of workmen to be decided by the appropriate/
competent courts before which such matters are pending.
9. It was vehemently argued by the learned advocate
appearing for the II party that when the Union Representing
the casual labourers and TSFWs working in the II Party by
way of settlement agreed the age of superannuation is to
be 55 years, unless the same is duly cancelled their demand
for enhancement of superannuation age of 60 years is
untenable. The alleged agreement relied upon by the learned
advocate appearing for the II Party is produced at Ex. M-2.
On entire reading of the agreement there is no specific
clause as to the superannuation age but only under
clause (2) of the agreement with regard to the strength of
the labourers to be given the wage scale benefits shall be
restricted to 75 in number and that the initial encaderment
will be on the basis of strict seniority from among those
within the age of superannuation, referred to as 55 years.
The said clause in the agreement is as under:
"Clause 2: It was also agreed upon that the permanent
strength of the labourers to be given the above wage
scale benefits will be restricted to seventy five (75)
in number (excluding watch and ward staff). The
initial encaderment will be on the basis of strict
seniority from among those within the age of
superannuation namely 55 years."
10. Since in the year 1970 the age of the
Superannuation of Regular Employees of II Party par with
the Central Government Employees was also 55 years the
superannuation age of these workmen must have also been
referred as 55 years in Ex. M-2, therefore, on this ground
also when as per the recommendations of the Central Pay
Commission from time to time the superannuation age of
the regular employees of the II Party have been enhanced
and as per the recommendations of the 5th pay Commission
the enhancement of regular employees of the II Party have
been raised from 58 years to 60 years for the same benefit
the I Party workmen are also entitled to.
56
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
11. The learned advocate appearing for the II Party
while referring to the certain admissions in the Cross-
examination of WW1 the nature of job of TSFWs being
that of a casual labourer involving physical labour urged
that such workmen cannot work after attaining the age of
55 years as such also their claim for enhancement of age of
superannuation from 55 years to 60 years is not justified.
With due respect to the learned advocate appearing for the
II Party there is no evidence that the efficiency of a physical
labourer in these days will be diminished after attaining the
age of 55 years comparative to the employees working
sitting on the chairs. On the other hand in my opinion the
health of a worker involving a physical labour will be
stronger/healthier comparative to the employees working
sitting on the chairs which is sedentary. In the upshot of
the above discussion, I arrive at the conclusion the demand
of the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement
of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time
scale farm workers is legal and justified and that they are
entitle to enhancement of superannuation age from 52 years
to 60 years. In the result, I pass the following Order:
ORDER
The reference is allowed holding that the demand of
the Central Silk Board Employees Union for enhancement
of retirement age from 55 years to 60 years for the time
scale farm workers is legal and justified and that they are
entitle to enhancement of their retirement age from 55 years
to 60 years.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and
signed by me on 1st April 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 25.—vkS|kSfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsaæh; ljdkj fMikVZesaV vkWQ
VsyhdE;wfuds'ku] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsaæh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼143@98½ dks
izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsaæh; ljdkj dks 18&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@2@98&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 25.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 143/98)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Bhopal and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/2/98-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/143/98
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ramswaroop Maurya,
Raghunanadan Prasad Maurya,
Laxmiganj Gallamandi,
Koti No. 126, Barkhedi,
Bhopal
....Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
M.P. Circle,
Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 1st day of October-2013)
1. As per letter dated 20-7-1998 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
2/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services
of Shri Ram Swaroop Maurya w.e.f. May 88 is
justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
parties. Ist Party workman filed statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/3. The case of Ist Party workman is that he was
working on muster roll under the supervision of the officers
of IInd party from 1984. He was working under Junior
Telecom Engineer, Shahapur, Bhopal. In 1984, he worked
for 183 days, 1985 for 221 days, 1987 for 77 days, 1988 for
307 days, 1989 for 365 days & 1990 for 120 days. That the
work was started in ACG-17 in place of muster roll as per
order of the respondent management. That he was
continuously working with the satisfaction of his superiors.
His service record was unblemished. He was required to
work as per directions given by Chief General Manager,
Telecommunication, Bhopal. That his services were
discontinued in May 1988 without issuing notice, he was
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
57
not given any opportunity before termination of his
services. He had completed 240 days continuous service
in the preceding calender year. He was entitled to be
regularized in service. After his termination, new hands
were allowed to work. That in many cases, Tribunal issued
directions for regularization of the persons not to terminate
services of the employees. He claimed that as he had
completed 240 days service, he is entitled for regularization.
On such grounds, workman prayed for his reinstatement
with consequential benefits.
3. Management of IInd Party filed Written Statement
at Page 4/1 to 4/2. The claim of workman is denied. That the
workman was engaged purely as casual labour. His service
was restricted to each working day commencing at morning
till evening. The services of casual labours are covered by
the policy covered by the deptt. as per existing requirement.
It is denied that workman was terminated in May 1988, IInd
Party submits that services of workman were discontinued
from 2-5-90. He was paid one month's wages i.e. Rs. 1035
and 1550 towards retrenchment compensation under
section 25 of I.D. Act. That the workman was found
continuously absent for a period of 25 months from
September 1985 to Sept. 1987. The break period of 25
months could not be condoned by Competent Authority
as the period was exceeding 12 months. Workman was
restricted by the Deptt. It is submitted that workman has
not completed 240 days continuous service. There is no
question of regularization of service. Order dated 20-5-95
passed CAT is not applicable in the case. That the workman
on his own accord failed to render service. His absence
from service could not be condoned. His services
automatically came to an end. On such ground, IInd Party
submits that the 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 management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom in terminating the services
of Shri Ram Swaroop Maurya w.e.f. May 88 is legal?
In Affirmative
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though the workman is challenging termination
of his services rendered as per the terms of reference,
statement of claim is filed. However workman filed affidavit
of his evidence but he remained absent and failed to make
available for cross-examination. His evidence was closed
on 4-5-2010 observing that his evidence shall not be
considered.
6. Management filed affidavit of evidence of its
witness Shri A.K. Balpande, He has stated in his affidavit
that the workman was found continuously absent for
25 months from Sept.-85 to Sept. 86. That workman was
paid one months pay Rs. 1035 and retrenchment
compensation Rs. 1052. The evidence of management's
witness remained unchallenged as workman remained
absent and failed to cross-examine the witness of the
management. Thus the evidence of workman cannot be
considered and he failed to remain present for his cross-
examination. The management's witness was not cross-
examined. I find no reason to discard evidence of
management's witness therefore termination of services of
workman cannot be said illegal. For above reasons I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
7. In the result awared is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Chief General Manager,
Telecom in terminating the services of Shri Ram
Swaroop Maurya w.e.f. May 88 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 26.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ftyk vfHk;ark
nwjlapkj] jktx<+ 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/
LC/R/44/2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@302@2001&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 26.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/44/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Telecom District Engineer, Rajgarh and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/302/2001-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/44/2002
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
58
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Shri Mohd Raiz Khan,
C/o Abdul Matten,
Vill: Udhankhedi,
Tehsil Sarangpur, Biaora,
Rajgarh
...Workman
Versus
Telecom District Engineer,
O/0 the TDE,
Rajgarh, At Biaora,
Rajgarh
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of November 2013)
1. As per letter dated 25.2.2002 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-40012/302/2001-IR (DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
Distt. Engineer, Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh in terminating
the services of Shri Mohd. Raiz Khan S/o Shri Abdul
Rasheed Khan w.e.f. September 2000 is justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman submitted Statement of Claim
at Page 2/1 to 2/2. The case of Ist Party is that he was
employed as casual mazdoor by IInd Party. He had worked
for more than 240 days prior to his termination. He was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Therefore his termination
is illegal. On such ground, workman prayed for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement. IInd Party
denied that workman was never engaged by the
management. There is no question of terminating his
services. That there was no question of completing 240
days service by the workman. There was no question of
payment of retrenchment compensation as workman was
never engaged by the IInd Party. On such ground, IInd
Party prays for rejection of the 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 action of the
In Affirmative
management of Telecom Distt.
Engineer, Biaora, Distt.
Rajgarh in terminating the
services of Shri Mohd. Raiz
Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rasheed
Khan w.e.f. September 2000 is
justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the Relief prayed by workman is
workman is entitled to?" rejected.
REASONS
5. Though in Statement of claim, the workman is
challenging termination of his services on the ground that
retrenchment compensation was not paid to him. That he
had completed 240 days service prior to his termination.
IInd Party denied above contentions of workman. Workman
has not adduced any evidence. Evidence of workman was
closed on 31.5.2011. Management filed affidavit of evidence
of Ramzan Khan. The witness of the management had
denied that workman was engaged by the management.
That there was no question of completing 240 days service.
The evidence of management's witness remained
unchallenged. I do not find reason to disbelieve evidence
of management's witness as workman has not adduced his
evidence to establish that he was working for more than
240 days with the IInd Party. Workman is not covered under
Section 25(B) of I.D. Act is not entitled to protection of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The termination cannot be said
illegal. Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 in
Affirmative.
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Telecom Distt. Engineer,
Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh in terminating the services of
Shri Mohd. Raiz Khan S/o Shri Abdul Rasheed Khan
w.e.f. September 2000 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 27.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; tujy
esustj] gsoh okVj IykaV ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjk— ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 4/2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@64@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 27.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2011) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad
now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the employers in relation to the management of
The Chief General Manager, Heavy Water Plant, Khammam
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
59
and their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-42011/64/2010-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding
Officer
Dated the 5th day of June, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 4/2011
BETWEEN:
Sri Syed Khasim Hussain,
(Rep. of workman)
Ex. Scientific Asstt. 'D',
H.No. 11-2-71, Sree Nagar Colony,
New Palvoncha (P.O.)-507115.
Khammam District.
.....Petitioner
AND
The Chief General Manager,
M/s. Heavy Water Plant (Manuguru).
Aswapuram-507116.
Khammam District.
....Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner :
Sri M.V.L. Narasaiah, Advocate
For the Respondent :
None
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
Order No. L-42011/64/2010-IR(DU) dated 31/1/2011 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1)(d) of the Act,
1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of M/s. Heavy Water Plant and their workmen.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Shri N. Narasimha Chary,
contract labour employed by H.W.P.(M) SC, BC and
other Land Loosers Contract Labour Cooperative
Society Ltd., Aswapuram for payment of Bonus as
per provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, is
justified? If so, what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 4/2011 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Case stands posted for filing claim statement and
documents by the Petitioner union.
3. Petitioner union called absent and there is no
representation. Chaim statement and documents are not
filed inspite of giving fair opportunity. Petitioner union is
not taking interest in the proceedings though the matter is
pending since 2011. Taking that Petitioner union is not
interested in the proceedings of the case, 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 5th day
of June, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 28.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd] Hkkjrh;
lkaf[;dh laLFkku 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2007½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ 42012@31@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 28.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/2007)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The Director, Indian Statistical Institute,
Kolkata and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/31/2006-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
60
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: Smt. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Dated the 7th day of June, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 5/2007
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. C. Samudramma
W/o Sri C. Jangaiah,
R/o 2-3-456, Raghunathanagar,
Amberpet, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. A. Pushpamma,
W/o Sri A. Ashok Kumar,
R/o H.No. 29, Osmania University,
Camp No. 5, Hyderabad ....Petitioner
AND
1. The Director,
Indian Statistical Institute,
203, BT Road,
Kolkata - 700035.
2. The Executive Incharge,
Indian Statistical Institute,
Street No. 8, Habsiguda,
Hyderabad. ....Respondents
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner
:
M/s. G. Ravi Mohan, Ch.
Satyanarayana, G. Naresh
Kumar, Vikas Sharma & G. Pavan
Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent
:
M/s. A.K. Jayaprakash Roa, M.
Govind & Vekatesh Dixit,
Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
Order No. L-42012/31/2006-IR(DU) dated 8.12.2006 referred
the following dispute under section 10(1) of the I.D. Act,
1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the
management of Indian Statistical Institute and their
workwmen. The reference is,
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Indian Statistical Institute, Hyderabad (A.P.) in
denying regularization of services of Smt. C.
Samudramma and Smt. A. Pushpamma, Casual
Workers, is proper and justified? If not, to what relief
the said workers are entitled and from what date?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 5/2007 and notices were issued to the parties concerned.
2. Petitioners filed claim statement. Petitioners did
not file any document. Respondents filed counter and
stated that they have no documents to file.
3. The case stands posted for evidence of Petitioners,
Petitioners called absent and there is no representation
since long time as such, their right to adduce evidence was
forfeited. Respondent reported no evidence.
4. It is reported by the Respondent counsel on
23.4.2013 that 1st Petitioner expired, but no Legal
Representatives are brought on record and further 2nd
Petitioner has not adduced any evidence, which shows
that he is not interested in proceedings.
5. Inspite of giving fair opportunity 2nd Petitioner is
called absent and there is not representation. The legal
representative if any of the deceased 1st Petitioner also
is/are not taking interest in the proceedings. In the given
circumstances, considering that 2nd Petitioner and the legal
representative(s) if any of the 1st Petitioner are 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 7th day
of June, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 29.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e- b- ,l-
HkfVaMk daVksuesaV 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] paMhx<+ ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼79] 80] 81]
82] 83] 85@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@59@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lañ ,y&14012@58@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lañ ,y&14012@57@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lañ ,y&14012@56@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lañ ,y&14012@55@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
lañ ,y&14012@53@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
61
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 29.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 79/2005,
80/2005, 81/2005, 82/2005, 83/2005 and 85/2005) of the
Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of MES Bathinda Cantt.,
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/12/2013.
[No. L-14012/59/2004 - IR(DU),
No. L-14012/58/2004 - IR(DU),
No. L-14012/57/2004 - IR(DU),
No. L-14012/56/2004 - IR(DU),
No. L-14012/55/2004 - IR(DU),
No. L-14012/53/2004 - IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: Sri A. K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. No. 79/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Sukhpal Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
I.D. No. 80/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Dilbar Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
I.D. No. 81/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Darshan Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
I.D. No. 82/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Major Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
I.D. No. 83/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Sohan Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
I.D. No. 85/2005
Registered on 20.4.2005
Sh. Manjit Singh C/o Sh. Dinesh Kumar, #431,
Sector 15/A, Chandigarh.
Versus
The Garrsion Engineer (Utility), MES Bathinda Cantt.,
Bathinda
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the workman
-
Sh. Chaman Lal, Adv.
For the management
-
Sh. K. K. Thakur, Adv.
AWARD
Passed on 24.7.2013
Central Government vide Order No. L-14012/59/2004
[IR(DU)], L-14012/58/2004 [IR(DU)], L-14012/57/2004
[IR(DU)], L-14012/56/2004 [IR(DU)], L-14012/55/2004
[IR(DU)] and L-14012/53/2004 [IR(DU)] all dated 29/3/2005
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 has referred the following industrial
disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal.
ID No. 79/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Sukhpal Singh S/o Sh. Lachhman Singh,
w.e.f. 24/02/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
ID No. 80/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Dilbar Singh S/o Sh. Jagjit Singh, w.e.f
9/3/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
ID No. 81/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Jeet Singh, w.e.f.
24/02/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
ID No. 82/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Major Singh S/o Sh. Kaka Singh, w.e.f.
24/02/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
ID No. 83/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Sohan Singh S/o Sh. Roshan Singh,
w.e.f. 24/02/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
ID No. 85/2005
"Whether the action of the management of Garrison
Engineer (Utility), Bathinda Cantt, Bathinda in terminating
the services of Sh. Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh,
w.e.f. 24/02/2004 even without complying with the statutory
provisions of ID Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled and from which date?"
62
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Since in all the references common questions of law
and fact are involved hence they are being decided by this
common award.
As per claim statements the workman had been
employed by the Garrison Engineer (Utility) MES Bathinda
through the Contractor and the workmen continued despite
the change of contractors. All the workmen had been
appointed as operator (skilled worker) between 1989 to
2001 but the services of all the workmen except of Dilbar
Singh (of ID No. 80/2005) were terminated on 24/2/2004
and that of Dilbar Singh on 9.3.2004 in violation of the
provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the Act. The workmen
had continuously worked from the date of employment till
the date of termination and had completed more than 240
days service in a calendar year preceding the date of their
termination. While terminating their services the juniors
were retained and after the termination new hands were
employed afresh without making any offer of re-
employment to the workmen. It has also been alleged that
the so-called contract system by the MES authorities is
sham and a smoke screen and upon lifting the veil it would
be found that the contract system has been adopted by
the MES authorities only with a view to exploit the
unemployment conditions. The employment through
contractors is only a pretext and in fact there is direct
relationship of master and servant between the MES
authorities and the workmen. The workmen worked under
the direct supervision and control of the MES authorities.
Log Book were written/maintained by the workmen and
checked by the officials of MES authorities. They had been
issued I. Cards by the respondent and the ultimate authority
to appoint rested with the MES authorities. The ultimate
disciplinary control was also with them and the present
termination is also at the behest of the MES Authorities
being the principal employer. It was also alleged that neither
the MES authorities and nor the contractors are registered
under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 hence for all intents and purposes the workmen are
the employees of MES authorities. They have claimed their
reinstatement with continuity in service and full back
wages.
The claims were contested by the management and
it was alleged that undisputedly workmen were employed
by the contractors who had been given the task of manning
and operation of installations of the management and there
was no relationship of employer and employee between
the management and the workmen. The workmen were
never fully integrated into the management because all the
powers namely, power to select and dismiss, power to pay
remunerations, power to organize work, power to supply
tools and materials lie solely with the contractor and the
provisions of Section 25F, G and H are not attracted in
these cases.
A replication was filed on behalf of workmen and the
contents made in the claim statements were reiterated.
The workmen examined themselves in their respective
cases but subsequently stopped appearing in the case.
When they did not appear despite several adjournments
the cases were ordered to proceed ex parte against them.
On behalf of management statement of Indal Prasad was
recorded. His statement could not be completed and had
been deferred on the request of learned counsel for
workmen but as subsequently the workmen were put ex
parte hence, the witness was discharged.
I have heard the learned counsel for the management
and perused the evidence on record. All the workmen have
admitted that they have not been given appointment letters
and termination order by the management. They have also
admitted that the salary was being paid to them by the
contractor. The workmen have filed security pass and I.
Card etc. but they cannot be accepted as a proof of
employment by the management. The learned counsel for
management argued that since the relationship of master
and servant has been alleged by the workmen hence, it
was for them to prove it. There is no evidence to show that
they had been appointed by the management and they had
worked under the supervision and control of the
management and they had integrated with the management.
I agree with the learned counsel for management that
absolutely there is no evidence to prove that the workmen
were the employees of the management. There is nothing
on record to show that they worked under the supervision
and control of the management, they were under the
disciplinary control of the management, they were an
integral part of the management organization; and, they
themselves have admitted that they were not being paid
by the management. Hence, I am of the view that the
workmen were not the employees of the management.
Even if it is assumed that the MES and the contractor
through whom the workmen alleged to have been employed
by the management are not registered under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 then they may
be liable for action under the said Act, but the violation of
the provisions of the said Act cannot make the workmen
the employees of the MES. Since the workmen were not
the employees of the respondent hence, there was no
obligation on the management to comply with the provision
of Section 25F, G and H of the Act. The workmen were
neither the appointees of the management nor their services
were terminated by the management hence, they are not
entitled to any relief. References are answered against the
workmen. A copy of award be placed on the record of ID
No. 79/2005, ID No. 80/2005, ID No. 81/2005, 82/2005, 83/
2005 and ID No. 85/2005 each. Hard and soft copies of the
award be sent to the Central Government for further
necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
63
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 30.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj i x bZ e b j 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]
paMhx<+ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1364@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@102@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 30.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1364/
2008) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court
Chandigarh No. II as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
dispute between the management of P.G.I.M.E.R. and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
18/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/102/2007-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENU GOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,
CHANDIGARH
PRESENT: SRI A.K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
Case No. I.D. 1364/2008
Registered on 11.3.2008
Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Rajender, H. No. 906, Janata
Colony, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
Versus
1.
The Director, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
2.
M/s A.N. Kapoor (Janitors) Private Limited, PGIMER
Room No. 38, Nehru Sarai, Chandigarh.
...Respondent
APPEARANCES:
For the workman :
Sh. Anil Mehta Adv.
For the management :
Sh. Madan Mohan Advocate
AWARD
(Passed on 9.4.2013)
Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/
102/2007-IR(DU) Dated 29.2.2008, 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 Áct') has referred the following
Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s A.N.
Kapoor (Janitors) Private Limited a contractor of the
Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh in terminating
the services of their workman Smt. Santosh w.e.f.
18.11.2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
After receiving the reference notices were issued to
the parties. They put in their appearance but respondent
No. 2 did not appear subsequently and contest the case
hence he was put ex parte vide order dated 30.3.2012.
In the claim statement workman pleaded that she
was appointed by Director PGI w.e.f. April 2001 on monthly
salary of Rs. 2400 and she continued to work till April 2005
when her services were deployed to the contractor
respondent No. 2 i.e. M/s A.N. Kapoor. She continued to
work with the above mentioned contractor up to 17.11.2006
when her services were terminated by the above mentioned
respondent No. 2. It is pleaded by the workman that for all
intents and purposes she was the employee of respondent
No. 1 i.e. PGI as she was under the control of that
respondent who was the principal employer. She has
completed more than five years service with the
management and completed 240 days in preceding year. It
was also alleged that the action of the management in
terminating the services of the workman is against the
provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. That mandatory
provision of Section 25F has not been complied with as
she was not given any notice and notice pay or
retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. The
principle of "first come last go"was also not observed by
the management and juniors to her were retained. It is
further pleaded by the workman that her termination is not
a termination simplicator but it is a punishment and the
management has not conducted any inquiry. The
termination is illegal and is liable to be set aside. According
to her she is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages
and continuity of service.
The claim was contested by the management of PGI
i.e. respondent No. 1. They filed written statement inter
alia pleading that the workman was employed by contractor
M/s A.N. Kapoor Private Limited in accordance with the
terms and conditions settled between them without any
involvement of the answering respondent PGI. Mere
employment of contract labour does not create any
relationship as direct employee of the management of the
PGI. There was no relationship between the applicant and
the management of PGI and provisions of ID Act are not
64
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
applicable qua the respondent No. 1 i.e. PGI. Therefore the
reference be decided in favour of the management of PGI.
In support of her case the workman filed her affidavit
while on behalf of management (PGI) affidavit of Sh. C.S.
Maan, Administrative Officer (H) was filed.
However on 9.4.2013 workman Santosh appeared and
gave the statement that she is presently working with the
Contractor Gill of PGI and she has no dispute with the old
Contractor i.e. M/s A.N. Kapoor Private Limited and she
does not want to pursue the present reference. It is thus
clear from the statement of workman that there is no dispute
now between the parties. Therefore a 'No Dispute' award is
passed in the case. Let two copies of the award be sent to
the Central Government for further necessary action.
ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 31.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j lqifjUVsUMsV]
VsyhxzkQ] xksf<+;kjh] jk;iqj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼210@93½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@124@92&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 31.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 210/93) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court No. 1, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Senior
Superintendent, Telegraph Traffic, Godhiyari, Raipur and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
18.12.2013.
[No. L-40012/124/92-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENU GOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/210/93
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ramu Srivas,
S/o Babulal Srivas,
Resident of Gudhiyari,
Raipur (M.P.)
....Workman
Versus
Senior Superintendent,
Telegraph Traffic,
Gudhiyari,
Raipur
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 4th day of October, 2013)
1.As per letter dated 30.9.93 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-40012/
124/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of D/o
Telegraphs through its Asstt. Supdt. Department Telegraph
Office, Gudhiyari, Raipur (MP) in terminating the services
of Shri Ramu Shrivas S/o Shri Babulal Shrivas, Casual
Labour Chowkidar and Watchman and Waterman w.e.f.
15.2.1990 is lawful and justified? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/2. Case of workman is that he was working as
casual waterman/chowkidar in office of Asstt. Suptd.
Telegraph, Gudhiyari from 21.8.86 to 15.2.90 for about 3½
years. He was paid wages about Rs. 900 to 1050 inclusive
of DA in year 1990. The water were paid under voucher.
The voucher are with the deptt. That after working
continuously for about 3½ years, the services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The
termination from service is illegal. After termination of his
services, the deptt. is still engaging waterman only with a
view to avoid permanency benefits to the employees. The
department is changing employees. On such ground,
workman prays for reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3. 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 D/o Telegraphs
through its Asstt. Supdt.
Departmental Telegraph Office,
Gudhiyari, Raipur (MP) in
terminating the services of
Shri Ramu Shrivas S/o Shri Babulal
Shrivas, Casual labour Chowkidar
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
65
and Watchman and Waterman
w.e.f. 15.2.1990 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
4. Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd Party has
failed to file Written Statement. Workman filed affidavit of
its evidence. He has stated that he was continuously
working with IInd Party as waterman/chowkidar from 21.8.86
to 15.2.90. Prior to his termination, he was paid wages
Rs. 900-1050 inclusive of DA. That services are terminated
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. In his cross-
examination, workman says he was engaged as casual
worker. His name was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. He was working as waterman. He denied
suggestion that he was not working continuously. His
services were engaged as per need/exigency. He denied
suggestion that notice was issued to him for termination of
his services. Workman denied payment of one month's
wages in lieu of notice.
5. Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri P.M.
Gedam but failed to remain present for cross-examination.
The affidavit of other witness Vasant Jatake is filed by
management. When Written Statement is not filed on behalf
of IInd Party certainly IInd Party was not entitled to adduce
evidence in the matter. However the management's witness
filed affidavit stating that workman was engaged on daily
wages from 27.8.96. The post of Chowkidar was not
sanctioned. The services of workman were discontinued
from 16.2.90. Management's witness further states that
retrenchment compensation was sent to workman on 25.1.95
was received back from postal authorities. That the
workman was paid wages at the rate fixed by Collector,
Raipur. As per policy, the services of casual labour were
not required therefore workman was given notice and
retrenchment compensation was offered. In his cross-
examination, witness of management says that he has filed
affidavit as per information received from record. That
retrenchment compensation was drawn on 25.1.99, it was
received back. That workman was served with one month's
notice. He was unable to tell whether these copies are on
record. Letter offering compensation was received back.
The witness was unable to say whether as per circular
Exhibit M-3, employees working during 1985 to 88 were not
regularized. Witness states temporary status was given.
That the employees continuously working for 240 days
during the year are entitled to temporary status. The terms
of reference does not cover the regularization of service of
the workman. It relates to legality of termination from
service.
6. Document Exhibit M-1 is office copy of notice
dated 5.2.90. Exhibit M-2 is zerox copy of postal envelope
sent to workman. It appears endorsement that as address
of the workman was not found, the letter is received back.
M-3 is circular dated 17.12.93 for regularization of services
of casual labours working during the period 31.3.85 to
22.6.88. If evidence of workman is properly appreciated,
his evidence is not shattered that he was continuously
working for 3½ years i.e. 21.8.86 to 15.2.90. The evidence
of management's witness is based on document. Any of
the documents are not produced by the management about
working days of the workman. The evidence of
management's witness is not corroborated by argument.
Therefore the evidence of workman deserves to be relied.
As workman had completed more than 240 days service
preceding 12 months of his discontinuation from service
without notice or paying retrenchment compensation, it is
illegal. The evidence of management's witness that
retrenchment compensation was sent as per letter Exhibit
M-1 in 1995 was not served on workman. The services of
workman were terminated from 15.2.90. The offer of
retrenchment compensation after lapse of more than 4 years
cannot be said valid. Thus the termination of services of
workman in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act is illegal.
Therefore I record my finding in Negative.
7. Point No. 2—In view of my finding on Point No. 1,
termination of services of workman is illegal. Question arises
as to what relief the workman is entitled? The name of
workman was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. Workman worked for about 3½ years. Learned
counsel for management submitted that workman is not
entitled for reinstatement.
8. Reliance is placed on ratio held in Case of—
"Sr. Suptd. Telegraph Traffic Bhopal Versus Santosh
Kumar Seal and others reported in 2010-6-SCC-773.
Their Lordship of the Apex Court observed on facts
as workman were engaged as daily wagers about 25
years back and they worked hardly for 2-3 years,
relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot
be said justified. The Appellant employers are
directed to pay monetary benefits Rs. 40,000 to each
of the workman."
Considering 3½ years period of working of workman,
in my considered view, compensation Rs. 75,000 would be
appropriate. The reinstatement with back wages cannot be
allowed. Accordingly I hold and record my finding in Point
No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of D/o Telegraphs
through its Asstt. Supdt. Departmental
Telegraph office, Gudhiyari, Raipur (MP) in
terminating the services of Shri Ramu Shrivas
S/o Shri Baualal Shrivas, Casual labour
chowkidar and watchman and Waterman w.e.f.
15.2.1990 is not legal.
66
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2)
IInd Party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to the workman Shri Ramu Shrivas
within 30 days from the date of award.
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] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 32.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLVy flfoy
fMfotu] Hkksiky 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k CGIT/LC/R/129/2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@2@2004&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 32.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/129/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of Postal Civil Division,
Bhopal and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 19.12.2013.
[No. L-40012/2/2004-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR-COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/129/2005
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri S.S. Debey, Secretary,
National Federation of Telecom Employee,
Jabalpur Telecom District,
CTO Compound,
Jabalpur
....Workman
Versus
The Executive Engineer (Civil),
Postal Civil Division, Bhopal
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of August 2013)
1. As per letter dated 15.12.2005 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-40012/
2/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Excutive
Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Division, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Anand Kumar
S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Ex-part time Safaiwala w.e.f.
31.12.1994 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the
workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Union submitted statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/5. The case of Ist Party is that Shri Anand Kumar
was appointed as part time safaiwala by the IInd party in
1990. He was working with full satisfaction of his superiors.
That he is covered under Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. His services
were orally terminated from 31.12.1994. That in violation of
Section 25-F, permission is not taken under Section 25(N)
of I.D. Act thought more than 1000 workers are working
under IInd Party. That he had worked for 253 days in 1994,
he had submitted application for absorption in service
therefore his services were terminated. That Circular was
issued by the department of Telecom on 16.9.99 for
absorption of part time casual labour. His benefit was not
given to him. That he had completed 240 days service
preceding calendar year. His representations were rejected
on the ground that he was not part time employee. On such
grounds, Ist party workman prays for reinstatement with
back wages as well as for regularization of service.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/4. He denied that Ist Party Shri Anand Kumar was working
as part time employee. According to IInd Party said Anand
Kumar was engaged for 1 hour per day as safaiwala. He
was paid Rs. 6.75 per day. He is not covered as workman
under Section 2(s) of I.D.Act. That IInd Party is not an
industry under Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. It is therefore
submitted that Ist Party workman is not entitled for
regularization. That Ist Party workman had worked for 253
days in 1994 as 1 hour per day. He has not worked for more
than 240 days in calendar year 1994. That he is not entitled
to regularization as per circular dated 16.9.99. No post is
vacant in the department, no irregularity is committed by
IInd Party. It is denied that Shri Ramesh Tiwari is similarly
placed. IInd Party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Rejoinder is filed by workman reiterating its
contention in Statement of claim that IInd Party is covered
as an Industry. Judgments are filed in ratio held by Hon'ble
Apex Court.
5. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
67
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the establishment of IInd
Party is industry under Section 2(j) of
In Affirmative
I.D. Act?
(ii) Whether the action of the
management of Executive Engineer
In Negative
(Civil), Postal Civil Division, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri Anand
Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal Ex-part
time Safaiwala w.e.f. 31.12.1994 is
legal?
(iii) If not, what relief the workman is
As per Final
entitled to?"
order.
REASONS
6. The parties are in dispute whether establishment
of IInd Party is covered as an Industry under Section 2(j)
of I.D.Act? However specific evidence is not adduced by
IInd party about the activities undertaken by the
establishment of IInd Party. The counsel for IInd Party
relies on ratio held in
"Case of Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaikam
versus V.T. Joseph reported in 1996-SC-1271. In said
case, their Lordship of the Apex Court held Postal
and Telecom Deptt. is not an industry."
7. Learned counsel Shri Tripathi for workman on the
point relies on ratio held in
"Case of All India Radio Versus Santosh Kumar and
another reported in 1998(3) Supreme Court cases 237.
Their Lordship held Section 2(j) as it stand at present
i.e. before enforcement of 1982 amendment. All India
Radio and Doordarshan held covered under
Industry."
Reliance is also placed in ratio held in
Case of General Manager, Telecom Versus Srinivasa
Rao reported in 1997(8) Supreme Court Cases 767.
Their Lordship held Telecome Deptt. of Union of
India is covered as Industry."
In view of ratio held in above cited cases, I hold that
the establishment of IInd Party is covered as an Industry.
8. The terms of reference relates to illegality of
termination of services of Shri Anand Kumar S/o
Shri Krishan Lal. The terms of reference donot cover the
dispute relating to regularization of his service. Therefore
the contentions of the parties relating to regularization of
service needs no discussion. Workman filed affidavit of
his evidence claiming that before termination of his service
in 1994, he had worked for 253 days. His services were
terminated without notice, no retrenchment compensation
was paid, that one Ashish Tiwari was given temporary
status. In his cross-examination, workman says that he
had received certificate of working for 253 days which bears
writing as part time. The certificate doesnot mention working
for 4 hours. That he had asked for Experience certificate in
1993 but the same was not received. On his request, he
admits that Shri Rakesh Kumar has worked for 4 hours. In
the Written Statement filed by IInd Party, Ist Party workman
worked for 253 days in 1994 is not disputed. The dispute
between parties is that workman is a part time employee
working for more than 4 hours per day. The management of
IInd Party claims that he was working for petty works
1 hour per day.
9. The management filed affidavit of evidence of his
witness Shri Bajpai supporting contentions of management.
In his cross-examination management's witness says that
he had seen Anand Kumar while was giving work in the
division. He has not seen him working. He has not marked
his attendance neither given wages while making payment,
signatures are received in receipt. The office is shifted and
record of hand receipt is not available. That as per cash
book, Anand Kumar worked till April 1995 and not till
December 1995. The management's witness was unable to
tell name for cleaning work. After services of Shri Anand
Kumar, he was discontinued. He admits that other persons
are working in shifting work. The evidence of management's
witness is not cogent on the point that Shri Anand Kumar
was engaged only for one hour per day. I donot find reasons
to disbelieve evidence of workman that he was working as
part time employee, his services were terminated without
notice, no retrenchment compensation was paid. Therefore
the termination of his services is illegal. For above reasons.
I records my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
question arises as to what relief workman is entitled? As
per record, workman was working as Safaiwala on part time
basis. He was not required employee. He was not appointed
after following selection process. His name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange because he was
not appointed against sanctioned post. However workman
completed 240 days continuous service preceding 12
calendar months therefore he was entitled to protection
under Section 25-F(a) (b) of I.D.Act. His services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.
Considering the facts, relief of reinstatement of workman
would not be appropriate. Relief of reasonable
compensation would meet the ends of justice. Considering
workman was working from 1990 to 1994, he is out of
employment since long period, compensaton Rs. 40,000 is
reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding in
Point No. 2.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of Executive
Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Division,
68
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Anand Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Lal, Ex-
part time Safaiwala w.e.f. 31.12.1994 is not
legal.
(2)
IInd Party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 40,000 to the workman Shri Anand
Kumar.
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] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 33.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhihMCY;wMh]
Hkksiky 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj/43/2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@16@2006& vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 33.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/43/2006) of the Cent. Govt. Indus.Tribunal/ Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of CPWD and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/16/2006-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/43/2006
PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B. PATLE
The Regional Secretary,
All India CPWD employees Union,
A.G.M.P. Colony,
Shastri Nagar,
Gwalior
...Workman/Union
Versus
The Chief Engineer (Central Zone),
Central Public Works Department,
52-A, Nirman Sadan,
CGO Complex, Arera Hills,
Bhopal (MP)
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 2.8.2006 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-
42012/16/2006-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates
to:
" Whether the demand of the All India (CPWD)
Employees Union from the management of Chief
Engineer (Central Zone), Central Pubic Works
Department, Bhopal for regularizing the services of
Shri Aashik Khan S/o Shri Mohsan Khan, Motor
Lorry Driver is legal and justified? If so, to what relief
the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party Union filed statement of claim at Page
2/1 to 2/6. Case of Ist Party Union is that Aashik Khan,
S/o Mohsan Khan is its member. He is workman under
Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. That IInd Party is covered as an
industry under Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. That IInd Party are
Controlling Authority of Aashik Khan who was working as
Motor Lorry Driver from 1.11.91. He was paid Rs. 1500 per
months. From 16.4.92, he was transferred to Bhopal Division
along with vehicle. From 1.1.96, he was transferred with
Vehicle to Dewas. From 25.11.02 he was transferred to office
of Suptd. Engineer, Indore. The workman was paid
Rs. 1500. His pay was increased to Rs. 1800 to 2000 and
from 2000 to 5332. Other details of the increase of wages
are given. Workman was paid overtime Rs. 15.85 per hour,
night allowance Rs. 50. It is submitted that his services are
not regularized despite of working for long period. It is in
violation of Article 14,16 of the constitution. That in Writ
Petition 401/2004, Bombay High Court had directed
regularisation of 9 employees allowing 12% interest on the
amount due for payment. In original application No. 781/
98, CAT Jabalpur had directed to regularize services of the
employees within 3 months. Giving reference to various
decisions, the workman submits that the denial of
regularization of the workman Aashik Khan is illegal. It is
discriminatory. The services of workman Aashik Khan be
regularized as Motor Lorry Driver.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/4. Case of IInd Party is that workman Aashik Khan was
initially given job of lorry driver in November 1991 on work
order basis. It was contract work as and when work was
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
69
available for specific period. That he was initially engaged
in CPWD office, Ujjain. Said division was closed in April
1991. The workman was given contract on work order basis
for specific period in Bhopal division from 16.4.92. The
workman was also given job on contract basis at Dewas
Civil Division from January 1996. On closure of Civil division
contract job of Dewas automatically came to an end. Since
the workman was continuously given job of contractual
nature for considerable period, the authority decided to
give him job on contract basis of Assistant Director, Sub
Division, Indore since 25.11.2002.
4. It is further contended that when the job of
workman as lorry driver on contract basis was for specific
pereiod, he was not selected for the job following due
process for selection. As such the job of workman was not
against sanctioned post. Whenever he was engaged for
the job at different places, not by order of transfer, the
workman was not regular employee. During the working,
contractual rates admissible were paid to him. The
management discontinued with the system of giving job
on contract basis. The workman employed as motor driver
at the minimum pay scale of a Driver since 16.12.2007 i.e.
Rs. 3050. He is also paid DA. The workman is not selected
for the post following due process for selection. The
present employment of workman is not against regular post.
His present employment is on minimum pay scale
admissible to the post of Motor Driver but not against
sanctioned post. The demand of workman for regularization
is not acceptable.
5. The recruitment rules for drive applicable to CPWD.
The post of driver is required to be filled by promotion and
seniority cum fitness from cadre of Khalasi 75% and 25%
by direct recruitment. The workman was never employed
as Khalasi with the management. Therefore he is not eligible
for promotion, no sanctioned post is vacant. The workman
cannot be given the benefit of direct recruitment or so. On
such contentions, IInd Party submits that workman is not
eligible for regularization as he is not appointed following
process for selection against sanctioned post. IInd Party
prays for rejection of the demand of Union.
6. Rejoinder is filed by workman retiterating its
pleadings. That since November 1991 workman was
appointed as lorry driver. The contention of IInd Party that
he is not entitled to any benefit is denied. According to
Ist Party, copy of work orders shows work was available
when workman was engaged on need basis. The dispute
was raised much prior to 2006. The management deliberately
not filed service record of the workman prior to 2006. That
workman is in continuous employment. There is no need
for open selection. The management also admit that
workman had performed duty for long period as driver. On
such ground, Ist Party Union submits that the denial of
regularization is illegal.
7. 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 demand of the All
India CPWD Employees Union
In Affirative
from the management of Chief
Engineer (Central Zone), Central
Public Works Department,
Bhopal for regularizing the
services of Shri Aashik Khan S/o
Shri Mohsan Khan, Motor Lorry
Driver is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
8. The demand of Union is that services of Aashik
Khan working as Lorry Driver with IInd Party be regularized.
He was working from 1.11.91. He was transferred to different
places along with vehicle. He is praying for regularization
in service.
9. IInd Party submits that Shri Aashik Khan was
engaged on contract basis. He was not appointed
sanctioned post. He is not entitled for regularization.
Affidavit of evidence of Aashik Khan is filed. He has stated
that he was engaged by management as Motor Lorry Driver
following due process from 1.11.91. Since his engagement
on said post, he rendered continuous service at Ujjain
CPWD Office. He was transferred to Bhopal, Dewas and
Indore offices of the respondents. One Ramesh working
similarly as motor lorry driver was regularized. He also
claims working on the sanctioned post. In his cross-
examination, withness says he is still in service,
appointment letter was not given to him. He had received
order. Exhibit M-2, 2-B, his name was not sponsored from
Employment Exchange. He worked at Ujjain office from
1981 to 1992. He worked at Bhopal from May 1992 to
December 95 and Dewas from January 96 to 2002. He was
transferred alongwith vehicle to Indore. Before his transfer,
he was never asked whether he will go to new places or
not.
10. The affidavit of management's witness Mahipal
Singh is filed. The witness of the management states that
workman was engaged on contract basis as Lorry Driver at
Ujjain, Bhopal, Dewas and Indore. When there was no job
work in Dewas Division, his contract was not renewed.
However because of his continuous association with the
department as contract worker, the authority decided to
give him job on work order basis in the office of Assistant
Director (Horticulture), at Indore w.e.f. 25-11-2002
and continued till 16-12-2007 at minimum pay scale of
Rs. 3050/- as the service of motor driver was necessary.
That as per recruitment rules, 50% post are to be filled by
70
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
direct recruitment and 50% by promotion among feeder
categories of Assistant Mechanic, Assistant Fitter and
Assistant Operator. In his cross-examination, management's
witness claims ignorance that in 1991, how many post of
drivers were vacant in CPWD, Ujjain. He has not seen
work order issued in 1991. He admits that in April 1992,
Shri Aashik Khan was transferred from Ujjain to Bhopal.
He denies that though work was available at Bhopal,
workman was transferred to Dewas. Management witness
also denied in para-9 that workman was working at Dewas
Division from January 1996 to 24-11-2002. He claims
ignorance about Mukesh Singh, Driver and regularization
of their services. The witnesses claims ignorance whether
one post was vacant and workman Aashik Khan was
continued against said post.
11. Copy of judgment in Original application No. 791/
1998 produced at Exhibit W-1. Said original application was
filed by Shri Aashik Khan himself. Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur
directed respondents to consider case of applicant for
appointment to the post of Driver in the department in
accordance with statutory rules taking into consideration
long service more than 12 years performed by applicant.
The process be completed within period of 3 months and
result be communicated. The officie order Exhibit W-2
produced in that regard. The services of workman was not
regularized for the reasons that direct recruitment quota
cannot be filled as Shri Aashik Khan did not fulfill eligibility
criteria. That Mr. Khan cannot be considered against
permanent quota as he was not working in feeder post.
Thus the direction issued by Hon'ble CAT Jabalpur in
original application 791/98 were not given effect for
regularization in services of the workman. The copy of
judgment in application No. 222/03 filed by Ramesh Sagar
is produced. The services of Ramesh Sagar were directed
to be regularised observing that his case was fully covered
as per the judgment order in application no. 786/96. It
appears from those judgment that the services of other
employees were regularized as per order passed by CAT,
Jabalpur. Shri Aashik Khan was not regularized as he was
not working in the feeder cadre and he was not fulfilling
eligibility conditions for direct recruitment.
12. Management produced document Exhibit M-1
copy of recruitment rules. The eligibility of Motor Lorry
driver is shown method of recruitment 50%, direct 50%
promotion, age limit-20 to 30 years, ability to read and write,
must posses a driving licence for heavy motor, practical
driving test which should be fairly stiff standard by
promotion from Asstt. Mechanic, Assistant Fitter, Assistant
Operator. Document Ex. M-2(A), (B) are about details of
work order issued to Shri Aashik Khan. Exhibit W-2 does
not show which eligibility criteria was not fulfilled by
Shri Aashik Khan. Whether he was not holding driving
licence, whether his educational qualification was lacking.
Clause-9 of Exhibit No. 2 is that as regards his regularization
against the direct recruitment quota, a favourable order
can not be passed as Shri Khan does not fulfil the eligibility
criteria of the prescribed Recruitment Rules for Direct
Recruitment. The order is passed on 21-2-2005. The written
statement and evidence of management's witness are silent
which eligibility criteria were not fulfilled by Shri Aashik
Khan for denying regularization as per order passed in
CAT, Jabalpur in original Case No, 791/98.
13. Learned counsel for workman Mr. Pranay
Choubey on the point of regularization relies on judgment
in—
Appeal No. 15774/2006 — State of Karnataka and
others versus Shri M.L. Kesari and others. In Para 53 of the
judgment, State of Karnataka Versus Umadevi is extracted.
Their Lordship observed it is evident from above there is
exemption to the general principles against regularization
enunciated in Umadevi when the following conditions are
fulfilled—
(i)
The employee concerned should have worked
for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the interim
order of any court or tribunal. In other words,
the State Government or its instrumentality
should have employed the employee and
continued him in service voluntarily and
continuously for more than ten years.
(ii)
The appointment of such employee should not
be illegal, even if irregular. Where the
appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal. But where the
person employed possessed the prescribed
qualifications and was working against
sanctioned posts, but had been selected
without undergoing the process of open
competitive selection, such appointments are
considered to be irregular.
That Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned
Government or instrumentality to take steps to regularize
the services of those irregularly appointed employees who
had served for more than ten years without the benefit or
protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a
one time measure. Umadevi directed that such one time
measure must be set in motion within six months from the
date of its decision.
In present case, Shri Aashik Khan is working as Lorry
Driver from November 1991 more than 22 years. He was
transferred to other places. As per evidence of
management's witness Mahipal Singh, he has no personal
knowledge about working of Shri Aashik Khan. He claims
ignorance whether one post was vacant and Aashik Khan
was continued against said post. Workman was given post
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
71
of lorry driver from 16-12-2007. The directions were issued
by CAT Jabalpur in 791/98 for regularizing his services
were not complied by the management of IInd Party.
14. Learned Counsel for IInd Party Mr. Nair relies on
ratio held in—
"Case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another
Versus Ravinder Singh reported in 2009 AIR SCW
452. Their Lordship held Respondent daily rated
worker in State Department working for 10 years, his
name was neither sponsored by Employment
Exchange nor appointment was as per proper
procedure for regular appointees. Respondent cannot
claim regularization of service.
In case of Post Master General, Kolkata and others
Versus Tutu Das (Dutta) reported in 2007-III-LLJ-163, their
Lordship of the Apex Court held completion of 240 days is
not relevant for regularization. Daily rated substitute
claiming regularization on basis of certain circular. Their
Lordship held claim not sustainable either on ground of
240 days service or on ground of discrimination.
Ratio in above case cannot be applied to present
case at hand as workman is working as lorry driver from
November 1991 and CAT Jabalpur had directed for
regularization of his services as per rules. Without giving
details which eligibility criteria the workman was not
fulfilling, regularization was denied to the workman. Claim
of the workman is fully covered as per judgment in case of
State of Karnataka Versus M.L. Kesari and others discussed
above.
15. Learned counsel for IInd Party Shri Nair further
relies in ratio held in—
Union of India and another Versus Ram Singh Thakur
and others reported in 2012 AIR SCW 3806. Their Lordship
held the regularization of service is purely a executive
function. The direction for regularization in service cannot
be given by judiciary.
In case of Accounts Officer, APSRTC & others Versus
K.V. Ramana and others reported in AIR 2007-Supreme Court
1166. Their Lordship observed in our opinion, these appeals
have to be allowed. It has been held by a constitution
bench of this court in Secretary, State or Karnataka and
others Versus Umadevi that absorption, regularisation or
permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,
daily wage or adhoc employees dehors the rules cannot be
granted.
Para-53 of the judgment in State of Karnataka Versus
Umadevi is not referred by their Lordship. The exemption
is granted if the employee concerned should have worked
for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the
benefit or protection of the interim order of any Court or
Tribunal.
In present case, Ist Party workman is working since
1991, he was working at Ujjain, Bhopal, Dewas, Indore along
with vehicle for very long time. IInd party allowed minimum
pay scale Rs. 3050/- from 26-12-07. Considering above facts
and para-53 of the judgment in Umadevi's case, action of
IInd Party denying regularization is not legal. The demand
of the Union for regularization of services of Shri Aashik
Khan is, therefore justified. Accordingly I record my finding
in Point No. 1.
16. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1.
Demand of Ist Party Union of regularization of
service of Shri Aashik Khan S/o Mohsin Khan,
Lorry Driver is legal.
2.
IInd Party is to take appropriate steps as per
demand of the Union for regularisation of
service of Shri Aashik Khan, Lorry Driver.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 34.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfotuy jsyos
eSustj] Hkksiky 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/
LC/R/71/1993½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@17@92&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 34.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/71/1993) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of The Divisional Railway
Manager, Bhopal and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 19/12/13.
[No. L-41012/17/92-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/71/93
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Prem Narayan Halkuram,
RBI-296-B,
Behind Railway Hospital,
Purvi Colony,
Bina Distt. Sagar (MP)
...Workman
72
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 16th day of July, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 22-3-93 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/
17/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of DRM,
Central Railway, Bhopal, MP in terminating the
services of Shri Premnarayan Halkooram, Ex-
Chowkidar w.e.f. 28-7-89 is justified? If not, what relief
he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/4. The case of Ist Party workman is that initially
he was employed as Trollyman in Central Railway, Bhopal
at Jhansi Division. He worked honestly. His service record
was unchallenged. Subsequently he was allowed to work
as chowkidar. On 18-11-75, he was honestly working. Some
notorious persons in the department were annoyed with
Bank. The notorious persons could not found the
opportunities to fulfill their illegal needs and requirement
during his working as chowkidar. All such persons made a
lobby to harass him. That he was in dishonest activities of
theft and similar activities. That under threatening and
challenge to his life, he submitted his resignation on
30-9-85. However the management did not accept his
resignation as per letter dated 2-10-85.
3. On 29-1-86, he was served with chargesheet
alleging false allegations against him. He denied the charges
in his reply. The charges were relating to unauthorized
absence. The workman submits that he was sick due to
dogbite on 10-9-85. After he was declared fit by the Railway
Doctor, he joined duty on 11-9-85, he was sanctioned leave
for the period 12-9-85 to 23-9-85. After submitting reply to
the chargesheet on 12-12-85, he received letter for attending
Departmental Enquiry. It is submitted that enquiry was
conducted exparte without proper notice of the dates of
hearing. The findings of Enquiry Officer was not received
by him. The punishment of dismissal was imposed without
notice. On such grounds, workman prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
4. The management filed Written Statement at page
7/1 to 7/3. Allegation of workman about his satisfactory
service record are denied. That chargesheet was served on
workman on 29-1-86. Rest of the allegations of workman
are denied. It is denied that enquiry was conducted without
giving opportunity to deny that report of Enquiry Officer
was not served. It is denied that principles of natural justice
was not followed in the enquiry. If it is found that the
enquiry is illegal, IInd Party prays permission to prove
misconduct adducing evidence. IInd Party submits that
enquiry conducted against workman is proper and legal.
5. As per order dated 10-3-2011, enquiry held against
workman is found valid and proper. 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 findings of Enquiry
In Affirmative
Officer are perverse, whether the
punishment of dismissal of
workman is proper and legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief?
As per final order.
REASONS
6. As discussed above, enquiry is found legal and
vitiated, therefore the question remains for decision
whether the findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by
evidence or findings are perverse and whether the
punishment of dismissal is proper and legal. Affidavit of
evidence of workman filed is mostly devoted about the
legality of the Enquiry Proceedings, it needs no discussion.
From pleadings of workman, he was absent from duty
because of dog bite. He was granted leave from 12-9-85 to
23-9-85. In his affidavit of evidence, workman stated that
during that period, he was under mental distress due to
torture by threatening by so many persons. He submitted
resignation letter but was not accepted by the authorities.
Workman in his cross-examination admits that he was served
with chargesheet by Railway. He had not given reply to it.
Then he was dismissed from service, he had received
intimation from Enquiry Officer. He did not participate in
the enquiry. The evidence of management witness Shri
Vasudeo chopra is on the point of conducting enquiry by
him. He submitted findings as per Exhibit M-1. In his cross-
examination, he has stated that the notice to the workman
was served by Khalasi on behalf of management. The
chargesheet issued to workman dated 29-1-86. He was
unauthorized absent from 21-8-85 till the date of issuing
chargesheet. Thus his period of unauthorized absence from
21-8-85 to 29-1-86 for more than 5 months. The workman
had admitted his absence in Exhibit M-2 and prayed for
providing employment for support of his family. The above
charge is supported from evidence of management's
witness.
7. Workman has died during penedency. He cannot
be reinstated. The punishment of dismissal for unauthorized
absence for 5 months has been imposed by management
of IInd Party without reference to any rules or standing
orders appears harsh. At the time of argument, learned
counsel for workman Shri R.C. Shrivastava submitted that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
73
the punishment of dismissal be set-aside according benefit
of deemed service so that the dependents of the deceased
workman are not deprived of benefit after death of the
workman. I find substance in above argument. The
punishment of dismissal for unauthorized absence for
5 months is not justified. If deserved to be quashed and
set-aside. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 1
in Negative, Point No. 2 as per final order.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of DRM, Central
Railway, Bhopal, MP in terminating the
services of Shri Premnarayan Halkooram, Ex-
Chowkidar w.e.f. 28-7-89 is illegal.
(2)
Order of dismissal of Ist Party workman is set-
aside. IInd Party is directed to treat deceased
workman in deemed service till his death. The
deceased workman is not entitled to back
wages for the period of his dismissal till his
death.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 35.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] tcyiqj 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R@26@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@29@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 35.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/26/2005) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of BSNL and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-40011/29/2004-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/26/2005
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
Shri Baban Singh,
Circle Secretary,
National Union of BSNL workers,
Type-2/86, P&T Colony, Gada Road,
Jabalpur
...Workman/Union
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory, Wright Town,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of July, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 23.3.2005 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-40011/
29/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the Chief
General Manager, Telecom Factory, Wright Town,
Jabalpur to recover Bonus for the period of
suspension viz 31.5.95 to 11.3.96 in two instalments
after awarding punishment vide order dated 4.12.96
from Shri Baban Singh T.No. 3120 (Fitter Grade-II) is
just and fair? If not, to what relief the workman is
entitled.
2. Ist Party workman is challenging recovery of bonus
during suspension period from management in the dispute
under reference. Even after issuing notices, the Union did
not participate in the proceeding, no statement of claim is
filed. Ist Party is proceeded exparte on 7.2.2007.
3. IInd Party management also not filed Written
Statement. From conduct of the parties, it is clear that the
parties are not pursuing or participating in the dispute.
4. In the result, award is passed as under:
"Reference is disposed off as No Dispute Award."
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 36.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; egkizcaèd]
nwjlapkj foHkkx] Hkksiky 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/LC/R@108@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@57@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 36.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/108/2001) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/
74
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of The Chief General Manager, Deptt. of
Telecommunication, Bhopal and their workmen, which was
received by the Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/57/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/108/2001
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav,
S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jatav,
Village and Post Tantra,
Tehsil Sabalgarh,
Distt. Morena (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 29.5.2001 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-40012/
57/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom Divisional Engineer,
Telegraphs, Gwalior in terminating the services of
Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jatav
w.e.f. 1.5.88 is justified? If not to what relief the
workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
was appointed as labour on estt. of IInd Party at Morena
from 18.11.86. Said division was transferred to Bhind on
30.4.88. The workman was continuously working till that
time. His name was called from Employment Exchange. The
office of IInd Party is in possession of the relevant record.
Identity Card was issued to him. He had completed service
for more than 240 days. His services were terminated
without notice, without payment of retrenchment
compensation or one months pay in lieu of notice in
violation of provisions of I.D. Act workman further submits
that his services were transferred to contractor from 1.5.88.
He claims that he was illegally retrenched. He had filed writ
petition in Hon'ble High Court, Gwalior bench. The dispute
was referred as per the order passed by Hon'ble Court.
Workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3. Case of IInd party is that Ist party workman was
engaged as casual labour as per the need. He was not
appointed against any post. That the workman had not
completed 240 days service. Notice for termination of
service was not necessary. There was no question of paying
retrenchment compensation. Workman is not entitled to
protection of I.D. Act. On such grounds, IInd Party prays
for rejection of the relief prayed by workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:
(i) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of Chief General Manager,
Telecom Divisional Engineer,
Telegraphs, Gwalior in terminating
the services of Shri Suresh Chandra
Jatav S/o Shri Mangla Ram Jatav
w.e.f. 1.5.88 is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman
Relief prayed by
is entitled to?
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
5. Though the workman is challenging legality in
termination of his service on the ground of violation of
provisions of I.D. Act, he has filed affidavit of his evidence
claiming that he had completed service for more than
240 days. His services were terminated without notice,
without paying retrenchment compensation. That he was
working with IInd Party from 18.11.86 to 30.3.88. The
workman remained absent and not made available for cross-
examination by the IInd Party and case was proceeded
without cross-examination on 19.1.2011. The management
filed affidavit of its witness Shri R.C. Chourasiya. The
witness says that the telegraph department is merged in
BSNL. The department was engaging contractors for the
works. The workman was not concerned with the
department. The evidence of the management's witness
remained unchallenged. Thus the workman has not
participated in the reference proceeding. He has not made
available for cross-examination. Neither he has availed
opportunity to cross-examine the management witness.
There is no reason to disbelieve evidence of management's
witness. Workman failed to establish that he had completed
240 days prior to termination. Therefore I record Point
No. 1 in Affirmative. In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
workman is not entitled to relief prayed by him. Therefoe I
record Point No. 1 in Negative.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
75
6. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1)
The action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom Divisional Engineer,
Telegraphs, Gwalior in terminating the services
of Shri Suresh Chandra Jatav S/o Shri Mangla
Ram Jatav w.e.f. 1.5.88 is legal.
(2)
Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 37.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhñihñMCY;wñMhñ
Hkksiky 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/
LC/R@112@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42011@41@93&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/112/97) of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of CPWD, Bhopal and their workman, which
was received by the Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-42011/41/93-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/112/97
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
Shri Basantrao,
S/o Shri Anajdrao,
C/o Om Kirana Stores,
Distt. Sihore
Shri Kailash Malviya,
S/o Shri Kurrulal,
C/o Om Kirana Stores, Budhani,
Distt. Sihore (MP)
...Workmen
Versus
The Executive Engineer,
CPWD, Bhopal Central Division,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 10th day of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 10.4.97 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-42011/
41/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the PWD,
Bhopal Central Division, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Kailash Malviya and Shri Basant
Rao is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman Shri Basant Rao submitted
his statement of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. Shri Kailash
Malviya submitted his statement of claim at Page 9/1 to
9/3.
3. The case of Ist Party workman Shri Basant Rao is
that he was appointed on vacant post of mason from 3.1.90.
He was performing his duties satisfactorily. His services
were orally terminated from 1.12.92 without assigning any
reason. That no enquiry was conducted against him before
termination of his services. Chargesheet was not served
on him. He was not served with notice. Retrenchment
compensation was not paid to him. He has completed 240
days continuous service preceding his termination. That
his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. On such ground, he prays for reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
4. The case of Ist party kailash Malviya is that he
was appointed as Carpenter from 1.7.77. He was
satisfactorily performing his duties. His services was orally
terminated from June 1993 without assigning any reason.
No chargesheet was issued to him. Domestic enquiry was
not held against him. He has completed 240 days
continuous service preceding his termination. He was not
paid retrenchment compensaiton. Other employees are
appointed after his termination. That he had acquired status
of temporary employee. The termination of service was not
informed to Government. Other persons are employed in
his place. On such ground, he is praying for reinstatement
with back wages.
5. IInd party filed written statement at page 7/1 to
7/6. It is submitted that the reference of dispute is not legal.
It is liable to be rejected on the ground that once Govt. of
India exercised power and reach to conclusion that workman
were awarded work on contractual basis, their contracts
were terminated after the contract period was over. The
Industrial dispute doesnot exist for adjudication. Both the
workmen were engaged on contractual basis on PWD Form-
II. It relates to miscellaneous jobs carried through out these
forms for specific period of work. That junior engineer
maintained attendance only for his convenience and to
76
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
facilitate him to award daily output of work. The document
is not authentic. It is not signed by Executive Engineer of
CPWD. That in CPWD, works are excecuted though calls
of tenders on PWD Form 7 & 8 and small contracts are
executed on call of quotations on PWD Form-11. The
contractual work order for each 3 months were issue during
1.11.90 to 31.7.91. It doesnot vest any right for the
regularization of the workman. That procedure is prescribed
for recruitment of employees sending requisition to
Employment Exchange giving the particulars without
considering other persons for employment. The
regularization of services would be violative of Article 14
of the constitution. It may also amount to back door entry.
On such grounds, IInd Party prays for rejection of relief
prayed by Ist Party workman.
6. Rejoinder is filed by workman at Page 12. IInd
Party filed rejoinder at Page 10. Both the parties reiterates
their earlier contentions. Ist Party prayed for reinstatement
with back wages. IInd Party prayed for its rejection.
7. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of the PWD,
Bhopal Central Division,
Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Kailash Malviya
and Shri Basant Rao is legal?
(ii)
If so, to what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?"
REASONS
8. Ist party workman Kailash Malviya filed affidavit
of evidence at Page 20/1 to 20/2. However he failed to make
available for his cross-examination. Therefore his evidence
cannot be considered in the matter. Ist Party Basant Rao
filed affidavit of evidence at Page 21/1 to 21/2. He has
stated that he was working in CPWD Sub Division,
Hoshangabad from 1990. His services were terminated
without notice from March 1992. That Junior Engineer was
maintaining his attendance in Muster Roll. He denied to
have been engaged as a contractor. That he had completed
240 days continuous service preceding his termination.
His services were terminated without notice or without
paying retrenchment compensation. In Written Statement
filed by IInd Party, it is stated that Junior Engineer was
maintaining attendance in Muster roll for his convenience
and for supervision of his work. Thus the evidence of
Shri Basant Rao is corroborated from pleading in written
Statement filed by IInd Party. In his cross-examination,
Shri Basant Rao says that Satish Upadhyay, Jr. engineer
has engaged him in work. Shri Satish was acquainted with
him since past. He has produced zerox copy of muster roll
supplied to him by Mr. Patel. He denied suggestions that
he was engaged on contract basis. He has stated that he
continued on work till repairing work was continued.
He was paid wages.
9. The evidence of management's witness Shri M.K.
Lawahe tried to support claim of IInd Party. The witness of
the management says that the both workman were engaged
purely on contractual basis in PWD Form 11 being a
contractual form for small urgent type of miscellaneous
jobs for specific period of work. The period mentioned by
them is fictitious, they were engaged on contractual PWD
Form 11 for specific period of work. Workman were never
employed by management but were granted contract for
particular work. Management's witness did not make
available for cross-examination. Affidavit of management's
witness Shri Manish Kumar was filed by management. He
also did not make available for cross-examination. Last
affidavit of Shri Manish Kumbhare is filed. He has stated
that concerned workmen were engaged purely on
contractual basis, work was allotted for specific period.
They have never completed 240 days continuous service
in a calendar year. That workman were not sponsored
through Employment Exchange. In his cross-examination,
witness says he personally doesnot know the workmen.
He is working in CPWD from April 2003. That the
photocopy of attendance register is produced but
attendance register was not issued. He further says that he
identifies the register and document is marked as Exhibit
W-1. In document Exhibit W-1 attendance of both worken
is maintained for the period from November 1990 to July
1991 for period of 9 months. The attendance was maintained
in muster roll by CPWD office. The copy of muster roll for
remaining period are not produced by the management. As
such the material evidence is with-held. The evidence of
workman is supported by document Exhibit W-1. That they
were continuously working for more than 240 days
preceding their termination. The services of both the
workmen are terminated without paying retrenchment
compensation or issuing notice. Therefore the termination
of their services amounts to illegal retrenchment being in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in negative.
10. Point No. 2-In view of my finding in Point No. 1
that termination is illegal, the question arises as to what
relief the workman is entitled. The workmen were working
for short period of 2-3 years. They were not appointed as
regular employee following procedure. Therefore they are
not entitled for reinstatement of their services. However
their termination is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act,
therefore they are entitled to reasonable compensation. In
my considered view, compensation Rs. 50,000/- to each of
the workmen would be appropriate. In adition to it, they are
also entitled to notice pay equal to one month wages and
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
77
retrenchment compensation for 30 days to each
workmen.
11. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1.
Action of the management of the PWD, Bhopal
Central Division, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Kailash Malviya and
Shri Basant Rao is illegal.
2.
IInd party management is directed to pay
Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, one month
notice pay and retrenchment compensation of
30 days to each of the workmen at the rate of
last wages paid to them.
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] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 38.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]
okgu dkj[kkuk] tcyiqj 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@194@90½ izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&14012@2@90&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/194/90) of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of The General Manager, Vehicle Factory
Jabalpur and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-14012/2/90-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/194/90
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. Patle
Shri Om Prakash,
S/o Shri D.P. Baheliya,
Qr. No. 376/1, Panehara,
Type-II, G.C.F. Estate,
Jabalpur
............ Workman
Versus
The General Manager,
Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur
.......... Management
A W A R D
(Passed on this 10th days of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 28.9.90 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-14012/2/90/IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Vehicle
Factory, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Om Prakash Ex-Messenger Boy, T.No. 2047/NIEE w.e.f.
28.3.81 is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted his statement of
claim at Page 3/1 to 3/3. The case of Ist Party workman is
that he was appointed as messenger boy on 22.9.72 in
Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. Because of his medical illness,
he remained absent for few days. He was issued with
chargesheet for unauthorized absence from duty during
the period 8.6.80 to 29.6.80. Another chargesheet was issued
to him on 22.3.82. Court of enquiry was ordered. On the
basis of report of enquiry, punishment of removal from
service was imposed on workman. He submits that in both
enquiry, no opportunity of defence was given to him.
Enquiry was held exparte. The workman sent intimation to
authorities regarding his illness. Without considering his
representation, workman was removed from service. That
workman suffering from mental sickness and without
understanding consequences could not participate in the
enquiry. The management knowing fully about his mental
illness, should have given proper opportunity for his
defence. Instead of doing so, exparte enquiry was
conducted and workman was removed from service. The
workman submitted necessary leave application supported
by medical certificate. The charges are not proved against
him. That before imposing punishment, so called notice
alongwith findings was not served to the workman. The
punishment is harsh considering the facts of the case. The
action of the management is unjustified. On such grounds,
workman prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at
Page 5/1 to 5/4. It is submitted that Ist Party workman was
unauthorisely absent from duty from 8.6.80 to 29.7.80.
Chargesheet was issued. Shri N.K. Pandey Foreman was
appointed as Enquiry Officer. The workman admitted
charge. Enquiry Officer hold that charge against workman
are established. The workman again remained absent from
3.8.80 without intimation to the office. The enquiry was
78
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conducted as per CCS Rules. Workman was removed from
service for unauthorized absence. The dispute is referred
after 8½ years. It deserves no consideration. IInd party
prays for rejection of reliefs claimed by workman.
4. Ist party filed rejoinder at page 6/1 to 6/2 reiterating
his contention in statement of claim and prays for his
reinstatement with back wages.
5. As per order dated 5.12.2011, enquiry conducted
against Ist party workman is found legal. The parties were
given liberty to adduce evidence on other issues. Other
issues are as under. My findings are recorded against each
of them for the reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the management is
Doesnot survive as
entitled to lead evidence
enquiry is held legal
before this Tribunal?
(ii) Whether the charges of
Charges are proved.
misconduct are proved on
facts of the case.
(iii) Whether the punishment
Punishment of
awarded is proper and legal?
removal from service
is not proper and
legal. It is modified as
per final order
(iv) If so, to what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Issue No. 2—
As per order dated 5.12.2011, enquiry held against
workman is found valid. Therefore there is no question of
proving misconduct against workman adducing evidence
before this Tribunal by the management.
7. Issue No. 3—
Issue No. 3 relates to whether misconduct against
workman are proved. The enquiry was proceeded exparte.
In his affidavit of evidence, workman has stated that
chargesheet under Rule 14 of CCS Rule 1965 was issued to
him for unauthorized absence for the period from 8.6.80 to
29.7.80 and IInd chargesheet for absence from 3.8.80
onwards. Workman has not disputed. He was absent from
duty during above period. Only he had contented that he
has submitted application with medical certificate but any
document in that regard were not available with him and he
could not produce such document before the Enquiry
officer. When no leave application was submitted or medical
certificate produced, the charge of unauthorized absence
from duty is established. The management's witness Shri
K.L. Bahal in his evidence has stated that the delinquent
was absent from duty during above said period. His absence
was unauthorized. Two charges were issued to him. The
documents are produced. In his cross-examination,
management's witness says he has stated about the notices
issued to the workman on both addresses of workman. His
evidence is fully devoted to the legality of the Enquiry
proceeding. The evidence on record and evidence in
Enquiry proceeding doesnot show that application for leave
was submitted by the workman. In absence of application
of leave, his leave is unauthorized, charges against
workman is therefore established.
8. Issue No. 4—it relates to propriety and legality of
punishment of removal. As per the chargesheets issued to
the workman, he was absent from duty during the period
8.6.80 to 29.7.80 and from 3.8.80 onwards. The first period
of unauthorized absence is 1 month 22 days and IInd spell
of unauthorized absence is about 2 months. While imposing
punishment of removal, the Disciplinary Authority did not
consider that workman was in service from 1982, whether
any kind of leave were at his account. The past conduct of
the workman is not discussed, no evidence is adduced by
the management of IInd party that the workman remained
auauthorisely absent in the past. Provisions of CCS Rules
providing punishment are not discussed by the Disciplinary
Authority. At the time of argument, learned counsel for
IInd party Mr. Shashi clearly submits that different kinds
of punishment are provided and the punishment of removal
is extreme punishment. Considering the proved misconduct
for two months, the punishment of removal from service is
not justified. It cannot be sustained. Denial of 75% back
wages will be adequate punishment. Accordingly I hold
and record my finding on Issue No. 4.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
1.
The action of management of Vehicle Factory,
Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of
Shri Om Prakash Ex-Messenger Boy w.e.f.
28.3.81 is illegal.
2.
IInd party management is directed to reinstate
workman Shri Om Prakash with 25% back
wages.
Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman
within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%
interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer.
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 39.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l lkabZfV¶d
flD;ksfjVh eSustesaV lfoZl fyñ 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV
¼29@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-12-2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12011@29@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
79
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 29/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of M/s Scientific Security
Management Service P. Ltd. and their workmen, recieved
by the Central Government on 19/12/2013
[No. L-12011/29/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT
AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th day of September, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 29/2012
Between:
The President,
Vijayawada Security Guards Union,
Pameedat Bhawan, Tadankivari Street,
Governorpet,
Vijayawada-2.
.......Petitioner
AND
The Regional Manager,
M/s. Scientific Security Management Service P. Ltd.,
P.B. No. 27, Balaram Rai Society, Mahindra Hills,
East Maredpally,
Secunderabad-26.
.......Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner
:
NIL
For the Respondent
:
NIL
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-12011/29/2011-IR(B-II) dated 31.7.2012 referred
the following dispute between the management of M/s.
Scientific Security Management Service P. Ltd., and their
workman under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for
adjudication to this Tribunal. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Vijayawada Security Guards
Union against the contractor M/s. Scientific Security
management Services Pvt. Ltd., for payment of bonus
to the security guards engaged in Punjab National
Bank ATMs Vijayawada for the accounting years
2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 is proper and justified?
What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 29/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. The case stands posted for appearance of
Petitioner union and for filing of claim statement and
documents. Petitioner union called absent and there is no
representation. Notice issued to the Petitioner union
returned unserved with the endorsement, 'Whereabouts
not known' and notice issued to the Respondent returned
served. In view of the report received that whereabouts of
the Petitioner union are not known, there is no possibility
of the service of notice to the Petitioner union. In the
circumstances, Petition is closed. Nil Award is passed.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.
Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant
transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 5th day
of September, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 19 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 40.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e ,l , ih flD;ksfjVh
izkbosV fyñ 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; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼52@2012½ izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@120@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]
jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 19th December, 2013
S.O. 40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/2012) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
80
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
dispute between the management of M/s. A.P. Security
Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 19/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/120/2011-IR(B-II)]
RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 16th day of September, 2013
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. I.D. 52/2012
Between:
Sri Sd. N. Basha,
General Secretary,
United Security Guards Union,
D.No.41-1/12-57/A, Nehru Nagar,
Krishna Lanka,
Vijayawada.
......Petitioner
AND
Managing Director,
M/s. A.P. Securities Pvt. Ltd.,
APS House, 10, DDA Commercial Complex,
Nangal Raya,
New Delhi—110046.
.......Respondent
Appearances:
For the Petitioner:
Nil
For the Respndent:
M/s. K. Satyanarayana Rao & Raj
Kishan Mehra, Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its
order No. L-12012/120/2011-IR(B-II) dated 22.6.2012 referred
the following dispute between the management of M/s.
A.P. Securities Pvt. Ltd., and their workman under section
10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal.
The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. A.P.
Securities Pvt. Ltd., a contractor of Vijaya Bank,
Vijayawada, in terminating the services of Shri Sd. N.
Basha, Security Guard w.e.f. 1.5.2011 without
adhearing the provisions of ID Act, 1947 is legal and
justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.
No. 52/2012 and notices were issued to the parties.
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.
inspite of giving notice time and again and the same being
returned served, Petitioner is not appearing before the court
and he has not filed any claim statement which shows that
he is not interested in the proceedings. 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 16th
day of September, 2013.
M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer.
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner
Respondent
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 41.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV fyfeVsM
dksVk ,oa Hkokuh bysfDVªdYl dkaVªsDVj 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2013½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@30@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 14/2013) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now
as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between
the employers in relation to the management of Mangalam
Cement Ltd., Kota & Bhawani Electricals Contractor and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/30/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
81
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
SH. N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 14/2013
Reference No. L-29011/30/2012 IR(M) dated: 29.10.2012
The President
Managalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s Bhawani Electricals Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s
Bhawani Electricals Contractor, a contractor engaged
by M/s Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in
not paying wages to 19 contract labourers (list
enclosed) as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal &
justified? What relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?"
2. Pursuance to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labour
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Id. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the Settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 42.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa vjkoyh bathfu;fjax oDlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@32@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2013)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Aravali
Engineering Works and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/32/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
82
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Shri N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 15/2013
Reference No. L-29011/32/2012 (IR(M)) dated: 29.10.2012
The President
Mangalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. Aravali Engineering Works
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Aravali Engineering Works, a contractor engaged
by M/s Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in
not paying wages to 74 contract labourers (list
enclosed) as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal &
justified? What relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint applicantion was filed by both
the parties on 28.06.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute
referred to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the Settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further
and they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 43.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa fr#ifr bathfu;fjax oDlZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)
fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd
fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]
t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 92@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsanzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@31@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 43.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Tirupati
Engineering Works and their workmen, which was received
by the Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/31/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
83
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Shri N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 92/2012
Reference No. L-29011/31/2012 (IR(M)) dated: 29.10.2012
The President
Mangalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. Aravali Engineering Works
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Tirupati Engineering Works, a contractor engaged
by M/s. Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in
not paying wages to 131 contract labourers (list
enclosed) as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal &
justified? What relief the concerned workmen are
entitled to and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim with documents.
3. At the stage of filing reply to the claim statement a
joint application was filed by both the parties on 28.06.2013
for withdrawal of the dispute referred to this tribunal on
the ground of settlement entered into between the parties
on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said settlement has also
been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the Settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 44.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa /kkdM+ baVjizkbtst ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa
vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 93@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh;
ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@33@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 44.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Dhakad
Enterprises and their workmen, which was received by the
Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/33/2012-IR (M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
84
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Shri N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 93/2012
Reference No. L-29011/33/2012 [IR(M)] dated: 29.10.2012
The President
Mangalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s.
1.
The Factory Manager
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. Dhakad Enterprises
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant union :
Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary.
For the non-applicants
:
Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s
Dhakad Enterprises, a contractor engaged by M/s
Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in not
paying wages to 111 contract labourers (list enclosed)
as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal & justified?
What relief the concerned workmen are entitled to
and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the Settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 45.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa ,lñdsñ tSu dkaVªsDVj 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; t;iqj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 94@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,yñ&29011@34@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 45.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 94/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the Employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & S.K. Jain
Contractor and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 18.12.2013.
[No. L-29011/34/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
85
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh. N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 94/2012
Reference No. L-29011/34/2012 [IR(M)] dated: 28.10.2012
The President
Managalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. S.K. Jain Contractor
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant Union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary.
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. S.K.
Jain Contractor, a contractor engaged by M/s.
Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in not
paying wages to 41 contract labourers (list enclosed)
as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal & justified?
What relief the concerned workman are entitled to
and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexure mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 46.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa [kaMsyoky daLVªD'ku daiuh 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;
t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 95@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@28@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 46.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 95/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the Employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Khandelwal
Construction Company and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 18.12.2013.
[No. L-29011/28/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
86
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh. N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 95/2012
Reference No. L-29011/28/2012 IR(M) dated: 28.10.2012
The President
Managalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. Khandelwal Construction Company
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant Union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary.
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s.
Khandelwal Construction Company, a civil
maintenance contractor engaged by M/s. Mangalam
Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in not paying wages to
10 contract labourers (list enclosed) as per 'Cement
Wage Board', is legal & justified? What relief the
concerned workman are entitled to and from which
date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 47.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV
fyfeVsM dksVk ,oa MsYVk flD;wfjVh dkaVªsDVj 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;
t;iqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k ¼96@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@27@2012&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 47.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 96/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Delta
Security Contractor and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 18.12.2013.
[No. L-29011/27/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
87
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh. N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 96/2012
Reference No. L-29011/27/2012 IR(M) dated: 28.10.2012
The President
Managalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1.
The Factory Manager,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2.
M/s. Delta Security Contractor,
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant Union : Sh. Mayank Kumar Chaudhary.
For the non-applicants
: Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Delta
Security Contractor, a contractor engaged by M/s.
Mangalam Cement Limited, Morak, Kota in not
paying wages to 20 contract labourers (list enclosed)
as per 'Cement Wage Board', is legal & justified?
What relief the concerned workman are entitled to
and from which date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Id. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 48.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eaxye lhesaV fyfeVsM
dksVk ,oa jketh yky dkaVªsDVj ds izca/kr= 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 97@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&29011@29@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 48.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 97/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Mangalam Cement Ltd., Kota & Ramji Lal
Contractor and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29011/29/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
88
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Sh. N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 97/2012
Reference No. L-29011/29/2012-IR(M)
dated: 29.10.2012
The President
Mangalam Cement Karamchari Union
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
V/s
1. The Factory Manager
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
2. M/s. Ramji Lal
Contractor,
Mangalam Cement Ltd.
Morak, Kota (Raj.)
PRESENT
For the Applicant Union
:
Sh. Mayank Kumar
Chaudhary.
For the non-applicants
:
Sh. Rupin Kala.
AWARD
28.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub-section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of M/s Ramji
Lal, a contractor engaged by M/s. Mangalam Cement
Limited, Morak, Kota in not paying wages to 17
contract labourers (list enclosed) as per 'Cement
Wage Board', is legal & justified? What relief the
concerned workmen are entitled to and from which
date?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties. On behalf of the
applicant union President, Sh. Badrilal put his appearance
on 13.3.2013 & filed the statement of claim on the next date
i.e. 8.5.2013.
3. At the stage of filing annexures mentioned in the
statement of claim, a joint application was filed by both the
parties on 28.6.2013 for withdrawal of the dispute referred
to this tribunal on the ground of settlement entered into
between the parties on 26.6.2013. The copy of the said
settlement has also been placed on the record.
4. The dispute pertains to as to whether labours
working under the contractor are entitled to wages as per
Central Wage Board. Both the parties have stated in their
joint application that they have entered into a settlement
on 26.6.2013 & grievances of the applicant union
representing the contract labours have been resolved &
now, no dispute exists between the parties, therefore, case
may be dispose of.
5. The Ld. Representatives on behalf of both the
parties submit that since, dispute raised by the applicant
union has been resolved & a settlement has been entered
into between the parties on 26.6.2013, therefore, the award
may be passed in terms of the said settlement. They also
submit that the settlement dated 26.6.2013 has been
registered in the Office of Regional Labour Commissioner,
Kota in the Settlement Register. In this regard, the copy of
the letter of the RLC, Kota dated 27.6.2013 has been placed
on record.
6. Since, dispute between the parties have been
resolved & parties have entered into a settlement on
26.6.2013, there remains no dispute between the parties.
Both the parties do not want to contest the case further &
they have requested to pass the award in terms of the
settlement dated 26.6.2013.
7. In view of above, the award is passed in terms of
the settlement dated 26.6.2013 Annexure-'A'. The said
settlement Annexure-'A' will be part of the award. The
reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.
8. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj 2013
dkñvkñ 49.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk
14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fr#ifr LVksu izkbosV
fyfeVsM mnSiqj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdks 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 78@2012½
izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk
FkkA
[lañ ,y&29012@21@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]
tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo
New Delhi, the 20th December, 2013
S.O. 49.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. 78/2012)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Tirupati Stone Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 18/12/2013.
[No. L-29012/21/2012-IR(M)]
JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
89
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
I.D. 78/2012
Reference No. L-29012/21/2012-IR(M)
dated: 20.7.2012
Ram Chandra Meena
S/o Shri Dhiraji Meena
VPO Kagdar, Fala Khandagodha,
The. Rishabhdev, Distt: Udaipur.
V/s
1. The Managing Director,
M/s Tirupati Stone Pvt. Ltd.
"Mangal Deep", 2, Panchwati,
Udaipur.
PRESENT
For the applicant
:
Ex-party
For the non-applicant
:
Sh. Rammanohar Sharma
AWARD
25.6.2013
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers
conferred under clause (d) of Sub Section 1 & 2(A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 has referred
the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for
adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s Tirupati Stone Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Chandra Meena w.e.f. 1.1.2010
without following the principles of natural justice
without any notice pay & other terminal benefits is
legal & justified? What relief the workman is entitled
to?"
2. Pursuant to the receipt of the reference, registered
notices were issued to both the parties.On 2.11.2012 the
workman Sh. Ramchandra put his appearance & sought
time for filing his statement of claim but on subsequent
dates 22.1.2013, 18.3.2013 & 21.5.2013, neither the workman
nor his representative appeared to file statement of claim.
Therefore, ex-party proceedings were drawn against the
workman on 21.5.2013.
3. Since the workman has not filed his statement of
claim the non-applicant has not adduced any evidence.
4. Heard the Ld. Representative for the non-applicant.
5. The workman has not appeared to file his claim
statement & ex-party proceedings have been drawn against
him. Under these circumstances, no material could be
brought on record for adjudication of the reference order
under consideration on merits. It appears that the workman
is not willing to contest the case therefore, "No Dispute
Award" is passed. The reference under adjudication is
answered accordingly.
6. Award as above.
N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 50.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lqj{kk isij fey]
gks'kaxkckn ds izca/kr= 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh/,ylh/vkj/190/96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&16011@3@95&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 50.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby published the award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/190/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-16011/3/95-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/190/96
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
General Secretary,
Security Paper Mill Karmchari Union,
Hoshangabad
...Workmen/Union
Versus
General Manager,
Security Paper Mill,
Hoshangabad (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of September, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 30-9-96/ 1-10-96 by the
90
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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-16011/3/95-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"(a) Whether the action of the management of SPM
in imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by one
stage from Rs. 1760/- to 1720/- per month in Pay Scale
of Rs. 1350-2200 for a period of one year on Shri S.
M. Bhowate, Welder, as well as stoppage of his
increment during penalty period is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled to?'
(b) whether the action of the management of SPM in
stopping two increments in respect of Shri Shobaram
Patel and Shri S.G. Goswami is justified or not? If not,
to what relief the workmen are entitled to.
(c) Whether the action of the management of SPM in
imposing minor penalty on Shri M.M. Dhimole is
legal and 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
their statement of Claim on 16-11-2007. Ist Party workman
was proceed exparte.
3. Management submitted Written Statement. The
case of IInd party is that Security Paper Mill manufactures
currency and Bank Note Paper is covered by item 21 of the
First schedule to the I.D. Act, 1947 as such the Mill is a
declared essential Public Utility Service. That the workman
conducted open Munch in the vicinity of the Security
Paper Mill. It created disturbance in the industry causing
indiscipline and loss of production. It is alleged to be
misconduct on behalf of 1st Party workman. As per the
rules applicable to them the workman violated provisions
of Central Civil Service Rules. The Union had not supported
the case. Only workman has organized the open munch
violating service rules. Shri S.M. Bhawate was issued memo
dated 16-12-94 for violation of Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) of Central
Civil Service Conduct Rules 1964. He was called upon to
submit his explanation within 10 days. However Shri S.M.
Bhawate did not seek time for submitting reply. There was
no question of refusal to grant him time for filing reply.
That penalty of reduction of pay by one stage i.e. 1760 to
1720 in Pay Scale Rs. 1350 to 2200 was imposed. Reduction
was for a period of one year. The stoppage of increment is
justified.
With respect to Shri Shobharam Patel and Shri H.G.
Goswami, it is submitted that both the them had requested
time for submitting their expalnation. Despite of time granted
to them, they failed to submit reply/explanation. In absence
of reply by those workmen, minor penalty of stopping two
increments was imposed is legal. With respect to Ist Party
workman Shri M.M. Dhimole, the chargesheet was issued
to him on 11-1-95. He did not submit his reply within
10 days. There was no question of issuing chargesheet to
him. Before issue of chargesheet, the memorandum was
issued to him. The reply was received on 25-2-95.
Considering the reply; minor punishment was imposed on
him is legal.
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
In Affirmative
management of SPM in
imposing the penalty of
reduction of pay by one stage
from Rs. 1760/- to 1720/- per
month in Pay Scale of
Rs. 1350-2200 for a period of
one year on Shri S.M. Bhowate,
welder, as well as stoppage of
his increment during penalty
period is legal?
(ii) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of SPM in stopping
two increments in respect of
Shri Shobaram Patel and
Shri S.G. Goswami is legal?
(iii) Whether the action of the
In Affirmative
management of SPM in
imposing minor penalty on
Shri M.M. Dhimole is legal?
(iv) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
6. As per the terms of reference, the legality of
punishment of reduction of pay of Shri S.M. Bhawate from
Rs. 1760 to 1720 and stopping two increments of workmen
Shri Shobaram Patel and Shri S.G. Goswami, minor penalty
imposed on Shri M.M. Dhimole is referred for adjudication.
However, the workmen failed to appear in the reference
proceedings. Statement of claim is not filed on their behalf.
7. IInd Party filed Written Statement supporting the
punishments imposed against all the workmen. It is
submitted that the Ist Party workmen had not submitted
reply/explanation to the memo. Shri Shobaram Patel and
Shri S.G. Goswami though submitted their explanation to
the memo, minor punishment withholding two increments
were imposed. Reply received to the memo issued to
Shri Dhimole was considered and minor punishment was
imposed as per Annexure IV. It is submitted that the
workmen had conducted open munch which amounts to
misconduct. The production of the Security Paper Mill was
affected. The management has filed affidavit of witness
Shri K.N. Mahapatra supporting contentions in Written
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
91
Statement filed by IInd Party. The evidence of
management's witness remained unchallenged as Ist Party
workman failed to cross-examine the witness. I do not find
reason to disbelieve unchallenged evidence of
management's witness. Workman failed to submit their
statement of claim or adduce any evidence to establish
that the penalty imposed against them suffers from any
kind of illegality. Therefore I recored my finding in Point
No. 1, 2 & 3 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management imposing minor
punishment on Ist Party workman is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 51.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh/,ylh/vkj/62@2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@319@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 51.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/62/2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in
the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of BSNL, Ratlam and their workmen, which
was received by the Central Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/319/2001-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/62/2002
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Gajadhar Singh,
S/o Shri Hemsingh
Village-Kudkela,
Tehsil-Dharmajgarh,
Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)
...Workman
Versus
Sub-Divisional Officer (Telegraphs),
BSNL, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh,
Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones),
BSNL, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh
General Manager,,
BSNL, Telephone Exchange,
Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)
....Managements
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th days of September, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 1.4.2002 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-42012/
319/2001-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the demand of Shri Gajadhar Singh, Ex-
Casual Labour from the management of the Telecom
Department (BSNL), Raigarh for reinstatement and
his regularisation in service is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled and from which
date?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman submitted Statement of Claim
at page 2/1 to 2/3. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
had worked as casual labour on muster roll with IInd Party
in 1990. He had worked during 1980 to 1983, 84 to 87 & in
1990. He claims to have worked more than 240 days during
each of the calender year. That Smt. Budhiarin Bai and
Pratapi Bai were part time labour in establishment of
IInd Party in 1988. They were directed to be given temporary
status as per order in Original Application No. 509/93 under
the Departmental Regularisation Scheme of 1989.
3. That several casual labours were working in
IInd party till 1995. None of them were regularized. Rajesh
Kumar Kunwar and Keshav Prasad working under the IInd
Party filed Original Application No. 96/95. Seeking
regularization. Application had filed original application
467/97 before CAT, Jabalpur. The directions were given to
the applicant to approach appropriate forum. Applicant
submits that case of Rajkumar and Keshav Prasad is
identical and therefore he is entitled to similar relief of
temporary status/regularization.
4. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/4. Claim of Ist Party is opposed. That workman has raised
industrial dispute alleging that his service were terminated
without following due procedure under I.D. Act. That the
respondent engaged workers for target works at various
placed in rival. The workers were engaged on muster roll
for specified period and works like for erecting lines and
wires, laying under ground cables, dismantling of lines
92
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
and wires, providing long distance connection etc. on daily
basis etc. The workers were employed on contract basis
for specified period therefore they were never engaged on
regular basis against regular sanctioned post. That after
expiry of stipulated work, the services of casual labours
were automatically terminated. They were again deployed
to the work under mustering officer when work was
available. The department had framed policy for conferring
of temporary status of casual workers known as Casual
Labours Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation
Scheme, 1989. The conditions were that the employee
should be:—
(a) Engaged prior to 30.3.1985,
(b) Continuing as casual worker on 7.11.1989,
(c) Have completed 240 days in a year.
The scheme was extended as per order dated
25.6.1993. The required criterias are:—
(a) Having been engaged between 30.3.1985 to 22.6.1988.
(b) Still continuing in the date of respective orders.
(c) Not remained absent for more than 365 days w.e.f.
the issue of respective orders.
5. IInd Party submits that except in 1987, workman
had not completed 240 days service during the period of
service. He is not fulfilling conditions for temporary status.
Therefore he is not entitled for regularization of service.
That Smt. Budhiarin and Smt. Pratapi Bai was in employment
for longer period. The case of Rajesh Kumar and Keshav
Prasad were also not similar. On such grounds, IInd Party
submits that Ist Party workman cannot claim reliefs as similar
relief is granted to above workers. On such grounds, IInd
Party prays for rejection of claim of 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 demand of Shri
In Negative
Gajadhar Singh, Ex-Casual
Labour from the management
of the Telecom Department
(BSNL), Raigarh for reinstate-
ment and his regularisation in
service is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
7. As per terms of reference, Ist Party workman is
challenging legality of his termination. He is also claiming
regularization in service. However his statement of claim is
fully devoted for regularization as per the casual labours
regularization scheme.
8. IInd Party had denied claim of Ist Party contending
that he is not fulfilling eligibility criteria. The affidavit of
evidence is filed by workman. He has stated that he had
worked for 303 days during 1980 to 83, 420 days from 1984
to 1987, 207 days from 1987 to 1988, 167 days from July
1987 to Dec., 1987 and 177 days during 1988. That he was
required to work in the department in 1980. That he had
completed 240 days continuous service preceding one year
from 31.12.1988. He has further stated that his services
were terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation
was not paid. He was not granted temporary status as per
the scheme.
9. In his cross-examination, workman says he had
left service in December, 1988. That he was working as
labour in BSNL. His name was in muster. He was paid wages.
He had not received appointment letter. That he was working
on all 30 days of the month. He admits that working days
shown in Para-2 of his affidavit is six blocks is correct.
10. Management's witness Basant Xalxo in his
affidavit of evidence has stated the working days of Ist
Party workman from 1980 to 1988, in 1987 working days of
workman were 315 days, till October, 1998, working days
were 177. That there is no provision of regularization of
casual workers directly. Unless temporary status is
concurred on him. In his cross-examination, management's
witness claims ignorance whether the entries of attendance
was marked in the muster roll. He admits contents of para-
6 that casual labours in muster roll was taken.
11. In present case as workman has admitted that he
had left service in 1988, there was no question of giving
notice under Section 25-F as argued by counsel for
management.
12. Next question remains whether the workman is
entitled for regularisation under the scheme of 1989. As per
evidence in cross-examination of workman, he had left the
job in December, 1988. The scheme was introduced from
7.11.1989. The copy is produced on record. The scheme
prescribed various criterias for extending initially for
temporary status to employees completing 240 days service
as casual labour. The conferment of temporary status on a
casual labour would not involve any change in his duties.
Scheme also clearly provides that the employee is not
entitled for casual status. Their services are terminated
following conditons laid down in I.D. Act, 1947. Though
evidence on record shows that workman had completed
more than 240 days service in 1987, he himself left the
service in December 1988 before the scheme for
regularization of casual employees was introduced. The
scheme cannot be given retrospective effect for giving
temporary status to the workman. Therefore he is not
entitled to any of the relief prayed by him. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
93
13. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Termination of service of workman is not illegal, he is
not entitled for regularization.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 52.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhñthñvkbZñVhñ@,yñlhñ@vkj/68@2004½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@242@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 52.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/68/2004) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of BSNL, Ratlam and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23.12.2013.
[No. L-42012/242/2003-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/68/2004
SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
The Divisional Secretary,
National Union of Telecom
Employees Line Staff &
Group D Mundla Nayata (Palda),
Indore
...Workman
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, O/o TDM,
Ratlam
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 12th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 9.6.2004 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-40012/242/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference
relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of TDM,
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Sitaram
S/o Mangilal Bhati w.e.f. 31-12-89 is justified? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 7/1 to 7/3. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
was working from 1984 till January 1990 with IInd Party. His
services were terminated from 31-12-89. He was not served
with notice, he was not paid retrenchment compensation,
termination of his services is in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act. Principles of last come first go was not followed.
Termination of his services is in violation of Section 25-G
of I. D. Act. He has filed Petition No. 499/95 before CAT,
Jabalpur. His petition was rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
He was given liberty to approach appropriate forum. After
following conciliation proceedings, the dispute is referred.
On such contentions, he prays for reinstatement with
consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3. Preliminary objection is raised that the dispute is
referred after 10 years. Ist Paty workman was initially
appointed in separate establishment under the Sub
Divisional Officer, Phones Ratlam as well as SDOT Mandsor.
Thereafter the workman voluntarily left the work. Other
contentions of workman are denied. It is denied that the
workman was terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G of I.
D. Act, completion of 240 days is denied. According to
IInd Party, it was work of deptt. after completion of work,
work was transferred to other place. The dispute is not
tenable. IInd Party prayed for rejection of claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim. That he
had completed more than 240 days continuous service
preceding his termination. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. He was not served with notice of
termination.
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 TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services of
Shri Sitaram S/o Shri Mangilal
Bhati w.e.f. 31-12-89 is justified?
94
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination for violation
of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act. That he was working in IInd
Party from 1985 to December 1989. He had completed 240
days continuous service during each year. IInd Party denied
those contentions of the workman. Workman filed affidavit
of his evidence stating that he had completed 240 days
continuous service preceding termination of his services.
In his cross-examination, workman says that he was not
given appointment letter. He had not obtained registration
of Employment Exchange. The document in that regard is
not produced. He denied that after completion of project,
his service used to come to an end. He denied that he had
left the work of project. It is denied that after completion of
project work, he was directed to work in other division. He
denied that he had not completed 240 days continuous
service preceding his termination.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri P. K. Jain witness of managment has stated that
workman had not completed 240 days continuous service.
Workman was engaged as casual labour in 1987 as per
need. In his cross-examination, workman says that he is
working at Ratlam from 1-1-87. Workman did not work under
him. He has not produced documents related to the dispute.
He denies that workman was appointed as regular
employee. The witness of the management says that
payment of retrenchment compensation was not considered
necessary. He has denied that workman has completed 240
days service.
8. The documents produced by workman are
admitted by IInd Party In Exhibit W-1, 30 working days are
shown in 1987. In W-2 working days during January to
August 89 are shown 181 days. In W-3 working days from
Sept. to October 89 are 51 days, in Exhibit W-4, working
days in December 89 are shown 31 days. The total of
working days comes to more than 240 days preceding
termination of services of workman. Workman is covered
under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. Workman was not served
with notice. He was not paid retrenchment compensation.
Termination of services of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
9. Point No. 2
In view of my finding in Point No. 1 that the
termination of workman is illegal and in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act, question arises whether the workman is
entitled for reinstatement with back wages. As per evidence,
workman was working from 1985 to December, 1989 for
about 4 years. His services are terminated in violation of
Section 25-F. Workman was not appointed following
selection process. His name was not sponsored through
Employment Exchange. Relief of reinstatement with back
wages cannot be allowed. In my considered view, payment
of reasonable compensation would be appropriate to meet
the ends of justice. Compensation Rs. 50,000/- would be
proper and reasonable. Accordingly I record my finding on
Point No. 2.
10. In the result, award is passed as under :—
(1) Action of the management of TDM, Ratlam in
terminating the services of Shri Sitaram S/o Shri
Mangilal Bhati w.e.f. 31.12.89 is not legal.
(2) IInd Party is directed to pay compenation
Rs. 50,000/- 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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 53.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e lh ,y
ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|kfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28@2011½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@19@2011&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 53.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 28/2011) of
the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,
Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Lingaraj Area of MCL and their workmen,
received by the Central Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-22012/19/2011-IR(CM-II)]
B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
PRESENT : SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer,
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,
Bhuabaneswar.
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 28/2011
Date of Passing Award-29th July, 2013
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
95
BETWEEN :
The General Manager,
Lingaraj Area of MCL,
At./Po. Deulbera Colliery,
Dist. Angul
...1st Party
Management
And
The General Secretary, Talcher Coal
Mines Employees Union, At. Qrs. No. A/121,
Po. N.S. Nagar, Dist. Angul
... 2nd Party-Union.
APPEARANCES :
None
...
For the 1st Party-Management
None
...
For the 2nd Party-Union
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of Lingaraj
Area of MCL and their workmen 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 vide its letter No. L-22012/19/2011-IR(CM-II),
dated 11.05.2011 in respect of the following matter :—
"Whether the action of the management of Lingaraj
Area of MCL in creating wage disparity between
Shri P.C. Sahoo and V.K. Upadhyay both JR DEO-Gr-D
and not giving promotion to them as per the cadre
scheme is appropriate and justified ? To what relief the
workmen are entitled to" ?
2. The 2nd Party-Union espousing the cause of the
workmen has filed statement of claim stating that both the
workmen namely Shri Pravakar Sahoo and Shri Vijay Kumar
Upadhaya are presently working as Junior Data Entry
Operator (DEO) in the office of the General Manager,
Lingaraj Area, At./Po. Deulabera Colliery in the District of
Angul, Orissa. Shri Pravakar Sahoo was appointed in the
MCL on 29.3.1996 as land oustee in Bharatpur O.C.P. and
then transferred to Kalinga O.C.P. on 1.4.1996. Shri Vijay
Kumar Upadhya was appointed on 26.12.1996 on the death
of his father and later transferred to lingaraj Area and posted
in Regional Store, Lingaraj Area. Shri Pravakar Sahoo and
Shri Vijay Kumar Upadhyay were later selected on the post
of E.D.P. (Tr.). Both of them worked as E.D.P. (Tr.) for one
and half year and then their designation was changed to
Junior Data Entry Operator (Tr.), Grade-E from 1.6.2004.
Recently both of them have been promoted as Junior Data
Entry Operator and joined the post on 30.3.2010 on protest.
They have been working in the post of Junior Data Entry
Operator (Tr.), Grade-E from 1.6.2004, but their basic pay
has not been fixed properly on promotion. They were
drawing more pay in their previous post, but their basic
pay has been fixed at the initial pay of the new post. Both
of them are eligible to get Grade 'D' post in the same
discipline after working in the job after one year and then
they should get promotion as per the cadre scheme. In the
E.D.P. cadre they should be retained for one year as trainee
then they should get promotion to the next higher post
and thereafter promotion after three years. Interestingly
their pay which was reduced to the starting pay of the new
post has been regularized in adopting the basic of NCWA-
VIII with effect from 1.7.2006, but they were not paid arrear
wages of differential pay. Again the Management did not
consider their promotion as per cadre scheme and retained
them in Grade-E post till now despite making repeated
requests. This amounts to unfair labour practice. Therefore
both the workmen should be regularized in the post they
held on appointment as trainee after one year and their
promotions should be allowed after consideration as per
cadre scheme and their basic pay should be fixed at the
corresponding scale of new post on placement.
3. The 1st Party-Management did appear in the case
through its authorized representative, but did not file any
written statement. As such the case was ordered to proceed
exparte against the 1st Party-Management and the 2nd
Party-Union was called upon to adduce evidence in support
of its claim. But the 2nd Party-Union failed to file any oral
evidence. It has filed photostat copies of some documents
along with its statement of claim, but these documents
have not been proved and exhibited through oral evidence.
3. As per the schedule of reference the dispute
consists of two parts:—
(i) Whether the action of the Management of Lingaraj
Area of MCL in creating wage disparity between
Shri P.C. Sahoo and V.K. Upadhyay both Jr. DEO,
Gr.-D is appropriate and justified ? and
(ii) Whether the action of the Management of Lingaraj
Area of MCL by not giving promotion to them as per
cadre scheme is appropriate and justifed ?
4. As regards the first part of the dispute the 2nd
Party-Union has not raised any pleadings in its statement
of claim. It has only alleged that the basic pay of both the
workmen has not been protected and fixation has not been
done properly. Their basic pay was fixed at the initial pay
of the new post, while they were drawing more basic pay in
the earlier post. It is very much clear from the averments
made in Part-6 of the claim petition. Besides, no evidence
on this point has been led by the 2nd Party-Union or the
disputant workmen. Hence it cannot be said or held that
the 1st Party-Management has done any discrimination or
disparity in pay fixation of the two workmen on promotion.
5. On the second point of dispute the main grievance
of the disputant workmen seems to have been that they
were not given promotion in the post of Junior Data Entry
Operator from due date as per cadre scheme. They were
promoted to the post of Junior Data Entry Operator (trainee)
96
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Grade-E from the post of EDP (Trainee) on 1.6.2004 and
after working for nearly six years they were given promotion
to the post of Junior Data Entry Operator, Grade-D on
29.3.2010 while the cadre scheme stipulates two years
experience as Junior Punch Verifier/Junior Data Entry
Operator in Grade-II. It is not clear, nor the 2nd Party-Union
or the disputant workmen have clarified as to why their
promotion was delayed? No material or substantial
evidence could come before the court due to non-
appearance of the 1st Party-Management. Although the
Management preferred to refrain itself from the proceedings
of the case. But the principles of natural justice demand
due consideration by the Management of its action in not
promoting the disputant workmen as per cadre scheme.
However in absence of any material to substantiate the
case of the disputant workmen, no specific order can be
passed in this regard. The 2nd Party-Union or the disputant
workmen have not appeared in the witness box to depose
the true facts of the case and bring out material before the
court to justify the claim. Therefore the 2nd Party-Union or
the disputant workmen cannot be given any relief.
6. The reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 54.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ,e lh
,y ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k&¼28@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&22012@168@1996&vkbZvkj¼lh&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 54.—In purusance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Goverment hereby publishes the Award Ref. 28/2001 of the
Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Mahanadi Coalfields
Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-22012/168/1996-IR(C-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESHWAR
PRESENT: SHRI J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.
Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 28/2001
Date of Passing Award-30th April, 2013
BETWEEN
The Management of the General Manager,
Ib Valley Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.,
Po. Brajarajnagar, Dist. Jharsuguda.
... 1st Party-Management.
And
Their workmen represented through the
Joint Secretary, Brajarajnagar Coal Mines
Workers Union, At./Po. Lamtibahal,
Via. Brajarajnagar, Distt. Jharsuguda.
... 2nd Party-Union.
APPEARANCES:
M/s. G.K. Satpathy,
...
For the 1st Party-
Advocate.
\
Management.
M/s. D. Mahanta,
...
For the 2nd Party-
Advocate.
Union.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of labour
vide its Letter No. L-22012/168/96-IR(C-II) dated 5.6.1997
has referred an industrial dispute existing between the
employers in relation to the management of Ib Valley Area,
MCL and their workman in exercise of the powers conferred
by clause (d) of sub-section (1) of sub-section 2 (A) of
Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the
following matter.
‘‘Whether the action of the Management of Ib Valley
Area of Mahanadi Coalifields Ltd. in terminating the
services of S/Sh. Gokul Satpathy, Safet Kansarali,
Jay Gopal Podha, Raju Kisan, Sundar Pradhan and
Prafulla Kumar Besan is legal and justified? If not, to
what relief are the workmen entitled and from which
date?”
2. The 2nd Party-Union filed statement of claim and
stated that the disputant workmen named above were
engaged by the Management as labourers in Regional
Stores, Belpahar during July, 1993 and some of them were
also engaged for some time as peons, but the exact nature
of their duties was supervising the loading the unloading
operation, checking of packets and shelfing them in the
stores etc. All the above workmen continued their
work/duty up-to 30.10.1995 without any break. But
suddenly they were refused work from 31.10.1995 without
any reason. This act of the Management is illegal, arbitrary
and amounts to unfair labour practice. The Management
had direct supervision and control over these workmen.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
97
They were being paid weekly wages directly by the
Management. The payment vouchers were made by the
MCL, Ib Valley Area in the name of one workman and the
amounts sanctioned was distributed equally among all the
workmen. Therefore there was master and servant
relationship between the Management and these workmen.
These workmen were not engaged by the contractor in the
Regional Stores. The sudden refusal of work of these
workmen by the Management amounts to retrenchment
which is in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Before refusal of work to these workmen the
Management has neither given one months' notice in writing
indicating the reasons for retrenchment nor has paid
compensation as required. All the six workmen had rendered
nearly two years four months service which shows that
there is need for regular post and the Management should
have taken immediate steps to regularize them. The Union
represented to the General Manager, MCL, Ib Valley area
to regularize these six workmen vide letter dated 31.10.1995,
but their claim was refused. Then the grievance of the
workmen was reaised by the Union Before the Asstt. Labour
Commissioner (Central), Rourkela who inspected the area
and found that the six workmen were engaged against the
job which is permanent and perennial in nature. But the
Management instead of regularizing them, has refused work
to them. Hence it has been prayed that the Management be
directed to take them back and regularize them, in their jobs
and pay them differential wages of Category-I from the
date of their engagement.
3. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement
has stated that the disputant workmen were contract
workers being paid on the basis of the approved rate by
the competent authority for each item of work. Their wages
of each day was collected periodically by one of them on
behalf of all the workmen depending upon the quantum of
work done by them collectively. The payment so received
was distributed by themselves as per their respective
contribution to the work. There was no privity of contract
between the 1st Party-Management and the disputant
workmen. They were never assigned any duty of
supervising the loading and unloading operation or
checking of packets as has been alleged. It is also false to
allege that some of them were engaged as peons and they
were continuously engaged without any break up-to
30.10.1995. The Management had engaged these workmen
on contract basis as the nature of job involved was of
casual nature. Since there was no need of labourers and
peons after 31.10.1995 the allegations regarding approach
of these workmen to the Depot Officer and their
engagement in the Regional Stores are false. The job of
stacking, loading and unloading and checking of packets
etc. relates to the valuable articles of the 1st Party-
Management. Therefore the same was entrusted to private
agencies like the disputant workmen due to exigencies. As
record of the same had to be maintained for reference at
any time later in case of any shortage, breakage etc. Some
of the general mazdoors of the company were also deputed
along with these six workmen whose names were recorded
in such documents alleged to be the attendance register.
Such endorsements by putting signature were also
necessary to certify the quantum of work done by the
workers against which payment can be passed by the
concerned department. Therefore these documents cannot
be taken to show that the workers so engaged were under
direct supervision and control of the Management. The
payment vouchers filed by the 2nd Party-Union do not
disclose the relationship of master and servant between
the workers and the Management. The job performed by
these workmen cannot be treated as the job of perennial
nature as the consignments are not expected everyday
from outside. These workmen were engaged purely on rate
contract basis to do the casual job on exigencies as and
when necessary. Therefore their claim for regularization is
unfounded and the reference may be answered in favour
of the Management.
4. The 2nd Party-Union in its rejoinder has stated
that the disputant workmen are neither casual nor contract
labourers. The Management has not alleged the
engagement of any contractor. The Management has been
diverting the regular employees for getting the work done
earlier performed by these workmen. Therefore the work is
regular and perennial in nature and the termination of the
disputant workmen was unwarranted and illegal.
5. On the pleadings of the parties following issues
were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the action of the management in
terminating the services of Sri Gokul Satpathy, Safet
Kansarali, Jay Gopal Podha, Raju Kisan, Sundar
Pradhan & Prafulla Kumar Besan is legal and
justified?
2. If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled &
from which date?
6. The 1st Party-Management has adduced the
evidence of two witnesses namely Shri Santosh Kumar
Mohanty as M.W.-1 and Shri Hrudananda Majhi as
M.W.-2 and relied on four documents marked as Ext.-A to
Ext.-D.
7. The 2nd Party-Union has examined two witnesses
namely Shri Arun Chandra Hota as W.W.-1 and Shri Prafulla
Kumar Besan as W.W.-2 and relied upon three documents
marked as Ext.-1, 2 and 2/1.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO.1
8. As per allegation of the workmen they were
engaged by the 1st Party-Management as labourers in the
Regional Store, Belpahar and worked there from July, 1993
to October, 1995 without any break, whereas the stand of
98
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the 1st Party-Management is that the disputant workmen
were contract workers being paid on the basis of the
approved rate for each item of work. Their wages for each
day was collected periodically by one of them on behalf of
all the workmen which depended on the quantum of work
done by them collectively and distributed by themselves
as per their respective contributions to the work.
9. From the evidence adduced by the parties the stand
taken by the Management proves to be true and
substantiated by the statements given on oath by the
witnesses of both the sides. There is no dispute that the
workmen worked in the Regional Stores, Belpahar from
July, 1993 to October, 1995 as casual labourers for loading
and unloading operation, checking of packets, and shelfing
them in stores. W.W.-1 Shri Arun Chandra Hota could not
tell as to who engaged the 2nd Party-workmen and whether
they were working on rate contract basis? W.W.-2
Shri Prafulla Kumar Besan has stated in his evidence that a
khata was supplied to each labourer in which the officer
was daily recording as to what work each of the labourers
had done and after verifying each khata payment was being
made. Ext.-1 is the attendance register with allotment of
work and Ext.-2 series is the payment/adjustment vouchers.
The money paid by the cashier was being distributed
amongst the six workers and two other outsider labourers.
The officer was giving instructions daily to each of the
labourers in their khata as to the work to be done by each
of them and that apart they were not giving their attendance
any-where. He has further stated that on receiving money
from the office these labourers were deciding among
themselves as to who will get how-much money depending
upon the work done by each of them. All these assertions
support the case of the 1st Party-Management. M.W.-1
Santosh Kumar Mohanty has virtually said the same thing
while stating that the workmen were working on the basis
of rate contract. According to him they were working
collectively and one of them was receiving the payment
and Distributing it amongst the labourers. Ext.-1 is not the
attendance register, it is a note prepared by him showing
the persons worked on a particular date being supervised
by him. This register was maintained to prepare bills for
making payment. The names of the disputant workmen do
not find place in Ext.-A, B & C which are the attendance
register. Ext.-2 was prepared after receipt of the approval of
the Dy. C.M.M. on the bills submitted by him. This witness
has earlier stated that the services of the outside labourers
are taken when the work load becomes more. The workmen
concerned in this case were engaged when there was need
of work. M.W.-2, Shri Hrudananda Majhi has also stated in
his evidence that "at the time of need basis we used to
engage outsiders on rate contract basis". He further stated
that "we never used to maintain the attendance of casual
labourers". These casual labouarers according to him were
not working everyday. They worked on the dates when the
materials were sent through trucks.
10. From the perusal of Ext.-1 and 2 filed on behalf of
the 2nd Party-workmen it cannot be said that these two
documents prove their regular engagement by the 1st
Party-Management. Ext.-1 cannot be named as attendance
register. It only shows the dates and names of the workmen
who worked on those particular dates and did particular
work. Copies of the payment vouchers also do not show
their continuous employment. This goes to reflect that the
2nd Party-workmen had not worked continuously for 240
days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the
date of their disengagement. The work performed by these
workmen is permanent or perennial in nature is not of any
importance as they were engaged on contract basis.
Payment of their work was to be made on the quantum of
work they had performed. Therefore they had not acquired
any right to be regularized or to continue in service when
there is no sufficient work for them with the Management.
11. Under these circumstances the action of the
Management in terminating the services of S/Shri Gokul
Satpathy, Safet Kansarali, Jay Gopal Podha, Raju Kisan,
Sunder Pradhan and Prafulla Kumar Besan is perfectly legal
and justified and no right to get any relief accrue to them.
This issue is decided against the 2nd Party-wokmen and in
favour of the 1st Party-Management.
ISSUE No. 2
12. From what has been stated in Issue No. 1 above
the workmen are not entitled to any relief whatsoever.
13. Reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 55.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh vkbZ ih
bZ ,.M Vh 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 17@2006½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@249@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]
chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Central Institute of
Plastics Engg. & Technology, and their workmen, received
by the Central Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/249/2005 - IR(CM-II)]
B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
99
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. 17/2006
Date of Passing Award-8th August, 2013
BETWEEN:
1. The Director General, Central Institute of
Plastics Engg. & Technology, Corporate Office,
Guindy, Tamilnadu-600 032
2. The Duputy Director & Head, Central
Institute of Plastics Engg. & Technology,
B/25, CHI Complex, Bhubaneswar
(Orissa) — 751 024
.........1st Party-Managements
(And)
Shri Sridhar Naik,
S/o. Late Bholi Naik, At./PO. Patia,
Ps. Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar
(Orissa)-751 031
... 2nd Party-Workman.
APPEARANCES:
Shri K.S. Sodhi,
...
For the 1st Party-
Manager (PAF).
Managements.
Shri Sridhar Naik.
...
For Himself the 2nd
Party Workman.
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour
has referred an industrial dispute vide its letter No. L-42012/
249/2005—IR (CM-II) dated 17.8.2006 existing between the
employers in relation to the management of Central Institute
of Plastics Engg. & Technology and their workman 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 in respect of the following
matter:—
Whether the action of the management of Central
Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology in
terminating the services of Sri Sridhar Nayak w.e.f.
1.7.2003 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is
the workman entitled?"
2. The 2nd Party-workman in his statement of claim
has averred that he was engaged as a casual worker under
the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and was assisgned duties
in the boys hostel. Later he was engaged in Library and
Training Department. While working as such his services
were approved by the then Project Head with effect from
1.3.1992. He had been discharging his duties very sincerely,
efficiently and continuously having no adverse remarks
against him. His initial monthly pay was raised in the year
1997 from Rs. 500 to Rs. 2025 and then to Rs. 3050 with
effect from 16.8.2001. His name was cited at Sl. No. 5 in the
list showing details of casual/temporary employees. He
rendered continuous service from 1.3.1992 to 30.6.2003
without any break. From 1.7.2003 Shri Ajit Kumar Pattnaik,
Assistant of the 1st Party-Management No. 1 refused
employment to him verbally under the orders of the Chief
Manager, (Project) Dr. S.K. Nayak. His several requests for
giving employment were turned down and the security
guards of the Management did not allow him to enter inside
the campus. The 1st Party-Management has refused
employment to him without any reason and without
compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Party-Management has
engaged Mr. Manoj Kumar Pattnaik as a contractor without
obtaining any license under the Contract labour (R & A)
Act, 1970, who in turn, has deployed personnel for
discharging the duties of the 2nd Party-workman. The 1st
Party-Management forced him to work under the contractor
after submission of resignation, but the 2nd Party-workman
refused to work under the contractor. He and his four senior
co-workers were drawing salary directly from the 1st Party-
Management by signing the vouchers. The 1st Party-
Management has issued four cheques of Syndicate Bank,
Bhubaneswar in the name of the 2nd Party-workman
towards payment of arrear wages. Hence the 2nd Party-
workman be reinstated in service with full back wages.
3. The 1st Party-Management has filed its written
statement and alleged that the Central Institute of Plastics
Engineering and Technology is a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for training highly
skilled personel in Pastics Processing. Plastics testing
design and also to train tool room, I.T.I. etc. It is essentially
and educational institution. It is not engaged in any
commercial activities. As such it is not an industry under
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and accordingly his Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The 2nd Party-
workman was engaged from November, 1994 to July, 1995
through House Keeping/Hotel Kitchen Contractor Shri Bata
Krishna Sahoo, from August, 1995 to September, 1996
through the hostel kitchen contractor Shri B.C. Das and
from October, 1996 to November, 1997 through the hostel
kitchen contractor Shri Bata krishna Sahu. From July, 1997
onwards the 2nd Party-workman was engaged by the hostel
mess committee for hostel. The said committee was
independently run by the hostel students. The 2nd Party-
workman was receiving wages from the hostel mess
committee through the institute. Earlier to it he was also
engaged from 1.3.1992 through the contractor Shri Sridhar
Naik for House Keeping works. The 2nd Party-workman
worked till the month of July, 2003 and received the payment,
but he did not turn up after July, 2003. In the month of June,
100
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2004 he was engaged for gardening work on his personel
request and received payment till August, 2004 for the work
done by him. He left the job on his own choice. He has
never worked continuously for 240 days in a year. He was
never appointed by the CIPET against any sanctioned
permanent or regular post or vacancy. For the increasing
house keeping job the 1st Party-Management has engaged
M/s. Manoj Enterprises to carry out the day to day house
keeping works in the hotel and office premises. the 2nd
Party-workman was engaged by the respective contractors
and mess committee as per their requirement while four
seniors named by the 2nd Party-workman have been
working in CIPET as casual/contract employees. The 2nd
Party-workman was neither appointed against any regular
sanctioned/vacant post by CIPET nor he has any vested
right for his regularization in CIPET. Hence he is not entitled
to the reinstated. The question of victimization does not
arise since the 2nd Party-workman was neither appointed
not disengaged by the CIPET. The provisions of Section
25 of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted in this
case. The 2nd Party-workman has also filed W.P. No. 4600/
2003 for regularization of his service in Hon'ble High Court
of Orissa which is still pending. Hence he cannot be allowed
to take shelter of two forums simultaneously for the same
relief.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues
were framed:—
ISSUES
1. Whether the reference is maintainable?
2. Whether the workman was engaged by the
Management of Central Institute of Plastics Engineering &
Technology?
3. Whether the Management had ever refused
employment to the workman with effect from 1.7.2003 and
if so, whether the action of the management is justified and
legal?
4. If not to what relief the workman is entitled?
5. The 2nd Party-workman Shri Sridhar Nayak son
of Late Bholi Naik has examined himself as W.W.-1 in
evidence and relied upon fifteen documents marked as Ext.-
1 to 15. On the other hand the 1st Party-Management has
examined Shri Sridhar Naik son of Akura Naik as M.W.- 1
and relied on several documents marked as Ext.-A to S.
FINDINGS
ISSUE NO. 1
6. Although the 1st Party-Management has stated
that its establishment being an educational institution not
engaged in any commercial activities does not come under
the definition of "Industry" and therefore the reference is
not maintainable in this Tribunal/Court, yet it has not
seriously contested the issue and seems to have given up
the question of maintainability and jurisdiction of the court.
It has filed Ext.-F, photostat copy of judgement of the
Hon'ble High Court of Madras given in Writ Petition No.
863/1984 wherein it was held that the Management of
Central Institute of Plastic Engineering and Tools, Madras
is exempt under section 32(v) (b) and (c) of the Payment of
Bonus Act. This judgement is no helpful in the present
context as the question involved herein is the applicability
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The 1st Party-
Management seems to have submitted to the jurisdiction
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court for adjudication of industrial disputes as it has relied
on the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh given in Civil Writ Petition No.
7344 of 2007 and judgement of I.D. Case No. 97/1995 given
by the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar relating to the 1st Party-
Management. The photostat copies of these two
judgements have been filed along with the written note of
argument by the 1st Party-Management. In these two cases
applicability of the Industrial Disputes, Act has not been
challenged by the 1st Party-Management. In my view also
this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon the industrial dispute between 1st Party-
Management and its employees being an industrial dispute
as the 1st Party-Management is a State-run establishment
and the present dispute relates to public employment. This
issue is accordingly decided against the 1st Party-
Management and it is held that the reference is maintainable
in this Tribunal/Labour Court.
ISSUE NO. 2
7. According to the 2nd Party-workman he was
engaged by the 1st Party-Management No. 1 with effect
from 1.3.1992 and he worked till 30.6.2003 without any break.
On the contrary the 1st Party-Management has alleged
that the 2nd Party-workman had worked from 1.3.1992 till
July, 2003 under different contractors for different kind of
work. He was receiving wages from the contractors through
the Institute. But the 1st Party-Management has failed to
prove by any cogent and reliable evidence that the 2nd
party-workman was engaged by the contractors for different
spell of time. It has examined one of the contractors named
Shri Sridhar Naik as M.W.-1, who has stated in his evidence
that the 2nd party-workman has worked under him for one
year and disbursed his wages brought from the
Management. He got appointment in regular post under
the 1st Party-Management in the year 1994. Thereafter he
left the contract and the 2nd Party-workman was doing
various miscellaneous works under the Management. He
has further stated that the 2nd Party-workman was working
under the two contractors, namely Shri Bata krishna Sahu
and Shri B.C. Das and getting his wages as usual from the
office of the Management and the hostel. In his cross-
examination he has candidly admitted that "I cannot say
whether the workman was working with the contractor, but
I can say the workman was working directly with the
Management and receiving wages through voucher". The
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
101
1st Party-Management has filed four numbers of photostat
copies of contract agreement executed between the
contractor and the 1st Party-Management, but they do not
indicate that the 2nd Party-workman was engaged by these
contractors.
8. The 2nd Party-workman Shri Sridhar Nayak son of
late Shri Bholi Nayak has stated in his evidence that he
was engaged by the Management initially in the year 1992
as a sweeper and he continued to work till June, 2003 in
different fields of work. He has also stated in his cross
examination that he was engaged by Shri Sridhar Nayak,
Contractor during the absence of Shri Bai Nayak and for
that period Shri Sridhar Nayak, Contractor used to get his
remuneration from the Management and give it to him. He
has also admitted that he was sent to the hostel to assist
Shri Batakrishna Sahoo who was working as a cook in the
hostel in the year 1994. 50% of his wages and 50% of wages
of other workers was borne by the hostel committee and
the rest 50% was borne by the Management. From his
statement read as a whole, it cannot be concluded that he
was engaged by the contractor and shifted his employment
from one contractor to another with the change of
contractor. He has also filed several documents to prove
that he was working as a casual employee under the
1st Party-Management. Ext.-1 to 3 show that the 1st Party-
Management was recommended his name along with four
other casual workers for regularization to its Head Office.
He was also given bonus along with other employees in
the year 1996-97 and 1998-99 as is reflected from Ext.-4 and
9. Details of casual staff are given in Ext.-6 and 13. Although
this list has been denied by the 1st Party-Management,
but no one from the side of the 1st Party-management has
come to state this thing on oath. The 2nd Party-workman
was has also filed copies of vouchers. Ext.-5, 8 and 14 to
show the payment of wages and bonus by the
Management. The 1st Party-Management has also filed
photostat copies of several vouchers and one money
receipt towards payment of wages and other dues to the
2nd Party-workman. All these documents go to prove that
the 2nd Party-workman was engaged by the Management
of CIPET itself and not by the contractors. This issue is
accordingly decided in the affirmative and in favour of the
2nd Party-workman.
ISSUE NO. 3
9. The stand of the 2nd Party-workman is that he was
refused employment on 1.7.2003 by Shri Ajit Kumar Pattnaik,
Assistant under the direction of the 1st Party-Management
No. 1, but this stand of the 2nd Party-workman proves to
be false as he himself has admitted in his cross examination
that 1.7.2003 was a holiday on account of Rath Yatra. He
had worked in the month of July, 2003 and was also paid
his wages amounting to Rs. 3050/-. He also granted receipt
of that payment which has been filed as Ext.-A by the 1st
Party-Management. Further he has admitted that "it is a
fact that I worked in the month of June, July and August,
2004 in the office of the Management and I have also
received salary for those months". Refused employment
to the 2nd Party-workman no question of legality or illegality
of the action of the Management arises in this regard.
ISSUE NO. 4
10. As the 2nd Party-workman has failed to prove the
refusal of employment by the 1st Party-Management and
also to prove 240 days continuous service during a period
of 12 calender months preceding the date of his alleged
disengagement, he does not appear to be entitled to any
relief.
11. The reference is answered accordingly.
JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 56.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] jryke 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@87@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@49@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/87/2005) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of BSNL, Ratlam and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/49/2004-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/87/2005
SHRI R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer
Divisional Secretary,
National Union of Telecom Employees Line Staff
& Group—D,
R/o Mundala Nayata (Palda),
Indore
....Workman/Union
102
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
The Telecom District Manager,
BSNL, O.o the TDM,
Ratlam (MP)
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 13th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 26-8-05 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-40012/
49/2004-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of TDM,
Ratlam in terminating the services of Shri Ganpatlal
S/o Shri Mohanlal w.e.f. 31-1-90 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of Claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/4. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
was working on establishment of IInd Party from 1984. He
was doing work of laying telephone lines, his services are
terminated from 31-1-90 without notice. He was not paid
retrenchment compensation. That he had worked for more
than 240 days preceding termination of his services. That
his services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act principles of last come first go was not followed.
IInd Party violated Section 25-G of I.D. Act he had filed
Original Application No. 499/95 before CAT, Jabalpur. This
petition was disposed in liberty to approach appropriate
forum as per order dated 30-7-99. Workman reiterate that
his services are illegally terminated. He prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/3. Preliminary objection is raised that dispute referred
after 14 years is barred by limitation. Workman is not entitled
to any relief. Workman was engaged as daily wager on
casual basis. He is not entitled to protection of I.D. Act.
The dispute is not tenable. IInd Party further submits that
workman was engaged purely as casual labour. That the
claim of workman that he completed 240 days working is
not genuine. Workman was not regularly working for 240
days. That eventhough SDO Mandsor has been given one
month payment Rs. 1005 & Rs. 1005/-towards
compensation. The termination of his service is not illegal.
The claim of workman is highly belated and deserves to be
rejected.
4. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions
in Statement of Claim. That his services are terminated in
violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He had worked for
more than 240 days during each of the year in 1984 to 1990.
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
managerment of TDM, Ratlam
in terminating the services
of Shri Ganpatlal S/o Shri
Mohanlal w.e.f. 31-1-90 is
legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
6. Workman is challenging termination of his services
for violation of Section 25-F, G of I.D. Act he claims that he
worked for more than 240 days during each year from 1984
to 1990. IInd Party denied above contentions of the
workman. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence covering
all above contentions. In his cross-examination, workman
says appointment letter was not given to him. His name
was sponsored through Employment Exchange. He was
working on daily wages. His wages were paid at the end of
month. He was working in Ratlam Division. He was unable
to tell for how many days, he worked in a particular year.
He was doing work of laying cables. After the completion
of work, he was discontinued. Again he was taken for the
work. He has signed his Statement of Claim after reading
the contents. He denied receipt of money order of Rs. 2000
from IInd Party.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Prem Kumar Jain. His affidavit of evidence is by way of
denial that workman was engaged as casual labour. After
completion of work, his services were discontinued. That
workman was paid amount of Rs. 2010 by Money Order.
The amount was not accepted by him. In his cross-
examination, management witness says when services of
workman were terminated, amount of Rs. 2010 was sent by
Money
order
towards
compensation.
The
acknowledgement is produced Exhibit M-1 and postal
receipt M-2 the management's witness in his cross-
examination says that he was not posted while the workman
was working. That he has given evidence as per the available
documents. The working days shown in Exhibit M-1 are
correct. He denies that amount was not sent by Money
order.
Section 25-F of I.D Act provides—
‘‘Conditions precedent to retrenchment of
workmen—No workman employed in any industry who
has been in continuous service for not less than one year
under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer
until—
(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in
writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and
the period of notice has expired or the workman has
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period
of the notice;
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
103
(b) The workman has been paid, at the time of
retrenchment, compensation which shall be
equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every
completed year of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months and
(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the
appropriate Government or such authority as may
be specified by the appropriate Government by
notification in the Official Gazette."
As per Section 25-F(a), notice is not given to the
workman indicating reasons for retrenchment. Therefore
the termination of service of workman cannot be said legal.
Provisions of Section 25-F are not complied therefore the
termination of services of workman cannot be said legal.
Provisions of Section 25-F are not compiled therefore the
evidence of management's witness that retrenchment
compensation amount was sent by money order itself
shows that the workmam has completed 240 days service
and he was entitled to protection under Section 25-F of I.D.
Act. Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in
Negative.
8. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of service of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act, question arises to what relief the workman
is entitled. That the workman was working as casual labour
on daily wages, reinstatement of workman would not be
appropriate. On the point, learned counsel for IInd Party
relies on ratio held in
"Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation and another versus Giram Singh reported
in 2013(2) Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 369. Their
Lordship held the service of a daily wager who worked
for short period of 240 days only terminated by
appellant employer in 1991 in contravention of
Section 25-F, the Lordship allowed compensation of
Rs. 50,000/- to meet the ends of justice."
Ratio in above cited case squarely applies to present
case therefore the workman be paid compensation
Rs. 50,000. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of TDM, Ratlam in
terminating the services of Shri Ganpatlal S/o Shri
Mohanlal w.e.f. 31-1-90 is not proper.
(2) IInd Party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 50.000/- to 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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 57.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx
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
,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh/
,ylh/vkj/51/2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@406@2000&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/51/2001) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of Deptt. of
Telecommunication and their workman, which was received
by the Central Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/406/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/51/2001
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Kailash C. Prajapati,
S/o Bhagwandas Prajapati,
R/o H/4, Govt. Milk Dairy Colony,
Guna
....Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Deptt. of Telecommunication,
Hoshangabad Road,
MP Circle,
Bhopal
District Engineer (Phones),
Guna
....Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of November 2013.
1. As per letter dated 19-2-2001 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-40012/
406/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
104
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
"Whether the action of the management of District
Engineer (Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Kailash
Chandra Prajapati S/o Bhagwandas Prajapati w.e.f.
1-3-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 4/4 to 4/4. The case of Ist Party workman is that he
was appointed on the post of phone mechanic since
February 1991. He was asked to do various other works
allotted to him. He was continuously working till 20.4.1997.
He performed his service satisfactorily without adverse
communication. His services were terminated from 1.3.1997
without issuing written order of termination. That
termination of his services is illegal and arbitrary. His
services were terminated without assigning reasons.
Workman claims that he was continuously working for more
than 6 years. He has completed 240 days service during
each of the year. His services are terminated without
assigning reasons. He was denied regularization in service
as he claimed equal wages for equal work. That termination
of his services is in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D.
Act. On such grounds, the workman submits that the list
of daily wage employees working at the time of termination
of his service was not displayed. As such his services are
terminated in violation of Section 25-F, G, H of I.D. Act &
Rules 17 of ID Central Rules 1957. On such ground, he
prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/4. All material contentions of workman are denied. It is
denied that workman was appointed on post of telephone
mechanic. It is denied that he was continuously working
for 6 years. It is denied that he worked for more than 240
days during every calendar year. Violation of Section 25-F,
H is denied. According to IInd Party, employment of casual
employees was stopped since 1986. Workman was engaged
as per norm. The employment came to end on end of the
day. Workman is not covered under Section 25-F of I.D.
Act. he has not completed 240 days continuous service.
Therefore he is not entitled to protection of I.D. Act. on
such ground, IInd Party prayed for rejection of claim of
workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of District Engineer
(Phones), Guna in terminating
Shri Kailash Chandra Prajapati
S/o Bhagwandas Prajapati
w.e.f. 1-3-97 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging termination of his service
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He claims to be
working as Telephone mechanic from February 1991 and
continuously working till February 1997. That his services
were terminated without order in writing. List of casual
employees in IInd Party was not displayed. Rule 77 was
violated. IInd Party denied above contentions. Workman
filed affidavit of his evidence stating that he was working
as telephone mechanic from February 91 till February 1997.
He has completed 240 days continuous service. His
services were terminated without written order from 1.3.97.
In his cross-examination, he has denied suggestion of IInd
Party that he had not worked for 240 days during any of
the calendar year. In his further cross-examination, workman
says that he has passed 12th standard in 1987. He denied
suggestion that he was working under contract. That written
letter was given to him. It is denied that he was working
any project. Said work was of the department. The working
of Ist Party workman with IInd Party is admitted in Para-2,
4 & 5 of the written statement. It is contention of IInd Party
that workman had not completed 240 days.
6. The management filed affidavit of evidence of
witness Shri Basant Kumar Pateria covering most of its
contentions. The witness of the management in his cross-
examination says during 1992 to 1997, he was posted at
Sagar. He does not know workman. He has no personal
knowledge about workman. That he had not seen record
that workman was engaged on daily wages. That Para-4, 5
of his affidavit are relating to the policy of the department.
In Para-10 of his evidence, the management witness says
from 1992 to 1997 workman was engaged as casual labour
as per exigency. In Para-11 of his cross-examination, he
further says that casual labours are paid as per muster roll.
In muster roll, information is recorded how much wages are
paid and the working days. Such muster rolls are not
available. The witnesses of the management has no personal
knowledge about working of workman. The documents of
muster rolls maintained working, payment made to the
casual labours are not available. Though the witness has
undertaken to produce such record in para-15 of his cross-
examination, no such document is produced. If evidence
of workman is listed on probability, workman himself is
telling about his working days. In para-2 & 5 of the Written
Statement, engagement of workman is admitted by IInd
Party rather as casual employee. In para-10 of his evidence
management witness also admits that workman was
engaged as casual employee. That the payments are made
to casual employees as per muster roll. Management
witness has no personal knowledge about working of the
workman. His affidavit of evidence is based on documents
but the documents are not produced, muster rolls are not
traceable. It is not case of IInd Party that during 1991 to
1997, workman was working at any other place. Therefore
considering the probabilities, the evidence of workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
105
deserves to be believed that he had completed 240 days
continuous service during each of the calendar year. The
services of workman are not terminated issuing order in
writing. Section 25-F is not complied, list of casual employee
is not displayed by IInd Party while terminating services of
the workman as Rule 77 of I.D. Act is violated. For above
reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Negative.
7. In view of my finding in Point No.1, question arises
whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement with back
wages. The workman in his cross-examination says his
name was not sponsored through Employment Exchange.
He was not given appointment letter. It shows that the
workman was engaged as casual employee. Reliance is
placed by counsel for IInd Party Shri R.S. Khare in
"Case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Development
Corporation versus Giram Singh reported in 2013(5)
Supreme Court Cases 136. Their Lordship of the Apex
court dealing with Section 25-F, 11-A of I.D. Act
considering wrongful termination of service, their
Lordship held services of a daily wager respondent
who worked for short period of 240 days only,
terminated by appellant employer in 1991 in
contravention of Section 25-F of I.D. Act,
compensation Rs. 50,000 would meet ends of justice."
In present case, facts of present case are little
different. Workman was working from February 1991 to
February 1997 with IInd Party i.e. for almost 6 years. In
case before their Lordship, workman was working for short
period from 1.3.97, 31.10.97. It is clear from reading para-3
of the judgment. Therefore compensation Rs. 50,000
awarded by their Lordship in above cited case cannot be
followed in present case. Considering the length of service
in my considered view, compensation Rs. 1 Lac would be
appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding on Point No. 2.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of District Engineer
(Phones), Guna in terminating Shri Kailash Chandra
Prajapati S/o Bhagwandas Prajapati w.e.f. 1.3.97 is
not legal and proper.
(2) IInd Party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 1 Lac to Ist Party workman.
Compensation Amount Rs. 1 Lac 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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 58.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikoj fxzM dkWiksZjs'ku
vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2010½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@82@2010&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2010)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Power Grid Corporation of India and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/12/13.
[No. L-42012/82/2010-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-
CUM-LABOUR COURT, DELHI
I.D. NO. 37/10
DATED 25.7.2013
The General Secretary,
Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union,
B-239, Karampura,
New Delhi-110015
Versus
1. M/s Power Grid Corporation of India Pvt. Ltd.,
Qutub Institutional Area, Katwaria Sarai,
New Delhi-110016
2. The CEO,
M/s Everest Enterprises,
Q-60, Sector-12,
Noida (U.P.)-2012301
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide
Order No. L-42012/82/2012-IR (CM-II) dated 27/10/2010 has
referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal
for adjudication:—
"Whether the action of the management of
M/s Everest Enterprises, Noida, a Contractor of the
management of Power Grid Corporation, Ltd., New
Delhi in Terminating the services of Shri Sanjay S/o
Shri Vijender Singh and Shri Satpal S/o Shri Bahadur
Singh w.e.f. 21/2/2008 and 25/8/2008 respectively
without Retirement compensation is legal and
justified? If not, what relief the workman are entitled
to and from which date?"
106
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
2. The Statement of Claim has not been filed by
workman up till now.
3. He remained absent inspite of personal service of
notice through registered post Under these circumstance,
there is no way to pass a No dispute award in this case.
Accordingly a No Dispute Award is passed in
this case and reference I.D. No. 37/2010 Sent by the
Central Government vide No. L-42012/87-IR (CM)-II
dated 27/10/2010 stands disposed off accordingly, parties
will bear their own costs.
Dated : 25-7-2013
HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 59.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ifj;kstuk]
funs'kd] Hkkjrh; ijek.kq mtkZ fuxe ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks
vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa
dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] csaxywj ds
iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 61@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@64@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2000)
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 the Project Director, Nuclear Power
Corporation of India, Kaiga and their workman, which was
received by the Central Government on 23/12/13.
[No. L-42012/64/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORE
DATED: 15th April, 2013
PRESENT : SHRI S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
C.R. No. 61/2000
I Party
II Party
Sh. Hanumantha N Vaddar,
The Project Director,
R/o Mavinkatta,
Nuclear Power Corporation
Kundargi Post,
of India Limited, Kaiga
Vellapur- 581 402.
Project, Kaiga - 581 400.
APPEARANCES:
I Party :
Sh. D Leelakrishnan, Advocate
II Party :
Sh. Ramesh Upadhayay, Advocate
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising the
powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub-section (1)
of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes, Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order
No. L-42012/64/2000-ID (DU) dated 31.08.2000 for
adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
''Whether the action of the management of Nuclear
Power Corporation of India Ltd., Kaiga Project, in
terminating the services of Sh. Hanumanthappa
Nagappa Vaddar, Helper during his probation period
without conducting any enquiry and without giving
a chance to defend himself is justified? If not, to
what relief the said workman is entitled?''
2. On receipt of the reference registering it in
CR 61/2000 when notices were issued to both the sides
they entered their appearances through their respective
advocates and filed the claim statement of the I Party on
21.06.2001. My learned predecessor after affording several
opportunities to file the counter statement when same was
not availed posted the matter for I party evidence and after
affording several opportunities to the I party to lead
evidence when the same was not availed by Award dated
30.09.2004, he dismissed the reference for non-prosecution.
When the I Party workman aggrieved by the said Award of
dismissal when approached the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in W P No. 26434/2005 (L-Res) the Hon'ble High
Court by order dated 16.08.2007 set aside the said Award
with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing
to both the sides and remitted back the matter. After the
order of the Hon'ble High Court they entered their
appearances through same advocates whom had engaged
earlier and counsel for II Party filed the counter statement
on 04.08.2010.
3. The I Party in his claim statement asserts that he
who belongs to Scheduled Caste and was being sponsored
by the Employment Exchange to the Post of Helper A in the
II Party was selected by the duly constituted selection
committee and appointed as Helper A in the scale of pay
750-12-870-FB-14-970 through appointment order dated
20.08.1992 and pursuant to that Order he reported to duty
on 07.10.1992 and successfully under whet the period of
probation for one year. It is further asserted when things
stood thus the II Party management passed an order dated
16.11.1993 terminating his services and that at no point of
time such termination order was communicated to him and
that his probation was not at all extended as such the order
of termination passed against him is grossly unjust,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
107
arbitrary, malafide and cannot be sustained. He further
asserted that on account of servere chest pain he admitted
to the Government Hospital, Sirsi on 24.06.1993 and
undergone treatment till 31.08.1993 and that he who was
provided with Residential Quarters PF- 4 situated at Kaiga
Site was unlawfully removed from Services though the II
Party management was aware that he was suffering from
Heart ailment and that he was not permitted to report to
duty after availing the medical treatment and as his several
representations to the II Party management seeking its
permission to continue him in service went in vain he raised
Industrial Dispute before the RLC (C), Mangalore and due
to the adament attitude of the management since
conciliation failed the Central Government made this
reference for adjudication. He also asserted he having
completed 240 days of service in each calendar year the
order of termination passed against him being against
Section 25(f), 25(g), 25 (n) is tentamount to illegal
retrenchement and liable to be set aside. With these
assertions he prayed to direct the management to reinstate
him into service with full back wages, continuity of service,
seniority, promotion etc. Interalia, the II Party in its counter
statement without disputing that I Party was offered an
appointment as Helper A through an order of appointment
No. KP/4(14)/92/Rectt/4377 dated 20.08.1992 and pursuant
to the same he jointed duty on 07.10.1992 forenoon,
contended that he who was on probation for a period of
one year from the date of appointment remained absent
from duty from 07.01.1993 to 09.01.1993, 10.01.1993 to
18.01.1993, 26.05.1993 to 29.05.1993, 30.05.1993 to 10.06.1993,
26.06.1993 to 31.07.1993 and from 10.08.1993 to 16.11.1993
and that the Administration had sent a telegram on
04.09.1993 informing him to rejoin the duties and there after
as he did not respond a Registered Notice was sent to him
dated 23/24.09.1993 calling upon him to join duty latest by
23.10.1993 failing which appropriate action will be taken
and as he did not respond to that also his performance was
found not satisfactory he came to be discharged from
services w.e.f. 16.11.1993 for unsatisfactory probation
period. Thus the II Party has substantiated its action in
discharging him from service for unsatisfactory probation
period.
4. After completion of the pleading when the matter
was posted for evidence of II Party the learned advocate
appearing for the II Party while examining Sh. Uma
Maheshwar, Sr. Manager (HR) as MW 1 got exhibited the
copy of the appointment letter issued to the I party dated
20.08.1992; Original telegram of the I Party dated 23.07.1993
seeking extension of leave; office copy of closure of
probation; office copy of extension of probation dated
30.10.1993; Office copy of the Order terminating the I Party
Services dated 16.11.1993 as Ex M-1 to Ex M-5. Interalia,
the I Party while filing his affidavit reiterating the averments
of the claim statement examining himself on oath got
exhibited the Photostat copy of the medical certificate
pertaining to him issued by the Government Hospital, Sirsi
dated 30.07.1993 as Ex W-1.
5. With the above pleading, evidence and documents
brought on record when the learned advocates appearing
for both the sides were called upon to address arguments
both of them filed their written arguments.
6. There being no dispute the I Party was being
appointed as Helper A in the II Party on 20.08.1992 with a
probation period of one year and he reported to duty on
07.10.1992 the only point for consideration is as the order
of discharge is made on 16.11.1993 can it be said that he
was continued in service after completion of the probation
period and thereby it has to be presumed that his service
was confirmed without extension of the probation period
as urged by his learned advocate. The I Party has not
disputed the contention of the II Party that during the
probation period he remained absent from duty on different
speells i.e. 07.01.1993 to 09.01.1993, 10.01.1993 to 18.01.1993,
26.05.1993 to 29.05.1993, 30.05.1993 to 10.06.1993, 26.06.1993
to 31.07.1993 and from 10.08.1993 to 16.11.1993 and it is
also supported by his own telegram dated 23.07.1993
seeking extension of leave upto 31.07.1993 and the probation
closure report which are marked as Ex M-2 and Ex M-3
respectively. It is also proved by the II Party producing the
copy of Extension of Probation for a period of six months
dated 30.10.1993/Ex M-4. Thus, it is since indicated from
the evidence that during the probation period itself he
developed a habit of remaining absent without applying
for leave and even now he could not justify his such
frequent absence from duty except producing a Medical
Certificate obtained from Medical Officer, Public General
Hospital, Sirsi as Ex W-1. This medical certificate is also
being interpolated with dates, in the absence of examining
the doctor issuing the certificate it cannot be believed that
he was hospitalized or under treatment at the said hospital.
This certificate indicates being issued on 30.07.1993
certifying that he was ill and unfit for duty and required
rest and treatment from 24.06.1993 to 31.08.1993 as he was
suffering from Lipoma Chest Wall. He dosn't certify that I
Party workman was hospitalized during that period or earlier
to it. Even presuming that the date of issue is 30.09.1993
wherein it is certified that he was founde fit to resume
duties from 31.08.1993, there being no evidence he having
approached the II Party with a request to permit him to join
the duty either on 31.08.1993 or on its following day. Thus
the habitual remaining absent from duty even without
applying for leave and not explaining properly for his
absence the management taking a decision to discharge
him during the extended probation period as provided
under the appointment letter itself without holding any
enquiry is just and proper. In the result, I pass the following
Order:
108
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ORDER
The reference is rejected holding that the action of
the management of Nuclear Power Corporation of India
Limited, Kaiga Project in terminating the services of
Sh. Hanumanthappa Nagappa Vaddar, Helper during his
probation period without conducting any enquiry and
without giving a chance to defend himself and that he is
not entitle for any relief.
(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected
and signed by me on 15th April, 2013)
S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 60.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lapkj ftyk izca/
kd 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lhthvkbZVh/,ylh/vkj/7/2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@131@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 60.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/7/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Telecom District Manager and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/12/13.
[No. L-40012/131/2002-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/7/2003
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Ganga Ram Patel,
S/o Shri Nathu Patel,
Residence at Nag Toria,
Near New Police Station,
Khurai, Sagar (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Telecome District Manager,
Sagar 9 (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 19th day of September, 2013
1. As per letter dated 6-8/1/2003 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
131/2002-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Telecom
District Manager, Sagar (MP) Deptt. of Telecom now
converted into Telecom District Manager, Sagar (MP)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating the
services of Shri Ganga Ram Patel S/o Shri Nathu Patel
w.e.f. 15-3-90 and not regularizing as regular emloyee
is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled
to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist Party workman submitted his statement of
claim at Page 2/1 to 2/2. The case of Ist Party workman is
that he was working as casual labour from July 1980 till
March 1990 with IInd Party No. 3 & 4. His service record
was satisfactory. There was no complaint against him. As
per directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, claim for
regularization of casual employees was framed in 1989
inspite of giving benefit of regularization scheme suddenly
his services were terminated by oral order. Termination
order in writing was not given to him, no notice was
received, retrenchment compensation was not paid. On
above contentions, Ist party workman submits the
termination of his service is illegal. He prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd Party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3 opposing the relief prayed by workman. Preliminary
objection is raised that for development of telecom facilities,
ambitious planning was done to increase telecom facilities
opening telephonic message in rural areas, laying cables
and other related works. To complete the project, casual
workers were employed by deptt. at various places in the
State. The casual workers were engaged on daily payment
basis. They were engaged for regular work. There was no
need to keep casual workers after completion of the work.
4. That Ist Party workman was not appointed on any
post of the Telecom Deptt. He was working purely on casual
basis for specific project work. The work was of casual
nature. As per instructions contained in Letter dated
30-8-85 issued in the matter of casual labours on completion
of work, casual labours were required to be retrenched.
That workman had worked for 180 days in 1985, 13 days in
1986, he do not worked in 1987, he worked for 343 days in
1988, 351 days in 1989 and 24 days in 1990. That the
workman is not fulfilling conditions the conditions as per
letter dated 25-6-93 for getting temporary status. That as
per the Regularisation Scheme of 1989, it is required that
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
109
employees should have been engaged prior to 30-3-85
continued as casual workers on 7-11-89. He has completed
240 days in a year. That Ist Party workman was not engaged
prior to 30-3-85. The policy was further extended to casual
workers till 25-6-93 on condition that the employee engaged
between 31-3-85 to 22-6-88. That employee not remained
absent for 265 days. It is reiterated that the workman has
not completed 240 days in any calendar year during March
1985 to 22-6-88. He did not continued till 25-6-93. There is
gap of more than 365 days. Other contentions of workman
about violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act are denied.
IInd Party submits that the action of the management is
legal and claim of workman be rejected.
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 Telecom District Manager,
Sagar (MP) Deptt. of Telecom now
converted into Telecom District Manager,
Sagar (MP) Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited in terminating the services of
Shri Ganga Ram Patel S/o Shri Nathu
Patel w.e.f. 15-3-90 and not regularizing
as regular employee is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?’’
REASONS
6. As per the directions of reference, the legality of
termination of services of Ist party workman from 30-3-90
without regularizing his services is referred for adjudication.
The contentions of the workman are denied by the
management. Workman Ganga Ram filed affidavit of his
evidence. He has stated that he was working with IInd
Party No. 3 & 4 from July 1980 till March 1990. He has given
breakup of his working days as 139 days in 1980, 246 days
in 1981, 161 days in 1982, 108 days in 1983, 262 days in
1984, 113 days in 1985, 13 days in 1986, 349 days in 1988,
355 days in 1989 and 66 days in 1990. That his services
were terminated by oral order without assigning duties. He
was not regularized as per scheme for regularization of
casual employees 1989. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation. Workman did not remained present for his
cross-examination. His evidence was closed on 29-9-09.
As the workman had not made available for corss-
examination, his evidence cannot be accepted.
7. Management filed affidavit of its witness Shri
Gohe. Management's witness has stated that as soon as
project was over, services of workman were discontinued.
The workman was engaged for laying down telephone
cable of particular project. The details of project are not
given in the affidavit. That the name of workman was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange as required for
appointment. In his cross-examination, management's
witness says he was working as AGM, Sagar from 2009,
muster register is maintained in the office. He admits that
name of muster was included in the muster, he was paid
wages for working days in muster register. The Written
Statement filed by IInd Party shown that Ist Party workman
had worked for 343 days in 1988, 351 days in 1989, 24 days
in 1990. It is clear from above that the workman had
completed more than 240 days service in 1988 & 89. His
services were terminated without notice, no retrenchment
compensation as paid to him. He was not given benefit for
regularization. The termination of service of workman is
illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding in Point
No. 1 in Negative.
8. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of workman is illegal, question arises to what
relief the workman is entitled? Workman was working as
casual employees. He was not selected for regular post
following the proper procedure. His name was not
sponsored through Employment Exchange. Ist Party
workman is out of employment from 1990. He had worked
with IInd Party for more than 5 years. Learned counsel for
IInd Party Shri M.P. Kapoor submits that the work of link
cable is closed. Considering the facts, reasonable
compensation may be allowed. In support of his argument,
learned counsel relies on ratio held in "Case of Sr.
Superintendent Telegraph, Bhopal versus Santosh Kumar
Seal and others. Their Lordship of Apex Court dealing with
question of reinstatement with back wages should not be
granted. In the matter of retrenchment without complying
requirements of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Their Lordship
held relief by way of reinstatement with back wages not
automatic even if termination of employee is found to be
illegal or in contravention of the prescribed procedure and
monetary compensation in cases of such nature may be
appropriate. Considering facts, workmen were engaged as
daily wagers for about 25 years back and they worked
hardly for 2-3 days, the relief of reinstatement and back
wages to them cannot be said to be justified. The employers
are directed to instead pay monetary compensation of
Rs. 40,000 to each of the workmen in lieu of relief of
reinstatement and back wages."
In present case, workman was terminated in viola-
tion of Section 25-F. he had worked for more than 5 years
with IInd party. In my considered view, compensation Rs. 1
Lakh would be appropriate to meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Telecom District
Manager, Sagar (MP) Deptt. of Telecom now converted
into Telecom District Manager, Sagar (MP) Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited in terminating the services of Shri Ganga
Ram Patel S/o Shri Nathu Patel w.e.f. 15-3-90 and not
regularizing as regular employee is not legal.
110
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 1 Lakh to the workman within 30 days.
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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 61.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj egkuxj VsyhQksu
fuxe 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 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k&
2@22&2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@479@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 61.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2-22/2001)
of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Ltd. Mumbai and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/479/2000-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: K.B. Katake, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/22 OF 2001
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE
MANAGEMENT OF MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE
NIGAM LTD.
The General Manager
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Advani Chambers Canteen
Advani Chambers
Mumbai-400 036
AND
THEIR WORKMEN.
The General Secretary
Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees'
Association
C/o. Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange Canteen
1st floor, Dadar (W)
Mumbai-400 028
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
: Mr. V.S. Masurkar, Advocate
For the Workmen
: Mr. M.B. Anchan, Advocate.
Mumbai dated the 18th June, 2013.
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-40012/479/2000-IR (DU),
dated 22.11.2001 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 General
Manager, MTNL, Mambai in terminating the services
of S/Sh. Ratnaker M. Moraveera and Krishna K.
Mogera is just, legal and proper? If not, to what relief
the workmen are entitled?"
(2) After receipt of the order of reference from
Ministry, notices were served on both the parties. In
response to the notice, second party Union filed their
statement of claim at Ex-11. First party management resisted
the statement of claim of the union by filing their Written
Statement at Ex-12. Issues were framed at Ex-14. The matter
was fixed for evidence of union. Meanwhile Advocate for
the second party union filed application dated 18/06/2013
(Ex-22) requesting to dispose of the reference as the
workmen are not interested in pursuing the matter further.
In the circumstances I think it proper to dispose of the
reference. Thus the order:
ORDER
Reference is dismissed as withdrawn.
No order as to cost.
Date : 18/6/2013
K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 62.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj
fuxe fyfeVsM] xksvk 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 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
2@36&2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[la- ,y&40012@3@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 62.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
111
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 2-36/2006)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 2,
Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of M/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd., Goa and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/3/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI
PRESENT: K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/36 of 2006
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT
OF M/S. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.
The General Manager
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Panaji
Goa-403 001.
And
Their Workman
Smt. Mogra Vegus
Bambolim,
Pirabhat, House No. 129
P.O. Goa University
Bambolim, Goa.
APPEARANCES:
For the Employer
:
Mr. R.A.S. Kharangate,
Advocate.
For the Workman
:
Mr. P.J. Augustine, Advocate.
Mumbai, dated the 10th May, 2013
AWARD
1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &
Employment by its Order No. L-40012/3/2006-IR(DU) dated
14/06/2006 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.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Panaji, Goa in terminating
the employment of Smt. Mogra Vegus, Part time
Scavenger w.e.f. 1/10/2001 is legal and justified? If
not, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receipt of the reference notices were issued
to both the parties. In response to the notice the second
party workman filed her statement of claim at Ex-10.
According to her she was working as a Part time Scavenger
since the year 1991 at Telecommunications & Wireless
Station and Inspection Quarters at Bambolim. Though she
was working for three hours a day, in three different
buildings, she was required to walk from one building to
another to perform her work. The distance is around two to
three kilometers between these buildings and infact she
was required to work more than six hours a day for the
payment of wages only for three hours. She was paid
monthly wages Rs. 1700/. She was doing her job diligently
and honestly and there was no complaint of any nature
with regard to her work. She has worked for more than 10
years in the Department of first party. On 1/10/2001 she
was instructed by SDE (Wireless & Transmission),
Bambolim not to come for the work and assured her that
she would be called afterwards. Next day the workman
gave a representation to General Manager requesting him
to look into her grievance and to continue her with the
inspection quarters as the wireless station was closed and
her duty at Inspection quarter was still subsisting. They
promised her orally to reinstate her. However no action has
been taken. There is circular issued by the management of
BSNL by which at the part time employees were confirmed
as full time employees. However neither she was called for
work nor reinstated. The workman claims that she is illiterate,
poor widow without any work. Two children are dependent
on her. She is in extreme need of work as she could not get
any other employment elsewhere. Therefore she prays that
the action of management of BSCL of terminating her
employment be declared illegal and unjustified. She also
prays for direction to the management of BSNL to reinstate
her with back-wages and all consequential benefits with
retrospective effect and also prays for suitable
compensation from the management for her illegal
termination.
3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide
its written statement at Ex-13. According to them contents
in the statement of claim are not correct that second party
was working for three hours per day and infact she was
required to work for six hours. No such fixed time was
ordered and she used to be called to perform the work as
and when required for. They denied that second party was
paid salary from Imprest Bill of Assistant Engineer/Sub-
Divisional Engineer (Wireless), Bambolim. The payment
was made for called basis work. They denied all the
contents in the application that she was doing her work
diligently and honestly and there was no complaint of any
nature. They denied that she was shocked and surporised
when all of a sudden she was instructed by SDE, Bambolim
not to come for work and that she will be called afterwards.
According to them they instructed the second party not to
come for work as the Wireless Station at Bambolim was
closed and there was no work. The request of second party
was not considered as there was no vacancy and no work.
112
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The second party was employed on hourly basis as such
she was not confirmed as per the circular as a full time
worker. Further as Wireless Transmission Station was
closed, there was no work for second party. They denied
that action of first party is illegal or arbitrary. Therefore
they pray that the reference be dismissed with cost.
4. Following are the issues framed by my Ld.
Predecessor at Ex-14. I record my findings thereon for the
reasons to follow:
Sr. No
Issues
Findings
1.
Does the Second Party`establish
Yes
employee-employer relationship?
2.
Does she prove that she was illegally
Yes
terminated?
3.
Is she entitled for relief as prayed for?
As per order
below.
4.
What order
As per order
below
REASONS
Issue No. 1:-
5. In this case, though the first party has denied the
employer-employee relationship at the outset I would like
to point out that, fact is not disputed that the second party
workman was working as a Scavenger. According to the
workman she was working daily for three hours at three
different places which are located at a distance of 2/3 Kms
and she was required to walk from one place to another
and she was required to spend about six hours every day.
The fact is not disputed that the workman was working at
three places as a scavenger. According to the first party
they used to call her as and when there used to be work. In
this respect I would like to point out that, clearning the
premises of office and inspection quarters and taking away
the dirt, garbage etc. may be a part time work. However it is
a daily and permanent work. Cleaning of the premises of
offices and inspection quarters cannot be called
intermediate work. In the circumstances the version of the
firsty party is un acceptable that it was not regular or daily
work and they used to call her as and when there used to
be work. The work of Scavenger to clean the premises and
to take away the dirt and garbage is a daily and regular
work. Therefore I hold that there is substance in the version
of the second party that she was working daily for three
hours for about 10 years i.e. since 1991 onwards. In a way
she was a part time employee of the first party.
6. In this respect it is contended on behalf of the
second party that as per the circular all part time workers
were made regular workers. However no such circular is
pointed out and copy thereof is not produced. Furthermore
the workman herself has admitted in her pleading and cross
as well that the wireless station was closed and there was
no requirement of scavenger. From the fact and
circumstances on record it is revealed that, the second
party was a part time worker working with the first party
for about ten years, I therefore hold that there exists
employee-employer relationship between the second party
with the first party. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 1 in
the affirmative.
Issue No. 2:—
7. As the second party has worked with the first
party for about ten years as a Scavenger, she has worked
more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year. In the
ciricumstances she gets protection under Section 25-F of
the I.D Act. From the facts on record it is revealed that the
first party had discontinued the services of the second
party as their Transmission Station was closed in the year
2001. In the circumstances, the first party was required to
follow the procedure prescribed for retrenchment as
contemplated under Sec 25-F of the I.D.Act. The first party
has neither given notice nor paid the notice amount. They
have also not paid the retrenchment compensation to the
workman. Thus I hold that the workman was illegally
terminated. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 2 in the
affirmative.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
8. The workman herein has claimed for reinstatement.
In this respect the Ld. adv. for the first party submitted that
the second party cannot be absorbed or regularized in the
service as she was not selected as per the procedure
prescribed for appointment in the service of the first party.
In support of his argument the Ld. adv. resorted to Apex
Court ruling in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s.
Uma Devi and Ors 2006 (1) SC 480 wherein the Hon'ble
Court held that temporary or casual worker though
continued in service for years together could not be entitled
to be absorbed in regular service if the regular appointment
was not made by following due process of selection as
envisaged by the relevant rules. Furthermore it was also
pointed out that the Wireless Transmission Station at
Bambolim was closed for ever and therefore there is no
work. In the circumstances direction of reinstatement
cannot be given to the first party. Instead of that I think it
proper to Award suitable compensation to the workman.
Looking into the present condition and rate of inflation I
think it proper to Award compensation of Rs. 70,000/- to
the second party for unlawful termination or for
retrenchment without following the procedure under Section
25-F of the I.D. Act. Accordingly I decide this issue No. 3
and proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The reference is partly allowed with no order as to
cost. The first party is directed to pay retrenchment
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
113
compensation of Rs. 70,000 to the second party worknan.
Date: 1/5/2013
K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 63.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eq[; egkfuns'kd]
lapkj ds izac/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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
lh-th-vkbZ-Vh-@,ylh@vkj/29@96½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@20@94&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 63.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act,1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/29/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23/12/13.
[No. L-40012/20/94-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/29/96
Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Vinayak,
S/o Shri Sadashivrao Iraskar,
R/o Hanumanji Ward,
Balak Mandir,
Pandhurna,
Distt. Chhindwara
...Workman
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom (RE) Project,
66, Bajaj Nagar,
Nagpur
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 24th day of September 2013)
1. As per letter dated 20-1-96 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-40012/
20/94-IR (DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,
Telecom (RE) Project 66, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur in
stopping Shri Vinayak Iraskar S/o Sadashiv Rao
casual labour from his duty w.e.f. 18-6-88 is justified?
If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Statement of claim is filed on behalf of workman
at Page 10/1 to 10/2 does not bear signature of workman or
his counsel. Ist party submits that he was working for more
than 240 days prior to his termination. He is covered as
workman under Section 25 B of I.D. Act. His services were
terminated without notice, retrenchment compensation was
not paid to him. On above ground, he prays for his
reinstatement.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/2. The claim of Ist party is denied. It is submitted that
workman engaged as casual mazdoor or as per need and
exigency. He has not completed 240days continuous
service. Workman is not covered under I.D. Act. He was
not retrenched by the management. IInd party prays for
rejection of claim of workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the Chief General In Affirmative
Manager, Telecom General Manager,
Telecom (RE) Project, 66, Bajaj Nagar,
Nagpur in stopping Shri Vinayak Iraskar
S/o Sadashiv Rao casual labour from
this duty w.e.f. 18-6-88 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman is
Relief prayed
entitled to?"
by workman
is rejected.
REASONS
5. Though the workman is challenging termination
of his service, the statement of claim is not been signed by
him or his counsel. It appears that copy of statement of
claim is on record and original may have been received by
IInd party. The endorsement acknowledging copy is
appearing on statement of claim. The workman has not
participated in the reference proceeding. He has not
adduced evidence. Management filed affidavit of witness
Deepak Singh Thakur consistent with pleadings in Written
Statement. Workman has not completed 240 days
continuous service remained unchallenged. I donot find
reasons to discard evidence of management's witness.
Therefore I record my finding in Point No. 1 I Affirmative.
114
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
6. In the result, AWARD is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the Chief General Manager, Telecom (RE)
Project, 66, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur in stopping Shri
Vinayak Iraskar S/o Sadashiv Rao casual labour from
his duty w.e.f. 18-6-88 is legal.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 64.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ofj"B v/kh{kd]
Mkd?kj ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp
vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lh-
th-vkbZ-Vh-@,ylh@vkj/23/93) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@21@92&vkbZvkj¼Mh ;w½]
ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 64.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/23/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/
Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to
the management of Senior Suptd. of Post Office and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 23/12/13.
[No. L-40012/21/92-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/23/93
SHRI R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Ram Kumar Pal,
Gram Bhatagaon,
Near Hotel,
P.O Mathpurne,
Via R.S.O, Distt. Raipur
...Workman
Versus
Senior Suptd. Of Post Office,
Raipur division,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 26th day of September 2013)
1. As per letter dated 18-1-93 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-40012/
21/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Sr. Suptd.
Of Post Office, Raipur Division Raipur (MP) in
terminating the services of Shri Ram Kumar Pal Mail
Van Driver w.e.f. 28-2-90 is justified? If not, to what
relief he is entitled to ?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of workman is that he was
appointed on post of Mail Van Driver from 1-4-87. Initially
he was employed on daily wages. The rate of daily wage
employee was Rs. 21-61 paid to him. At the time of his
termination, he was paid wages Rs. 38.90. That he had
performed duties regularly from 1-4-87 to 28-2-89 sincerely.
On 1-3-1989, when he attended duties, he was served with
order dated 20-2-89 discharging him from service. One peon
Shri R.R. Bhosle was posted as Mail Driver, one regular
driver Maksood Khan was ordered to work in place of Shri
Bhosle. That he was not allowed to join duties after 28-2-
89. That his services were discontinued arbitrarily. It
amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(00) of I.D. Act,
He was not served with any chargesheet. Notice was not
issued for termination. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation, termination of his service is in violation of
Section 25-F of I.D. Act That Maksood Kumar and Bhosle
junior to him are retained as driver. As such Section 25-F of
I.D. Act is violated. On such grounds, he prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written statement at page 9/1 to
9/2. The claim of workman is denied. IInd party submits
that post of driver is Class D post and the Recruitment
rules are prescribed. The recruitment of Group D employees
are carried out by a Departmental Selection Committee.
The workman was not appointed by such committee.
Workman was employed on casual basis or daily wages
from 25-3-87. He had not completed 240 days service in
preceding year of his termination. Violation of Section 25-F
of I.D. Act is denied. It is contended that the workman did
not completed 240 days continuous working. He is not
workman under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act. On such grounds,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim of workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Sr. Suptd. of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
115
Post Office, Raipur Division
Raipur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Kumar Pal
Mail Van Driver w.e.f. 28-2-90
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final order
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. The workman is challenging order of his
termination on the ground that the services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd
party management denied his above contention.
Workman filed affidavit of his evidence. He has state that
he was working as Mail Van Driver from 25.3.87. He was
appointed on daily wages. He was paid wages Rs. 20.61.
His services were terminated. Shri R.R. Bhosle was working
in his place. That he had completed 240 days continuous
service. Any chargesheet was not issued to him. In his
cross-examination, he says that he was driver of Mail
Van. He had worked as such from 87 to 89. He was engaged
on daily wages. He has not received appointment letter.
He received termination letter in writing. He had no
enemity with the authorities. His evidence that he had
completed more than 240 days continuous service is not
challenged in his cross-examination. His evidence in above
point is not shattered. Affidavit of Miluram Sahu is filed.
He also supported evidence of 1st party working as Mail
Van Driver from 1-4.87 to 28.2.89. His services were
discontinued form 1-3-1989. Said witness in his cross-
examination was unable to say how workman Ram Kumar
was appointed. He did not remember whether he signed
on the affidavit prepared by the bank. That he claims
ignorance whether Driver Maksood, R.R.Bhosle are
regularized. Documents Exhibit W-1 to W-4 shows
workman was engaged on daily wages time to time as
driver. Document Exhibit M-2 is application submitted by
workman. The evidence discussed above is sufficient to
prove that workman has completed 240 days continuous
service. His service were terminated without paying notice
pay or paying retrenchment compensation. Section 25-F
of I.D. Act was not followed by management. Therefore I
record my finding in Point No. 1 in Negative.
6. Point No. 2- In view of my finding in Point No. 1,
termination of services of workman is in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act, question arises to what relief workman is
entitled? Workman was working for about 2 years as Mail
Van Driver. Considering the length of service put by him as
a daily wage driver, his reinstatement in service would not
be proper. Reasonable compensation would be proper. In
my considered view, compensation Rs. 60,000/- would be
proper. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 2.
7. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)Action of the management of Sr. Suptd. of Post
Office, Raipur Division Raipur (MP) in terminating the
services of Shri Ram Kumar Pal Mail Van Driver w.e.f.
28-2-90 is not proper.
(2)IInd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 60,000/- 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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 65.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad 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 ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT/
LC/R/60/2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&16011@4@2005&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 65.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/
LC/R/60/2007) of the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the
Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers
in relation to the management of State Bank of Indore and
their workman, which was received by the Central
Government on 23.12.2013.
[No. L-16011/4/2005-IR(DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/60/07
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
General Secretary,
All India State Bank of Indore
Employees Congress,
Hardev Niwas, 9, Sanwar Road,
Ujjain (MP)
...Workman/Union
116
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Versus
Regional Manager,
State Bank of Indore,
Zonal Office, MP Nagar,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 27th day of September, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 3-7-07 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-16011/
4/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"(i) Whether the demand of the SPM Karamchari
Union for grant of pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000 to
Senior Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96 is legal and justified?
If so to what relief the workmen are entitled to?
(ii)whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Security paper Mill Hoshangabad in not
granting the ACP Scheme to Group B, C and D
employees on completion of 12 and 24 years is legal
and justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are
entitled to?"
(iii) Whether the demand of SPM Karamachari Union
for filling up of the vacancies to the post of Head
Time Keeper from amongst the senior assistants with
5 years of services and LDC with 7 years of services
is legal and justified? If so, to what relief the workmen
are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. 1st party Union submitted statement of claim at
Page 5/1 to 5/6. The case of 1st party Union is that it had
submitted charter of demands to the management claiming
pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for Sr. Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96,
benefit of ACP Scheme to Group B, C and D employees on
completion of 12 and 24 years service, for filling up of the
vacancies to the post of Head Time Keeper from amongst
the senior assistants with 5 years of services and LDC with
7 years of service. Above demands were not accepted by
the management. The Union had given strike notice under
Section 22 of I.D. Act opposing to go on strike. After expiry
of 31 days, persuing his demands, the Union has also
submitted other demands which are not referred for
adjudication.
3. Union submits that before implementation of Vth
Pay Commission report, junior Assistant in the
establishment of IInd party was placed in Pay Scale 1350-
2200 and Sr. Assistant were placed in Pay Scale 1400-2300.
When Part-A of Vth Commission Report were implemented,
both junior Assistant and Sr. Assistant were placed in
common revised Pay Scale 4300-7000 w.e.f. 1.1.96. That
General Manager, Security Paper Mill Hoshangabad i.e.
after getting approval order from Ministry of Finance and
economic affairs vide order dated 31.1.02 revising pay of
Sr. Assistant from 4500-7000 to refuse 5000-150-8000 w.e.f.
1.1.96. That said order was kept in abeyance to the detriment
of the members of the Union. The implementation under
part B revised Pay Scale, Asstt. were placed in Pay scale
1400-2300 were placed in Revised Pay Scale 5000-8000. The
Assistants were getting pay scale after implementation of
Part B Pay Scale. That Sr. Assistant who were higher in
rank were not placed in said pay scale. As such the members
of the Union are designated without logical reasons. Ist
party union also submits that as per Central Civil Services,
Revised Scale Para 46.9 of the Vth Commission Report Sr.
Assistant who are members of Union are entitled to revised
pay 5000-8000.
4. IInd party management Written Statement. The
claim of Union is denied that the workman is minority Union.
That management made repeatedly clear that its demands
are neither reasonable or feasible. There was no evasive
reply of management during conciliation proceedings. That
in 1992 after implementation of NPC, the then posts of
LDCs (Pay Scale 950-1500) UDCs (Pay Scale 1200-2040)
were upgraded as Junior Assistant in Pay Scale 1350-2200
and Senior Assistant in Pay Scale 1400-2300. That in Para
66.62 of Vth CPC, the present designations and pay scales
of Junior Assistants and Senior Assistants are based on a
specialized scientific study done by independent agency
therefore it is not desirable to make any change in the
designations. IInd party reiterated that demand of Union
for pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for Sr. Asstt. is not rational or
justified. Other Contentions of the Union are denied. IInd
party prays for rejection of the claim.
5. Union submitted rejoinder reiterating its
contentions in Statement of claim filed by them.
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 demands of Union
claiming pay Scale of Rs. 5000-
In Negative
8000 for Sr. Assistants w.e.f.
1-1-96, benefit of ACP Scheme
to Group B, C & D employees
on completion of 12 and 24
years service, for filling up of
the vacancies to the post
of Head Time Keeper from
amongst the senior assistants
with 5 years of services and
LDC with 7 years of service
is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Refief prayed by Union is
workman is entitiled to?"
rejected.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
117
REASONS
7. Though the Union submitted statement of claim
justifying his demand under reference., The Union failed
to participate in the reference proceeding. Union failed to
adduce any evidence to substantiate his demands under
reference. On the other hand; management filed affidavit
of its witness Shri K.N. Mahapatra covering contentions
in Written Statement filed by the management.
Management's witness was cross-examined. In his cross-
examination, management's witness says the department
had correspondence with the finance deptt. He was unable
to tell on what basis the pay scale was denied by the
Finance Deptt. that after the order dated 20-4-06 passed by
CAT, the order of 2002 was cancalled. The copy of the
order passed by CAT bench Jabalpur in Original Application
No. 707/06 is produced Exhibit M-1.
In Para-9 of the judgement, Hon'ble members of the
CAT observed the pesrual of above would establish that
erstwhile post held by the applicant has been upgraded
only in the year 1992 and Vth CPC in its recommendations
specifically observed that present designations and pay
scales of Junior Assistants and Senior Assistants in
Security Paper Mill are based on specialized scientific study
done by independent agency and therefore it did not require
any change either in pay scale or in designations
The Copy of order dated 20-4-06 is produced
withdrawing order dated 31-1-2002. Union has not adduced
evidence to substantiat that demands under reference.
Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
1 Demand of Union claiming pay scale of 5000-8000
for Sr. Assistants w.e.f. 1-1-96, benefit of ACP Scheme
to Group B, C & D employees on completion of 12
and 24 years service, for filling up of the vacancies
to the post of Head Time Keeper from amongst the
senior assistants with 5 years of services and LDC
with 7 years of service are not justified.
(2) Relief prayed by Union is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 66.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj chñ ,lñ ,uñ
,yñ tcyiqj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼184@1991½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@55@1991&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 66.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.184/1991)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of BSNL Jabalpur and their
workmen, received by the Central Government on
23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/55/1991-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/184/91
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Late Shri Basar,
Prem Sagar, Sahu Mohalla,
Bai ka Bgicha,
Jabalpur.
...Workman
Versus
The District Engineer,
BSNL,
Wright Town,
Jabalpur.
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of September, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 11-10-91 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-40012/
55/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of District
Engineer, Telecommunication, Jabalpur in terminating
the services of Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri
Budha, Ex-Labour w.e.f. Dec-89 is justified? If not, to
what relief is the workman entitiled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman submitted statement of claim at page
2/1 to 2/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he was
working as labour with IInd party No. 2. He was provided
job on compassionate ground in April 1986 due to disability/
paralysis by his father. That after completion of one year
service, he submitted application to IInd party No. 2 on
28.4.87, 16-6-89 requesting for status of regular employee.
He should be taken on muster roll, That the Ist party
workman had gained status of quasi permanent employee.
He had requested many times for regularization in service/
118
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
regular employee but IInd part No. 2 instead of regualizing
his services, prevented him from doing his job and as such
terminated his service in December 1989. He was terminated
without reasons, without giving notice. That he had
challenged order of his wrongful termination filing appeal.
The appeal was not considered. Notice was issued through
Advocate on 5-7-1990 to the IInd party. No action was
taken in spite of his notice. His service were terminated
without giving any opportunity. Thereafter he filed
application before ALC, Jabalpur on 26-11-90 and the matter
was finally referred by the Government.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to 8/
2. Claim of Ist party workman is totally denied. It is submitted
that the workman has completed 240 days continuous
service. He was working as casual labour and not labour
on muster roll. It is denied that workman had acquired quasi
permanent status of employee. It was not continued on
90 days on duty. There was no question of granting
temporary status. IInd party prays for rejection of his claim.
4. Workman filed his rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3. He
has denied contentions of the management and reiterated
his claim submitted in his statement of claim.
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 District Engineer,
Tele-communication, Jabalpur in
terminating the services of
Shri Mukesh Kumar,
S/o Latge Shri Budha, Ex-Labour
w.e.f. Dec-89 is legal/
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Relief prayed by
Entitled to?"
workman is reject
REASONS
6. Though workman has filed Statement of Claim
challenging termination of his service was without notice,
he has failed to submit evidence to substantiate his claim.
The evidence of workman was closed on 17-12-09.
Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness Deepak
Singh Thakur. The witness of the management as stated
that workman was never engaged on muster roll. He may
have worked on casual basis for 3-4 days. He may not have
been engaged regularly by the management as the workman
was not working on muster roll. He has not acquired status
of regular employee. There is no question of termination of
his service as workman did not worked continuously with
the management. The evidence of management's witness
remained unchallenged. Workman did not participate in
reference proceeding. He failed to adduce evidence to
substantiate his claim. He failed to cross-examine the
witness of the management. I do not find reasons to
disbelieve unchallenged evidence of management.
Workman has not established that he was working
continuously for 240 days preceding the alleged termination
of his service. There is not evidence that the workman is
covered under Section 25-B of I.D. Act, therefore he is not
entitled to relief under provision of Section 25-F of I.D.
Act. For above reasons, termination of workman cannot be
said illegal.
7. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of District Engineer,
Telecommunication, Jabalpur in terminating the services
of Shri Mukesh Kumar, S/o Late Shri Budha, Ex-Labour
w.e.f Dec-89 is legal.
(2) Relief claimed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 67.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhxzkQ
VªSfQd] Mh-Vh-vks- fcykliqj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
209@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@123@1992&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 67.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 209/1993)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Telegraph Traffic,
DTO, Bilaspure their workman, which was received by the
employers in relation to the Central Government on
23.12.2013.
[No. L-40012/123/1992-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT I
NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR
COURT, JAJBALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/209/93
PRESIDING OFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ram Kumar Gond,
S/o Shri Sahar Singh Gond,
Gram/Poste Hardikalatona,
Distt. Bislapur (MP)
…Workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
119
Versus
The Asstt. Suptd.,
Telegraph Traffic,
D.T.O.
PO & Disttt. Bilaspur
…Management
AWARD
Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2013
1. As per letter dated 30-9-93 by the Government of
India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is re-
ceived. The reference is made to this Tribunal under Sec-
tion-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
123/92-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.
Suptd. Telegraph Traffic, DTO Bilaspure in retrenching Shri
Ram Kumar Gond, S/o Shri Sahar Singh Gond w.e.f. 7-8-90
is legal and justified/ If not, what relief the workman con-
cerned is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed his statement of claim
at Page 2/1 to 2/2/. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
working as labour in IInd party Head Post Office from
9-6-85. That he was working with devotion. His services
were terminated from 7-8-90 without notice in violation of -
the provision of I.D. Act. That he was receiving wages Rs.
1100/- at the time of termination of his services. On such
grounds, Ist party prays for reinstatement with consequen-
tial benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/3. Case of IInd party is that Ist party workman had filed
false fabricated case. He was working as casual labour.
Workman was paid daily wages for the working days. It is
denied that the workman was working as Messenger. The
particulars of working days of workman are given 20 days
in 1985, 304 days in 1986, 322 days in 1987, 322 days in
1988, 247 days in 1989, 249 days in 1990 and 149 days in
1991. The violation of the provisions of I.D. Act is denied.
That workman was engaged as casual labour. It is not
possible to regularize his services. As the engagement of
casual labours was prohibited, the services of workman
were discontinued. That in conciliation proceedings, there
settlement could not be arrived between the parties despite
they were in agreement that one month's notice pay could
be paid as per Section 25-F of I.D. Act on such grounds,
IInd party prays for rejection of claim.
4. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/4
reiterating its contentions that he was working with
devotion for more than 5 years and his services are
terminated without notice.
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 Asstt. Suptd.
Telegraph Traffic, DTO Bilaspur
in retrenching Shri Ram Kumar
Gond, S/o Shri Sahar Singh Gond
w.e.f. 7-8-90 is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final
is entitled to?"
orders.
REASONS
6. The workman is challenging termination of his
services from 7-8-90 alleging that his services are terminated
without notice in violation of provisions of I.D. Act. The
IInd party contends that workman was engaged as casual
labour and as employment of casual labour was prohibited
in the department, his services are discontinued. That last
wages paid to the workman was Rs. 1005/- per month. The
workman has filed affidavit of his evidence covering most
of his contentions in statement of claim. That his services
were terminated without notice. From 29-5-85 to 7-8-90, he
was continuously working without break, he had completed
240 days continuous service during each of the year.
However the workman did not present himself for cross-
examination by the adversant party. As normal rule, his
evidence cannot be considered in support of his claim.
However IInd party in para-2 of the Written Statement has
shown details of the working days of workman from 1986
to 1990 more than 240 days. In para-6(b) IInd party has also
referred to some consent between parties during
conciliation proceedings without notice pay under Section
25-F has been paid.
7. IInd party has not adduced evidence despite given
to him. From written statement filed by IInd party, it is clear
that during 1986 to 1990,workman was working for more
than 240 days. Despite the workman had not made available
for cross-examination in view of demand in Written
Statement, the claim of workmen is substantiated in view
of workman was continuously working from 1985 to 1990
for 6 years. The pleadings in Written Statement are silent
about payment of retrenchment compensation to workman.
The workman is entitled to retrenchment compensation
equal to 15 days wages for completed service for each of
the year. Thus Ist party workman is entitled to retrenchment
compensation equal to 90 days wages. IInd party has not
issued notice for termination of services of the workman.
Therefore workman is entitled to wages for one month and
retrenchment compensation for 90 days wages. From the
pleadings of the IInd party itself shows that provisions of
Section 25-F were not complied therefore I record my finding
on Point No. 1 in Negative.
120
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
8. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of Asstt. Suptd.
Telegraph Traffic, DTO Bilaspur in retrenching
Shri Ram Kumar Gond, S/o Shri Sahar Singh
Gond w.e.f. 7-8-90 is not legal.
(2)
IInd party management is directed to pay one
months notice pay Rs. 1005/- and 90 days
wages i.e. 3 months pay towards retrenchment
compensation Rs. 3015/-.
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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 68.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj xouZesaV vksfi;e
,aM vYdkykW;M QSDVªh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
215@1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks
23-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@52@1998&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 68.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 215/1998)
of the Cent. Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Government Opium & Alkaloid
Factory and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/52/1998-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/215/98
SHRI R.B. PATLE : Presiding Officer
Shri Rishi Kumar Pathak,
S/o Rudra Prasad Pathak,
95, Hudco Colony,
Distt. Mandsour,
Neemuch
.......Workman
Versus
General Manager,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid Factory,
Neemuch, Distt. Mandsour
Neemuch
......Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of November 2013)
1. As per letter dated 10-9-98 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-42012/
52/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of General
Manager, Govt. Opium & Alkaloid factory in
terminating the services of Shri Rishi Kumar Pathak
w.e.f. 29-5-95 is legal and justified? If not to what
relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed Statement of claim at Page 2/1 to
2/7. The case of Ist party workman is that he was appointed
with Non-applicant on 2-8-1972. He was continuously
working. Chargesheet was served on him on 10-2-95.
Workman submits that the allegations were false and
frivolous. The provisions of standing order are applicable
to the employees of IInd party. Services are also covered
by CCS CCA Rules 1965. He claims to be workman under
I.D. Act. He had submitted application for leave from 22-8-
94 to 27-8-94. Applications were forwarded to the Section
Incharge. He was not communicated about sanction of
leave. He had proceeded for some Union activities as a
member of a delegation to New Delhi. He was Vice President
of the Registered Union. He had complained against General
Manager about favoritism, irregularities, any recruitment.
Irregularities in fixing the productivity targets. Misuse in
name of nationalization in the flat etc. the General Manager
took it personally and developed personal enmity against
him.
3. That he was absent from duty. It was matter of
chargesheet dated 19-2-95. His absence from 22-8-94 to
27-8-94 was regularized. Said period cannot be subject
matter of disciplinary proceedings. That he had submitted
various applications during his services for grant of EL.
When he asked for record pertaining to leave in the enquiry,
it was not produced. The witnesses is not allowed to be
cross-examined. The workman has alleged that enquiry was
not properly conducted. He was not given opportunity for
his defence. As such principles of natural justice were not
followed. The punishment of dismissal is highly
disproportionate. Enquiry Officer was biased. The
punishment is violative of Article 14, 311 of I.D. Act. On
such ground, he prays for reinstatement with full back
wages.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
121
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/4. IInd party submits that workman was appointed on
1-3-75 as technical Grade-II and not on 2-8-72 claimed by
the workman. His services were terminated on 2-2-1981. He
was reinstated as per Award by this Tribunal dated
19-9-84. That the workman was served with chargesheet
relating to unauthorized absence for the period 22-8-98 to
27-8-98. IInd charge was about indescent behaviour with
Administrative Officer Shri Gheesalal Nainwaya on 3-2-95.
The chargesheet was issued for contravention of Rule 3(1)
(ii) and (iii) of CCS Conduct Rule 1964. Workmen contented
that CCS Rules are not applicable. The standing orders
governs the services of the employees. That the enquiry
was conducted. Workman had submitted that General
Manager himself was Enquiry Officer. The defence
witnesses were scared. The charges framed against him
doesnot amount to misconduct etc. It is reiterated that the
enquiry was conducted following principles of natural
justice. Workman remained absent on different pretext
including illness. The Defence Witnesses had appeared.
Their statements were recorded in absence of the workman.
The witnesses of the department have given voluntary
statements. The punishment of dismissal was imposed,
was confirmed in the appeal. IInd party prays for
confirmation of the order of dismissal.
5. The enquiry conducted against workman is found
vitiated by my predecessor vide order dated 3-7-2012 for
want of pleadings. IInd party was not permitted to prove
misconduct. The parties were give opportunity to adduce
evidence on other issues.
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,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid factory
in terminating the services of
Shri Rishi Kumar Pathak w.e.f.
29-5-95 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
As per final
workman is entitled to?'
order
REASONS
7. As stated above, the enquiry conducted against
Ist party workman is found vitiated by my predecessor
as per order dated 3-7-2012. Management was not
permitted to prove misconduct of workman in Court.
The enquiry is vitiated. The finding of Enquiry Officer
about misconduct alleged against workman cannot be
said legal. The evidence in Enquiry Proceedings cannot
be considered for proof of the alleged misconduct. The
order dated 3-7-2012 vitiating enquiry against workman
is not challenged before Supreme Court. The said order
has received finality. The findings of Enquiry Officer
cannot be accepted. Secondly the order of dismissal of
service of workman cannot be said legal. In view of the
enquiry itself is held illegal, there is not point in recording
eveidence in such issues. Order of punishment is illegal
as enquiry against workman is found vitiated. Therefore
the order of dismissal from service of workman needs to
be set-aside. The parties have not adduced any evidence
whether the workman is working somewhere as order of
dismissal is illegal, the workman deserves to be
reinstatement. There is no question of denial of back
wages to him. For above reasons, I record my finding in
Point No. 1 in Negative.
8. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of General Manager,
Govt. Opium & Alkaloid factory in terminating
the service of Shri Rishi Kumar Pathak w.e.f.
29-5-95 is not legal and proper.
(2)
IInd party is directed to reinstate workman with
full back wages and continuity of service.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 69.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj flD;qfjVh
isij fey] gks'kaxkckn ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fofon esa dsanzh;
ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k
222@1993½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&16011@1@1991&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 69.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 222/
1993) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Security Paper Mill,
Hoshangabad and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 23/12/2013.
[No.L-16011/1/1991-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/222/93
Presiding Officer: Shri R.B. PATLE
122
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
The General Secretary,
SPM Employees Union,
Hoshangabad
The President,
SPM Staff Union,
Hoshangabad
The General Secretary,
SPM Karmchari Union,
Hoshangabad
Working President,
Pratibhuti Kaguj Karkhana
Mazdoor Sangh,
Hoshangabad
...Workman/Union
Versus
The General Manager,
Security Paper Mill,
Hoshangabad
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 20-10-93 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-16011/
1/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the demand of the workers of SPM
Hoshangabad to work for 44 hours in a week like the
workers working in other presses of Ministry of
Finance is justified? If yes, what relief the workman
concerned are entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union submitted Statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of Ist party Union is that the
Ministry of Defence, Deptt. of Economic Affairs has
established Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad, Security
press Nasik, Bank Note Press, Dewas, Govt. of India, Mint
Bombay, Calcutta, Hyderabad and Noida. That except SPM
Hoshangabad, the working hours of all the presses are 44
hours and Mind is 37/12 hours, Back in 1968, various
workers in SPM Hoshangabad had represented to
management and the Govt. of India that working hours of
Security Paper Mills should also be 44 hours. The
management as well as Government assured the case will
be sympathetically considered and necessary orders will
be passed. That on repeated representations by Union
similar assurance were given that there will be no hostile
discrimination as far as the workers are concerned, they
will be treated in similar way. That as their demand in that
regard were not materizlized by Government, the Unions
placed the matter for conciliation under I.D.Act. however
reference could not be made because of repeated assurance
given by the department. That in all other establishments,
working hourse are 37 1/2 hours, 44 hours. It is only in
SPM that the working hours are shown as 48 hours a week.
There is no justification for different working hours in one
establishment having less working hours in other
establishment. On such ground, the Union are praying that
the workers in SPM are entitled to 44 hours working from
1968 onwards for extra work, they are entitled to overtime
at double the rate if not 1 1/2 rate for 4 hours.
3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 8/1
to 8/2. IInd party submits that the reference is based on
demand initiated by Union in 1991 therefore Tribunal is
precluded from deciding the matter right from 1968. Thus
prayer contained in Statement of Claim is beyond limitation.
The IInd party denies that no assurance were given for
reducing working hours at any time. That there are security
printing press at Hyderabad and Currency Note Press at
Nasik Road under administrative control of the Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs. As paper making
is a continuous process, the mill is required to function
round the clock all the 7 days in the week except the gazette
holidays, the duration of each shift being 8 hours per day
and 48 hours a week. The working hours of Mill have been
the same from the inception of the Mill. It is further
submitted that all other industrial units under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Finance work for
44 hours or less per week as per the process requirement of
these units. On such ground, IInd party submits that the
demand of Union may not be accepted.
4. The reference was decided by my predecessor on
10-1-2006 that the demand of Union for reducing working
hours to 44 hours a week was allowed. The Award was
made applicable from 1968. Said Award was challenged by
the management of IInd party filing Writ Petition No. 5388/
2006. The writ petition is decided on 26-3-2008, the matter
is remanded for limited ground for giving reasons to justify
the year 1968 to make the Award operative.
5. Considering the pleadings and directions in Writ
petition by Hon'ble High Court, 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)
From what date effect should
Effect of the
be given to the Award dated.
Award be
10-1-2006 passed by this
given from
Tribunal?
date of reference
i.e. 20-10-93.
REASONS
6. As discussed above, considering the pleadings
and evidence adduced by parties, my predecessor has
passed Award on 10-1-2006 reducing the working hours
to 44 per week. The Award is made effective from 1968.
Hon'ble High Court has remanded the matter. In para-6 of
the judgement, his Lordship observed under cirumstances,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
123
the Tribunal since has not given the reasons for fixing the
date of making Award effective in terms of Section 17-A
therefore it will be appropriate to remand the matter to the
Tribunal. After the remand, it shall only be limited for giving
the reasons to justify whether the AWARD shall become
effective from 1968 which is already fixed by the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for Union Shri Shashi pointed out
that there was settlement with one Union dated 6-1-95. All
Union are parties to the reference were not signatory to the
settlement and therefore this settlement is not binding.
The document produced Page 9/1 shows that Shri
Hargovind Yadav, working President and Shri L.L.
Raghuwanshi, General Secretary of the Union were
signatory of the settlement. Clause-I of the settlement
provided that the management and Union had agreed that
normal hours of work for all employees other than those
whose normal hours of work are already 44 hours per week
w.e.f. 15-1-1995. After remand of the matter, affidavit of
Santosh Gour is filed on behalf of the Ist party union. His
affidavit is devoted about repeatedly demand was pursued
by the union time to time. that the working hours 37 1/2
hours and 44 hours are provided except SPM. There are 48
hours a week. The affidavit of witness of Union shows that
the demand was pursued since 1968 by the Union. Union
filed next affidavit of witness Shri B. D. Chourey. He also
says that the demand of working hours are pursued time to
time. in 1979, Shri R.S. Thakur become General Secretary.
He was taking up case along with office bearer for reducing
working hours to 44 hours. Shri R.S. Thakur in his evidence
on affidavit has stated that demand was pursued by the
Union at different levels since 1968. That he was elected as
General Secretary in 1979. He was repeatedly representing
the matter before the General Manager Shri S.R. Pathak
and Shri P.C. Panth. He had met the ministers Shri Dalbir
Singh, Magan Bhai Barot, Manmohan Singh, Secretaries
and officers of the Ministry. That he would obtain letters
from SPM office on 25-4-89, 30-4-90, 6-7-90, 18-2-90 &
9-3-90, copies of letters are produced.
7. Management filed affidavit of evidence Shri K.L.
Mahapatra. The witness of the management has stated
that the Award was passed on 10-1-06 holding that the
demand of workers is justified therefore working hours of
employees of SPM be reduced to 44 hours from the time of
demand taken up by the Union in 1968. The witness also
narrated that the Award is set-aside by Hon'ble High Court
for giving reasons to about the date of giving effect to the
Award from 1968. In his cross-examination, witness of the
management says that he had not participated in agreement
between Union and management. He was unable to tell
rule prescribed 48 working hours in a week. The copy of
judgement in original application 94/98 is produced. The
claim in petition before CAT was challenging increase of
working hours from 37 1/2 to 44 hours was rejected. Said
judgment has not bearing to controversay between the
parties. As per directions while remanding the matter only
reason for giving effect from 1968 are to be given.
8. Though the matter was pursued by Union at
different times, the demand was not pursued filing
appropriate proceeding. The legal position about the date
of giving effect to the Award under Section 17-A is clear
that normal effect should be given to the Award from date
of reference. As in present cast, though the effect was
given from 1968 as per Award dated 10-1-2006, I do not find
reason to support the same.
"In view of I.D. Act by Shri K.P. Chakravorty, the
commentary of I.D. Act Page 282, under Section
17-A, an Award shall come into operation with effect
from such date as may be specified therein but where
no such date is so specified, it shall come into
operation on the date when no such date is so
specified, it shall come into operation on the date
when the Award becomes enforceable. Under Sub
Section (4) of this section, there is a discretion in the
Tribunal to order for enforcement of its Award. In
relation to the fixation of the date from which the
Award should operate no general principles can be
laid down. The date from which the Award is to be
made effective is in the discretion of the Tribunal.
Ordinarily it should be made effective from the date
of reference."
Therefore the Award dated 10-1-2006 passed by my
predecessor be given effect from date of reference i.e.
20-10-93. Accordingly I record my finding in Point No. 1.
9. In the result, Award is passed as under :—
(1)
Award dated 10-1-2006 be given effect from
date of reference i.e. 20-10-1993.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 70.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe izkstsDV
bZLV] tcyiqj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 186@2000½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@356@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 70.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 186/
2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute
between the management of Telecom Project East, Jabalpur
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/356/2000-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
124
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/186/2000
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma,
S/o Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma,
123/2, New Tutline, GCF Estate,
Jabalpur .
...Workman
Versus
Director,
Telecom Project East,
MP Area, 36/14,
HIG, Katanga Colony Cantt.,
Jabalpur
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 22nd day of October, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 31-10-2000 by the Government
of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is
received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under
Section10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-40012/
356/2000/IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Director,
Telecom Project East, MP Area, Jabalpur Divisional
Engineer Telecom Optical Fibres, Cable Project,
Division No. 1, Jabalpur not to regularize the services
of Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma to the post of Driver
and subsequently terminating his service w.e.f.
31-10-96 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 3/1 to 3/5. Case of workman is that in January 1994,
he was appointed on daily wages as Driver by IInd party.
That he was asked to drive tempo traveler of the Senior
Sub-Divisional Engineer. On Vehicle No. MP-H-1484. That
he was driving said vehicle till 31-9-96 (wrongly written).
That he had worked for more than 240 days in a year as
such attended temporary status. Management has not
passed any order in that regard. His services were orally
discontinued by the Divisional Engineer Shri S.T. Abbas.
He challenged said order filing original application
No. 908/96 before Central Administrative Tribunal. Order
was passed by CAT to decide representation of 1st party
workman by 31-1-97. The Director had deposed his
representation observing that he was appointed purely on
contractual basis not against sanctioned post. The points
raised in his representations were not built with.
3. Workman submits that he had worked for more
than 2 years. His services were discontinued to deprive
him regularization. The officers used to put names of other
persons in logbook. The original application was also
rejected on other ground that he can invoke alternate
remedy for redressal of his grievance. Original application
155/98 was filed in CAT by him was disposed observing
the workman can agitate his grievance before appropriate
forum. After failing conciliation proceeding, the dispute
has been referred. Workman submits that his termination
from service is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He
prays for reinstatement with regularization in service.
4. IInd party filed written Statement at page 5/1 to
5/2. IInd party submits that the workman was engaged as
casual driver for sometime by oral order in January 1994.
His services were discontinued as said period was over.
Here was no question for giving order in writing for removal
from service. That original application 908/96 was dismissed
by CAT. That management considered the representation
of the workman as it was found that he was appointed on
contractual basis and not appointed against regular post.
His representation was rejected.
5. Ilnd party further submits that workman was not
regular employee so there was no question of regularization
of his service. Rejection of representation to workman is
legal. Original application 155/98 was rejected by CAT for
lack of jurisdiction. It is further contented that as Ist party
workman was engaged as casual driver, there was no
question of giving notice or paying retrenchment
compensation. On such grounds, IInd party prayed for
rejection of claim of 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
Termination of
management of
Services of Ist
Director, Telecom Project East,
party workman is
MP Area, Jabalpur Divisional
in violation of
Engineer Telecom Optical
Section 25-F of
Fibres, Cable Project,
I.D. Act but the
Division No. 1, Jabalpur not
workman is not
to regularize the services of
entitled for
Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma
regularization.
to the post of Driver and
subsequently terminating his
service w.e.f. 31-10-96 is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
7. Ist party workman claiming to be working as Driver
for more than 2 years with IInd party challenges termination
of his services for violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd
party contends that workman was engaged as casual
employee orally. He is not entitled to notice or retrenchment
compensation. Workman filed affidavit of his evidence
stating that he was working as Driver with IInd party from
29-1-94 to October 1996. He has completed 240 days
continuous service. In his cross-examination, workman says
he was not called for interview. The post was not advertised.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
125
He was paid wages for all working days. He was working
as casual labour. The documents Exhibit W-1 produced on
record shows that notification was issued by General
Manager, Telecom District Jabalpur for filling vacancies of
two drivers and 3 drivers from casual labours. Notification
was issued on 20-9-95. Document W-2/4 to 2/116 produced
by workman is copy of log book. The name of Driver is not
written in those documents. Vehicle Number is mentioned
as M.P. 20-H-1484 in some copies of log books. The workman
was not subjected to cross-examination. Document Exhibit
W-3 is copy of driving licence admitted by IInd party.
Document Exhibit W-4 is order passed by CAT, Jabalpur
dated 30-12-96. Document 7/7 admitted by IInd party shows
that matter for regularization of services of 1st party
workman was under construction.
8. Management filed affidavit of witness Shri A.P.
Pawar. Management's witness in his cross-examination says
that he had seen the log book and order passed by CAT in
the matter. He is not acquainted with the workman. He
claims ignorance whether the document about appointment
of 1st party was found. That he had not brought any
document from office. He claims ignorance for what period
the workman was engaged and what was the conditions of
his appointment. The copies of log book were referred to
him. Documents are marked Exhibit W-1.
9. The evidence of workman is supported by Exhibit
W-1. He also hold driving licence W-2, notice was not issued
to the workman for terminating his services, he was not
paid retrenchment compensation. Therefore termination of
his services is illegal. For above reasons I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Negative.
10. Point No. 2— In view of my finding in Point
No. 1, service of workman is terminated in violation of
Section 25-F, question arises as to whether the workman is
entitled for regularization or reinstatement in service. As
per evidence in cross-examination of workman, post was
not advertised, he was not called for interview. The
appointment of workman was not followed by selection
process.
11. On the point of regularization, learned counsel
for workman Shri R.K. Soni relies on ratio held in case of
State of Karnataka and others
versus M.L. Kesari
and others reported in 2010 STPL(LE) 44039 SC.
"In para-7, their Lordship held exception to the
general principles against regularization enunciated in
Umadevi (AIR 2006/SC 1806); if the following conditions
are fulfilled—
(i)
The employee concerned should have worked
for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post
without the benefit or protection of the interim
order of any court or Tribunal.
(ii)
Appointment of such employee should not be
illegal, even if irregular. Where the
appointments are not made or continued
against sanctioned posts or where the persons
appointed do not possess the prescribed
minimum qualifications, the appointments will
be considered to be illegal."
(iii)
Ist party workman had hardly worked for about
2 1/2 years therefore he is not covered within
above exemption for relief of regularization. Ist
party workman hardly worked about 2 1/2 years
as casual employee. Considering the spam of
service, reinstatement with back wages would
not be appropriate. For termination in violation
of Section 25-F, reasonable compensation
would be justified. On the point of
compensation, learned counsel for Ist party
Shri R.K. Soni relies on ratio held in —
"Case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus
Man Singh and others reported in 2011
STPL(LE)45917SC . Their Lordship dealing with
violation of Section 25-F in case of daily wagers held
compensation in lieu of reinstatement, the
respondent workmen were engaged as daily wages
and they had merely worked for more than 240 days.
Relief of reinstatement cannot be said justified.
Instead monetary compensation would meet the
ends of justice. Compensation of Rs. 2 Lakhs was
allowed towards full and final settlement."
In above cited case, workman were working as casual
labours on daily wages during the year 84-85. Their services
were terminated in 1986, no notice of retrenchment
compensation was given to him before terminating
services. After about 5 years, industrial dispute was raised
in 1990. Ratio in several cases were also submitted before
me in other cases.
"Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal
versus Santosh Kumar Seal and others reported in
2010 (6) Supreme Court Cases 773. Their Lordship
dealing with the point of reinstatement with back
wages held relief by way of reinstatement with back
wages not automatic even if termination of employee
is found to be illegal or in contravention of the
prescribed procedure and monetary compensation
in cases of such nature may be appropriate. On facts
as the workmen were engaged as daily wagers about
25 years back and they worked hardly for 2-3 years,
relief of reinstatement and back wages to them cannot
be said to be justified. Monetary compensation of
Rs.40,000 was directed to be paid."
For violation of Section 25-F, compensation was
allowed ranging from Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 75,000. Considering
short spam of service rendered by workman, compensation
Rs. 1 Lakh would be appropriate in the case. Accordingly
I record Point No. 2.
126
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
12. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of Director, Telecom
Project East, MP Area, Jabalpur Divisional
Engineer Telecom Optical Fibres, Cable Project,
Division No. 1, Jabalpur not to regularize the
services of Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma to the
post of Driver and subsequently terminating
his service w.e.f. 31-10-96 is not legal.
(2)
IInd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 1 Lakh to the workman
Shri Naveen Kumar Sharma.
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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 71.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy
QkeZ e'khujh VªSfuax ,aM VsfLVax bafLVV~;wV] cqnuh 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 154/1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 23&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@55@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼Mhñ ;wañ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 154/1997)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial
dispute between the management of Central Farm
Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Budni and their
workman, received by the Central Government on
23-12-2013.
[No. L-42012/55/1996-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/154/97
Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Ram Singh,
S/o Surajpal,
Behind Rly station,
Godi Mohalla,
...Workman
Budni, Distt. Sehore (MP)
Versus
The Director,
Central Farm Machinery Training
and Testing Institute, Tractor Nagar,
PO-Budni, Distt. Sehore (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 2nd day of August 2013)
As per letter dated 30-5-97 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-
42012/55/96-IR(UD). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Farm Machinery Training and Test Institute, Budni
in terminating the services of Shri Ram Singh, S/o
Surajpal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/2. The case of Ist party workman is that he
was employed by the IInd party on daily wage casual labour
in 1990. Since his initial engagement, he was continuously
working with the IInd party till 1994. That he had worked
for 240 days during each of the calendar year and even
12 months preceding his retrenchment from service.
Though the workman continuous rendered service, he
was not regularized, permanent status was not given to
him with ulterior motive. The management of IInd party
adopted pick and choose policy. That the management
had regularized services of 24 employees out of which
three were over aged namely Shri Gulab, Shivlal and
Narmada Prasad. Their services were regularized. That IInd
party deliberately discontinued his services to
accommodate those workman. Discontinuation of workman
from service is illegal. Provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of
I.D. Act were not complied. On such grounds, workman
prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party management even after receiving notice
failed to appear. IInd party was proceeded exparte as per
order dated 15-06-07.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:-
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative.
management of Central Farm
Machinery Training and
Test Institute, Budni in
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
127
terminating the services of
Shri Ram Singh, s/o Surajpal
is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?"
REASONS
5. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
services. The workman has filed affidavit of his evidence.
The workman has stated that he was engaged by IInd party
on daily wages in 1990 after holding interview. That he
worked for more than 240 days during each of the year
1990 to 1994. His services were not regularized as per the
Regularisation Scheme for casual labours of Govt. of India.
That other overaged employees Gulab, Shivlal and
Narmada Prasad and junior employees Hiralal, Ashok Kumar
and Suresh were regularized from July 1994. The services
of Ist party workman were illegally terminated. The
evidence of workman remained unchallenged IInd party
has not participated in the reference proceeding. IInd party
is proceeded exparte. Considering unchallenged evidence
of workman, I donot find reason to discard his evidence.
From evidene on record, it is established that the services
of workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of
I.D. Act as such illegal. For above reasons, I record my
finding in Point in No. 1 Negative.
6. Point No.2- question arises as to what relief the
workman is entitled? Whether the workman is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages? The unchallenged
evidence of workman shows he is out of employment from
1994 for abour 19 years. Ist party workman was working as
daily wage employee. His reinstatement would not be
justified. Considering the period of his working from 1990
to 1994, in my considered view, compensation Rs. 50,000/-
would he proper. Accordingly I hold and record my finding
on Point No.2.
7. In the result, Award is passed as under:-
(1)
Action of the management of Central Farm
Machinery Trainging and Test Institute, Budni
in terminating the services of Shri Ram Singh,
s/o Surajpal is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 50,000 to 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] 23 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 72.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsVªy QkeZ
e'khujh VªSfuax ,aM VsfLVax bafLVV~;wV] cqnuh 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 156/97½dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@57@1996&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh ;w½]
ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2013
S.O. 72.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 156/
1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the management of Central Farm
Machinery Training and Testing Institute Budni and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
23-12-2013.
[No. L-42012/57/1996-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/156/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Smt. Savithri Bai,
W/o Late Phoolchand,
Behind Rly. Station,
Godi Mohalla,
Budni, Distt. Sehore (MP)
...Workman
Versus
The Director,
Central Farm Machinery Training
and Testing Institute, Tractor Nagar,
PO Budni, Distt. Sehore (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 2nd day of August, 2013)
As per letter dated 30-5-97 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-42012/
57/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Farm Machinery Training and Test Institute, Budni
in terminating the services of Smt. Savithri Bai is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed Statement of claim at
128
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Page 5. The case of Ist party workman is that she was
employed by the IInd party on daily wage casual labour in
1977. Since her initial engagement, he was continuously
working with the IInd party till 1994. That she had worked
for 240 days during each of the calendar year and even
12 months preceding her retrenchment form service.
Though the workman continuous rendered service, she
was not regularized, permanent status was not given to
him with ulterior motive. The management of IInd party
adopted pick and choose policy. That the management
had regularized services of 24 employees out of which three
were over aged namely Shri Gulab, Shivlal and Narmada
Prasad. Their services were regularized. That IInd party
deliberately discontinued his services to accommodate
those workman. Discontinuation of workman from service
is illegal. Provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act were
not complied. On such grounds, workman prays for
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
3. IInd party management even after receiving notice
failed to appear. IInd party was proceeded exparte as per
order dated 15-6-07.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative.
management of Central Farm
Machinery Training and
Test Institute, Budni in
terminating the services of
Smt. Savithri Bai is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
As per final order.
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
5. Ist party workman is challenging termination of
services. The workman has filed affidavit of his evidence.
The workman has stated that she was engaged by IInd
party on daily wages in 1977 after holding interview. That
she worked for more than 240 days during each of the year
1977 to 1994. Her services were not regularized as per the
Regularisation Scheme for casual labours of Govt. of India.
That other overaged employees Gulab, Shivlal and Narmada
Prasad and junior employees Hiralal, Ashok Kumar and
Suresh were regularized from July 1994. The services of Ist
party workman were illegally terminated. The evidence of
workman remained unchallenged. IInd party has not
participated in the reference proceeding. IInd party is
proceeded exparte. Considering unchallenged evidence of
workman, I donot find reason to discard his evidence. From
evidence on record, it is established that the services of
workman are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.
Act as such illegal. For above reasons, I record my finding
in Point No. 1 in Negative.
6. Point No. 2 - question arises as to what relief the
workman is entitled? Whether the workman is entitled for
reinstatement with back wages? The unchallenged
evidence of workman shows he is out of employment from
1994 for about 19 years. Ist party workman was working as
daily wage employee. Her reinstatement would not be
justified. Considering the period of his working from 1977
to 1994, in my considered view, compensation Rs. One
Lakh would be proper. Accordingly I hold and record my
finding on Point No. 2.
7. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of Central Farm
Machinery Training and Test Institute, Budni
in terminating the services of Smt. Savithri Bai
is illegal.
(2)
IInd party is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 1 Lakh to 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] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 73.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Vsfydke
¼j-b-½ izkstsDV ukxiqj 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 tcyiqj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k
¼171@1996½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23@12@2013
dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@214@1994 & vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 73.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. (171/1996)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute
between the management of Telecom (RE) Project, Nagpur
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
23/12/2013.
[No. L-40012/214/1994-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/171/96
PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE
Shri Prabhakar,
Shyamraoji Belkhade,
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
129
Gandhi Ward,
Pampurna,
Distt. Chhindwara (MP).
Shri Vishwishwar,
S/o Shri Pandrinath Dhomne,
r/o Gandhi Ward,
Pampurna,
Distt. Chhindwara.
...Workmen
Versus
Chief General Manager,
Telecom (RE) Project,
66, Bajaj Nagar,
Nagar (MS)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 20th day of September, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 30-8-96 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-40012/
214/94-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
General Manager, Telecom (RE) Project, in stopping
S/Shri Prabhakar, S/o Shri Shyamraoji Belkhade and
Vishwishwar S/o Shri Pandrinath Dhomne, casual
labour from their duty is justified? If not, to what
relief the workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 8/1 to 8/2. It is case of Ist party that he was working
as casual mazdoor in Railway. He had continuously worked
for more than 240 days prior to date of his termination. He
is covered as workman under Section 25-B of I.D. Act. His
services were terminated without paying retrenchment
compensation. It amounts to illegal retrenchment. On such
grounds, workman prays for his reinstatement with
consequential benefits. It needs to be noted that Statement
of claim is not bearing signature of workman though its
copy is received by IInd party.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to
10/2. Claim of Ist Party is opposed. IInd party submits that
applicant was never engaged against any post. He was
engaged as per need and exigencies of project of the
department on daily rated basis. He was not continuously
engaged for the work. That stopping service of workman
does not amount to retrenchment as he was not in regular
service of IInd party though it is not necessary to comply
mandatory provisions in relation to retrenchment
compensation. IInd party being model employer paid
Rs. 1609 on 13-11-90 Rs. 536 to the workman as notice pay.
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 Chief General
Manager, Telecom (RE) Project,
in stopping S/Shri Prabhakar,
S/o Shri Shyamraoji Belkhade
and Vishwishwar
S/o Shri Pandrinath Dhomne,
casual labour from their
duty is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?
workmen are
rejected.
REASONS
5. Though workmen are challenging termination of
their services by IInd party, statement of claim is filed
without their signature, workman failed to adduce evidence
to substantiate their claim. The evidence of workman were
closed on 18-10-2010. Management filed affidavit of its
witness Shri D.S. Thakur covering contentions of IInd party.
The management's witness has stated that workman did
not continuously worked for 240 days. They were engaged
as per exigencies of work. After completion of work, the
services of the employees. The evidence of management's
witness remained unchallenged. The Ist party workman
failed to cross-examine witness of the management. I do
not fine reason to discard evidence of management's
witness. The workman failed to adduce evidence about
illegality of termination of their services therefore I record
my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
6. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of Chief General
Manager, Telecom (RE) Project, in stopping
S/Shri Prabhakar, S/o Shri Shyamraoji Belkhade
and Vishwishwar S/o Shri Pandrinath Dhomne,
casual labour from their duty is proper.
(2)
Relief prayed by workmen are rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 74.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fMfotuy
vkWfQlj] Vsyhxzk¶l] fNUnokjk 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 lanHkZ
la[;k ¼223@1990½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks
23-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@36@1990&vkbZvkj ¼Mhñ;wñ½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 74.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
130
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. (223/1990)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Sub Divisional Officer,
Telegraphs, Chhindwara and their workman, received by
the Central Government on 23.12.2013.
[No. L-40012/36/1990-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/223/90
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Man Singh Diwade,
S/o Shri Goi Singh Diwade,
R/o Umaria, Tehsil Multai,
Distt. Betual
.......Workman
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer,
Telegraphs, Chhindwara Division,
Chhindwara
......Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of September, 2013)
As per letter dated 20/30.11.90 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-40012/
36/90-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Sub
Divisional Officer (Telegraphs), Chhindwara under
the control of Telecom Distt. Engineer (Chhindwara),
16, Civil Centre, Jabalpur (MP) in stopping from work
to Shri Man Singh Diwade S/o Goi Singh Diwade
w.e.f. 31.3.88 is justified and legal? If not, to what
relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 4/1 to 4/3. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
employed through Sub Divisional officer, Chhindwara as
casual mazdoor on 15.11.86 to carry out departmental work
i.e. digging pits, trenches, erecting poles and other work.
That he was regularly working. He was given increment
time to time. He was initially paid wages Rs. 10 per day.
Wages were increased to Rs. 12 per day. He was paid arrears
of Rs. 4505 in August 1988. He worked for more than 240
days from March 87 to Feb. 88 excluding holidays. The
workman further submits that the management stopped
him from work. As per record of management he did not
worked in December 1986, January 1987 though he had
completed 240 days continuous service till February 1988.
Management illegally stopped him from work without
compliance of legal requirements. On such grounds Ist
party prays for his reinstatement with consequential
benefits.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to
7/2. IInd party opposed relief prayed by workman.It is
denied that workman was engaged continuously. It is
submitted that workman was intermittently engaged as
casual employee as per the exigencies. He himself remained
absent. That IInd party is not covered as industry under
Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. On such grounds, IInd party prayed
for rejection of the claim of workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Sub Divisional
Officer (Telegraphs), Chhindwara
under the control of Telecom
Distt. Engineer (Chhindwara),
16, Civil Centre, Jabalpur (MP)
in stopping from work to
Shri Man Singh Diwade S/o
Shri Goi Singh Diwade w.e.f.
31.3.88 is legal?
(ii)
If not, what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?
REASONS
5. Workman is challenging legality of his termination
from service i.e. in violation of Section 25 of I.D. Act. That
he had completed 240 days continuous service.
Management denied above contentions. Workman filed
affidavit of his evidence covering his contentions in
Statement of Claim that he had worked for more than 240
days from March 87 to February 88. In his cross-examination,
evidence of workman that he had completed 240 days during
above period is not challenged. In his cross-examination,
workman says he was engaged on muster roll as casual
labour, his work was to lay new lines. He has complained to
SDO in writing. The copy is not produced on record. From
evidence of workman, it remains unchallenged that he had
completed 240 days continuous service. The evidence of
management's witness Shri G.N. Agarwal, Kishore Kumar
Agarwal in denial of the same. However both of the
witnesses are not made available for cross-examination.
Therefore their evidence cannot be considered. The
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore I record my finding on Point
No. 1 in Negative.
6. As to point No. 2, in view my finding in Point
No. 1, termination of service of workman is illegal, question
arises as to what relief the workman is entitled to. Learned
counsel for workman Shri Ashok Srivastava relies on ratio
held in case of
"(1)
Executive engineer K.P.C. Bidar and another
versus Zulfegar Ali reported in 2012 LAB, I.C.
1987.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
131
(2)
State Bank of India versus Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and
another reported in 2013-1-MPLJ-380.
I have carefully gone through ratio held in those
cases. The facts of present case are not comparable as
workman had hardly worked for one year with the IInd
party. He was not sponsored through Employment
Exchange. Recruitment process were not followed.
Therefore the workman is out of employment since 1988.
For above reasons, reinstatement of workman with back
wages would not be appropriate. Considering facts of case,
compensation of Rs. 60,000 would be proper. Accordingly
I record my finding in Point No. 2.
7. In the result, Award is passed as under:—
(1)
Action of the management of Sub Divisional
Officer (Telegraphs), Chhindwara under the
control of Telecom Distt. Engineer
(Chhindwara), 16, Civil Centre, Jabalpur (MP)
in stopping from work to Shri Man Singh
Diwade S/o Goi Singh Diwade w.e.f. 31.3.88 is
illegal.
(2)
IInd party management is directed to pay
compensation Rs. 60,000/- 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] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 75.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds
izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k
y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 92@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41012@147@2003&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 75.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government
hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 92/2003) of the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Uttar Railway and
their workman, received by the Central Government on
24.12.2013.
[No. L-41012/147/2003-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,
LUCKNOW
PRESENT
DR. MANJU NIGAL, Presiding Officer
I.D. No. 92/2003
Ref. No. L-41012/147/2003-IR(B-I) dated: 12.09.2003
BETWEEN
The Divisional Organization Secretary
Uttar Railway Karmchari Union
C/o Sh. Virendera Kumar
Ticket No. 500, S/o Ram Swaroop
R/o 49, Tilak Nagar
Lucknow-226 001
(Espousing cause of Shri Virendera Kumar)
AND
1.
The Divisional Personnel Officer
Northern Railway, Hazratganj
Lucknow
2.
The Coaching Depot Officer
Northern Railway, Charbagh
Lucknow-226 001
AWARD
1. By order No. L-41012/147/2003-IR(B-1) dated:
12.09.2003 and its subsequent corrigendum dated
23.02.2007, 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 the Divisional Organization
Secretary, Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, C/o Sh. Virendera
Kumar, Ticket No. 500, S/o Shri Ram Swaroop, R/o 49, Tilak
Nagar, Lucknow and the Divisional Personnel Officer,
Northern Railway, Hazratganj, Lucknow & the Coaching
Depot Officer, Northern Railway, Charbagh, Lucknow for
adjudication.
2. The reference under adjudication is:
"Kya Prabandhan, Uttar Railway, Charbagh,
Lucknow Dwara Karmkaar Shri Virendra Kumar putra
Shri Ram Swaroop 'Safaiwala' ko 26.12.1994 se Naukari
se nikaal diya jana nayayochit evam Nayaysangat
hai? Yadi nahi to karmkaar kis anutosh ko pane ka
adhikaari hai?"
3. The case of the workman, Virendra Kumar, in brief,
is that he was appointed as safaiwala on 01.06.1987 and
was transferred from Varanasi to Lucknow where he fell ill
for a week and could not attend his duties in the last week
of February, 1990 for which he was issued a minor penalty
charge sheet and was imposed punishment for stoppage
of one set of pass and three set of PTOs vide order dated
132
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
17.09.90. It is submitted by the workman that he again fell ill
and could not join the duties for 15 days in January, 1993.
It is also submitted by the workman that during his illness
he was under observation of a private medical officer and
on getting fit he reached the office of the opposite party to
report for the duty with medical certificate to his Incharge:
but he was not allowed to join the duties and was informed
that his services were terminated w.e.f. 01-07-1993. It has
been alleged by the workman that the management
terminated his services without following the D&AR inquiry
which was mandatory before terminating the services of a
regular employee; and also that termination of his services
are voilative of the provisions contained in the Section
25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947 as he was a regular employee and
worked continuously for more than six years with the
opposite party. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that
his termination w.e.f. 26.12.1994 be held unjustified and he
be reinstated with full back wages.
4. The management has denied the claim of the
workman by filing its written statement; wherein it has
submitted that the workman had been appointed in railways
on compassionate grounds and became unauthorized
absent w.e.f 19.03.1991 without any information to the
railway; and did not turn up to join the duties in spite of
several letters and notices, which led to issuance of charge
sheet vide dated 03.03.1993 under D&A Rules, 1968. It is
submitted by the management that the workman never
participated in the inquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer,
though notice were issued from railways administration
from time to time. The management has contended the order
of removal is legal and justified and passed after holding
an inquiry and consideration of inquiry report. Accordingly,
the management has prayed that the claim of the workman
be rejected without any relief to him.
5. The workman has filed rejoinder; wherein he has
specifically stated that he had never been informed of
issuance of major penalty charge sheet or holding of any
inquiry against him or passing of removal order by the
management; however he was orally informed by his
incharge that his services have been terminated.
6. The parties have filed documentary evidence in
support of their respective claim. The workman examined
himself whereas the management has examined the Inquiry
Officer, Shri Raja Nath in support of their stand. The parties
cross-examined the witnesses of each other apart from
forwarding oral arguments, management got its witness
corss-examined; whereas the workman union's witness, the
Divisional Secretary, during the cross-examination was
directed to file the list of witnesses whom he wants to get
examined vide order dated 17.06.2003; but he failed to do
so. The workman' union kept absenting itself since
26.05.2011 and did not bother to forward its argument;
accordingly, keeping in view long pendency of the case
since 2001, heard arguments of the representative of the
management and reserved the file for award.
7. Heard representatives of the management and
scanned entire evidence on record.
8. The authorized representative of the workman has
argued that the management of the Railways did not allow
the workman to join when he recovered from illness and
terminated his services by holding an ex-parte inquiry
against him of which he had not been intimated at all. He
has also argued that the punishment imposed by the
management is harsh and disproportionate to the alleged
misconduct.
9. In rebuttal, the management representative has
contended that the workman did not turn up for long to
join his services accordingly; disciplinary action has been
initiated against him. It is also contended that the workman
did not participate in the inquiry proceeding in spite of
notices were issued from railway administration from time
to time.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions made by the parties.
11. The workman has come up with the case that on
recovery from illness he was not allowed to join the duties;
and was verbally informed about his termination w.e.f.
26.12.1994. It is also the case of the workman that he was
never informed of holding of any inquiry against him as he
was never furnished any charge sheet or any notice to the
effect was ever served upon him. In cross-examination he
stated that he did not respond due to non-receipt of any
notice.
12. Per contra, the management has come up with the
case that the workman remained absent w.e.f. 19.03.1991
without any information accordingly, charge sheet, SF-5
was issued on 03.03.93. It is stated by the Inquiry Officer
that a notice was issued to the workman and also a copy
was pasted on the notice board, to appear before the inquiry;
but the workman did not appear. He also stated that PRO,
Northern Railway, Lucknow was asked to publish notice
through news paper. He also stated that the workman was
appointed on 25.06.87 on compassionate grounds.
13. The schedule of reference, referred to this
Tribunal for adjudication, pertains to validity of the action
of the Northern Railway in terminating the services of the
workman w.e.f. 26.12.1994 and this regard the onus was on
the management to prove that the procedure adopted by it
for inflicting the punishment upon the workman was fair
and just. The management in order to prove the validity of
its action, has come up with the case that the workman had
been issued charge sheet but the neither submitted any
explanation to the charge sheet nor appeared before the
inquiry in spite of the notice. The workman has contended
that he never received any charge sheet or any notice to
participate the proceedings.
It is not the case of the management that the workman
was a casual or temporary worker, instead it is admitted by
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
133
the management that the workman was a regular employee
being appointed on compassionate grounds, therefore, as
per Rules, it was incumbent upon the management to initiate
disciplinary action against the workman before passing
any penalty against him; and also it was expected from the
management that during such an inquiry the workman is
afforded all reasonable opportunity to defend himself as
provided in the principles of natural justice.
14. In present case, the workman had been issued a
major penalty charge sheet for alleged unauthorized
absence. The management has pleaded that the workman
did not turn up in spite of several notices; but could not
corroborate its pleading with cogent evidence as it neither
produced any receiving of the charge sheet by the workman
nor any service upon the workman regarding initiation of
the inquiry or its dates etc. The management witness has
stated that the PRO, Northern Railway was required to
publish the notice in the news paper but in the cross-
examination, he has stated that there is no information in
the file in this regard that the notice was published in the
news paper through PRO or not. Further, in the inquiry
report, paper No. 22/8 it is mentioned as under:
"Uparukt karmchari ko dinank 03.3.93 ko SF-5 jaari
kiya gaya, parantu unke ghar ka pata na to CDO
Offrice main na to mandal karyalaya main uplabdh
ho saka. Atah uparukt karmachaari ko na to SF-5
bheja ja saka na to uski pavati hi prapt ki jaa saki.
Uparukt karmchaari ko DAR inquiry main shamil hone
ke liye pratek soochana pat par notice dinank 17.4.93,
4.5.93 evem 22.5.93 ko laga kar soochit kiya gaya jo ki
kramank 3 se 7 par sanlagn hai. Prantu aaj tak es
karmchari ke bare main CDO office main na to
soochana prapt hui, na to vah swaim upasthit hua.
Notice ki prati PRO/LKO/NR ko bhi is ashya se bheji
ki iska prachar evam prasar, akhbaar ya anya
madhyam se bhi kar liya jae jo ki kramank 4 par sanlagn
hai."
From perusal of above findings of the Inquiry Officer,
it is evident that the notice was posted on the notice board
on 17.4.93, 4.5.93 and 22.5.93 and has also written the PRO
to publish the same in news paper; but the copy of above
notices dated 17.4.93, 4.5.93 and 22.5.93 or letter of to PRO,
NR do not find reference on the file, which weakens the
case of the management.Thus, there is no documentary
evidence on record to support the version of the
management that it made efforts to inform the workman
about the initiation of the inquiry or of the dates of hearing.
15. A careful scrutiny of the charge sheet dated
03.03.93 shows that the Article-1 to the standard form of
charge sheet bears charge for absence from 19.03.91 and
further the Article-2 bears charge for absence from 28.11.88
there is no charge regarding habitual absence. In the instant
case the workman had allegedly been unauthorisedly absent
since 28.1.88 and the inquiry officer has relied on the office
report etc. The management has not filed copy of inquiry
proceedings to substantiate as to whether any witness or
documentary evidence was produced before the inquiry
officer or not. The management also failed to show that it
make best efforts to make effective service upon the
workman. The plea of the management regarding non-
availability of address of the workman does not seem to be
reasonable as the workman was a regular employee and
service book is being maintained in respect of a regular
employee which has all record in respect of the employee
including his permanent and temporary address.
16. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the
inquiry proceedings held by the management deserves to
be vitiated and the impugned order terminating the services
of the workman w.e.f 26.12.1994 is liable to be declared to
be illegal.
17. Hon'ble Apex Court in Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Coal India Limited and another vs. Mukul Kumar
Choudhuri and others (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 499 directed for
reinstatement of the delinquent for the proved charges of
unauthorized absence for a period of more than six months,
being the punishment of removal unduly harsh and grossly
in excess to the allegations; but withheld the back wage by
the way of punishment for proved misconduct of
unauthorized absence. The Court observed as under:
"In a case like the present one where the misconduct
of the delinquent was unauthorized absence from
duty for six months but upon being charged of such
misconduct, he fairly admitted his guilt and explained
the reasons for his absence by stating that he did
not have any intention nor desired to disobey the
order of higher authority or violate any of the
Company's rules and regulation but the reason was
purely personal and beyond his control and, as a
matter of fact, he sent his resignation which was not
accepted, the order of removal cannot be held to be
justified, since in our judgment, no reasonable
employer would have imposed extreme punishment
of removal in like circumstances. The punishment is
not only unduly harsh but grossly in excess to the
allegations."
In the instant case the workman had allegedly been
unauthorizedly absent since 28.1.88 till the date of issuance
of the charge sheet which has been denied by the workman.
No evidence of the service of notice upon the employees
has been produced; rather it has come in the evidence that
service of notice could not be affected upon the workman
due to non-availability of address. Under these
circumstances, the version of the Railways that "the
workman did not turn up in spite of several notices" appears
to be totally false and devoid of any substance. The
management failed to prove that the inquiry was not
134
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
ex-parte; and also that the inquiry had been conducted in
accordance with the principles of natural justice.
18. Therefore, under the facts and the circumstances
of the case and considering the law, it comes out that the
punishment, imposed by the management upon the
workman for alleged unauthorized absence, as there is
neither any allegation, in the charge sheet, that the workman
was habitual absentee nor there is any evidence on the
record to the effect that the workman was in habit of
absenting himself as of different occasions. Therefore, in
my opinion, the punishment order is not only unduly harsh
but grossly in excess to the allegations, therefore, the
impugned order of removal dated 26.12.1994 is set aside;
and the management is directed to reinstate the workman,
Virendera Kumar, with all consequential benefits, except
the back wages from the date of removal until reinstatement
by the way of punishment for his unauthorized absence.
19. award as above.
Lucknow,
29th November, 2013
Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 76.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy jsyos]
tcyiqj 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] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 147@1993½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&12&2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&41011@1@1993&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 76.—In pursurance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 147/
1993) 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, Jabalpur and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
23/12/2013.
[No. L-41011/1/1993-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/147/93
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
The Divisional Secretary,
National Railway Mazdoor Union,
Railway Station Building,
Jabalpur
...Workman/Union
Versus
Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Jabalpur.
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 18th day of November 2013)
1. As per letter dated 29-3-93 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-41011/
1/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Central
Railway, Jabalpur in terminating the services of
7 employees named below working in non-statutory
subsidized recognised canteen at New Katni Junction
Diesel Shed instead of regularising their services as
per Supreme Court order dated 27-2-90 w.e.f. 1-4-90 is
justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmen
are entitled to? (1) Shri Karan Jaiswal, (2) Shri
Ayodhya Prasad, (3) Shri Dayaram, (4) Shri Girdhari
Bahadur, (5) Shri Ganesh Rao, (6) Shri Ramjanam &
(7) Shri Argun Kori"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party union submitted Statement of Claim at
Page 2/1 to 2/9. Case of Ist party Union is that dispute
concerning the termination of Service of 7 Casual Labours
by the Staff Canteen Management, Diesel Shed, New Katni
Junction is raised by the union. That Karan Jaiswal and 6
others as shown in Annexure A-I were working as Casual
Labour/substitute in the Staff canteen at Diesel Shed, New
Katni Junction. These employees were working on regular
basis without any break from 22-4-1979 onwards and
recovery towards PF etc. were also being made from their
wages by the Canteen Management. That Hon'ble Supreme
Court in its judgment in Case No. 2275-86 of 1982 decided
on 27-2-90 in the matter of M.M.R. Khan and others versus
Union of India and others held that the workers engaged in
statutory candidates and as well as engaged in non-
statutory recognized canteens in the Railway
establishments, are railway employees and they are entitled
to be treated as such. That Railway Board has already
treated the employees of all statutory canteens and 11 Delhi
based non-statutory recognized canteens as Railway
employees w.e.f. 22-10-1980. The employees of other non-
statutory recognized canteens will however be treated as
Railway employees from 1-4-1990. That Ist party workman
were engaged by Managing Committee. They are entitled
to be treated as Railway Servant in accordance with above
judgment. The Board letters dated 18-5-90 also relied for
claiming the benefit.
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
135
3. That Railway Board vide its letter dated 18-5-90
directed Railway Administration that consequent upon the
said judgment of the Supreme Court, the Ministry of
Railways have decided that the employees of subsidized
(Recognised) non-statutory canteens should be treated as
railway employees w.e.f. 1-4-90. That Railway Administration
in compliance with the instructions issued by the Railway
Board extended the benefit of permanent employment to
all the employees of non-statutory canteens functioning
on Jabalpur Division except for the above said 7 Casual
Labours whose services were terminated. By Chairman,
Railway Canteen, Diesel Shed, New Katni Junction vide
letter dated 29-6-92. That these employees were in
employment of the canteen management from 24-7-79. They
were taken over by Railway Administration w.e.f. 1-4-90.
That those employees were entitled for regular scale of
pay after completion of 120 days continuous service on
par with other employees. However said benefit was not
extended to them by canteen management. They were paid
wages on daily rate basis.
4. The Ist party workman submits that they are not
given benefit of the judgment by the Supreme Court and
treated as regular employees from 1-4-90. The Railway Board
while issuing instructions to all concerned also not
discriminated between permanent and temporary
employees exist those 7 retrenched employees illegally.
That they were not granted benefit of Provident Fund. Ist
party workman has referred to various judgments, canteen
employees were treated as regular employees of the
Railway. Ist party has pleaded that their services were
terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, no
retrenchment compensation was paid, notice of termination
was not served on them. On such ground, Ist party is
praying for reinstatement of all 7 employees with
consequential benefits.
5. IInd party No. 1 filed Written Statement at Page
3/1 to 3/3. The IInd party denied material contentions of Ist
party Union. IInd party submits that those 7 employees
were not engaged as casual labour by Railway
Administration. The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court is
not applicable in present case. That the employees may be
employee of the Staff canteen committee but no permission
was obtained from Committee of Railway therefore there is
no question of treating them as casual labour. IInd party
submits that those employees were not granted any
privilege by Railway authorities like passes, leave, payment
of holiday, medical facilities, Uniforms etc. the judgment of
Apex Court relied by Ist party is not applicable.
6. Those employees were not engaged by Railway
Administration. That employees have no right to get any
type of facilities provided by Railway to casual labours on
completion of 120 days services. That those employees
are not entitled to states of regular employees as they were
not engaged by the Railway. The service of those employee
was governed by the terms and conditions applicable to
the employees of Railway Staff Canteen Committee. The
claim of all employees is denied outright. IInd party prays
for rejection of claim.
7. Separate Written Statement is filed by IInd party
No. 3 at Page 4/1 to 4/3. Claim of Ist party is opposed on
identical grounds pleaded by IInd party No. 1, 2.It is further
pleaded that the Railway Staff Canteen is not industry under
section 2(j) of I.D. Act. There are rules for constitution of
the Committee.
8. 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
Is Affirmative
management of Central Railway,
Jabalpur in terminating the
services of 7 employees? (1) Shri
Karan Jaiswal, (2) Shri Ayodhya
Prasad, (3) Shri Dayaram, (4) Shri
Girdhari Bahadur, (5) Shri Ganesh
Rao, (6) Shri Ramjanam & (7)
Shri Argun Kori working in non-
statutory subsidized recognised
canteen at New Katni Junction
Diesel Shed instead of regularising
their services as per Supreme
Court order dated 27-2-90 w.e.f.
1-4-90 is justified?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Relief prayed by
is entitled to?
workmen are
rejected.
REASONS
9. Ist party Union is challenging termination of
services of 7 casual employee working in non-statutory
subsidized canteen at New Katni Junction. The Ist party
union also alleges that as per judgment by Hon'ble Supreme
Court, those employees should be treated as employees of
the Railway Administration from 1-4-90. IInd party denies
all above contentions. Next it is contended by Union that
services of those employees are terminated by the Canteen
Manager without issuing notice in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. The Canteen Manager is not impleaded as
party to the reference. The affidavit of evidence of Ayodhya
Prasad, Dayaram Singh, Arjun Kori, Girdhari Bahadur,
Ramjanam, & Karan Jaiswal are filed. In their affidavit, those
workmen have stated their date of joining as casual labour
in the canteen from 1-1-1982, 1-10-82, 1-5-86, 1-1-83, 1-4-86,
1-1-82 respectively. That they were continuously working
in the canteen. Their services were terminated without
notice from 21-6-92. They were not paid retrenchment
compensation, they have completed more than 240 days
continuous service every calendar year. Ayodhya Prasad
136
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
in his cross-examination says the canteen was run by
society. Appointment letter was not issued to him. He was
member of the Union. He was paying subscription
Rs. 12/-, receipt was received by him. Copy of judgment is
not produced. The termination order is produced at Exhibit
D-1. In his cross-examination says he was working in
canteen. His services were terminated by Mr. Sharma.
Canteen was run by society. He did not see the documents
of the society. Arjun Kori in his cross-examination also
says he was working in Railway canteen. Appointment
letter was not given to him. The canteen was run by society.
Similar evidence is deposed in their cross-examination by
Girdhari Bahadur, Ramjanam, & Karan Jaiswal. The evidence
of all those employees that they were working in the canteen
run by society is not shattered. Their evidence about
termination of services by canteen Manager from 29-6-92
is also not challenged. As stated above, Canteen Manager
is not impleaded as party.
10. Learned counsel for Ist party Union submitted
copy of judgment in case of M.M.R. Khan and others versus
Union of India reported in AIR-1990-SC-937. Their Lordship
held that employees in statutory and non-statutory
recognized Railway canteens are entitled to be treated as
Railway employees but not employees in non-statutory,
non-recognised canteens. Their Lordship further held the
employees in the statutory canteens of the Railways will
have to be treated as Railway servants. The relationship of
employer and employee stands created between the
Railway Administration and the canteen employees from
the very inception. In Para-30 of the judgment, their
Lordship held the workers of the non-statutory, non-
recognised Railway canteen are not entitled to claim the
status of Railway servants.
11. That Ist party Union has not produced any
document that the canteen run by society was recognized
by Railway Administration. Their Lordship observed the
difference between non-statutory recognized and non-
recognised canteen in that these candidates are not
supported with approval of Railway Board as required
under Para 2831 of Railway Establishment Manual. Though
they are started in the premises belonging to the Railways
they are so started with the permission of the local officers.
They are not required to be managed either as per the
provisions of the Railway Establishment Manual or the
Administrative Instructions. There is no obligation on the
Railway Administration to provide them with any facilities
including the furniture, utensils, electricity and water. These
canteens are further not entitled to nor are they given any
subsidies or loans. They are run by private contractors
and there is no continuity either of the contractors or the
workers engaged by them. Very often than not the workers
go out with the contractors. There is further no obligation
cast even on the local offices to supervise the working of
these canteens. No rule whatsoever are applicable to the
recruitment of the workers and their service conditions.
The canteens are run more or less on adhoc basis, the
Railway Administration having no control on their working
neither is there a record of these canteens or of the
contractors who run them who keep on changing much
less of the workers engaged in these canteens.
12. In view of the above observations, the evidence
of witness Canteen Manager Narendra Kumar Bani needs
to be considered. In his affidavit of evidence, Narendra
Bani says he is working as Manager in the Staff canteen
from 1-7-78. 14 employees were engaged in said canteen as
casual labours. Those casual labours are employed by Staff
Canteen Committee. Those employees are not concerned
with Railway Administration. The employees had admitted
that they were casual labours and continued to work as
such. In his cross-examination, he says that he was
appointed as Canteen Manager by the Managing
Committee of the canteen. The appointment letter was not
brought by him. 14 employees were appointed by the
Managing Committee. He has no power to appoint such
employees. Rather he has power to terminate them. The
Secretary is authorized to terminate the casual employees.
The Committee maintains accounts of canteen, the
accounts are audited. The evidence on record doesnot
show that the canteen was recognized by Railway
Administration at any time therefore those 7 casual
employees are not covered in the above cited judgment.
Railway has not appointed those casual employees nor
terminated their services, the Canteen Manager is not
impleaded as party. To be precise all those 7 employees are
not entitled to benefit of judgment in Case of M.M.R. Khan
and others versus Union of India reported in AIR-1990-SC-
937 as canteen was not recognized by Railway
Administration. 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 Central Railway,
Jabalpur in terminating the services of 7 employees
(1) Shri Karan Jaiswal, (2) Shri Ayodhya Prasad, (3)
Shri Dayaram, (4) Shri Girdhari Bahadur, (5) Shri
Ganesh Rao, (6) Shri Ramjanam & (7) Shri Argun
Kori (working in non-statutory subsidized) recognised
canteen at New Katni Junction Diesel Shed instead
of regularising their services as per Supreme Court
order dated 27-2-90 w.e.f. 1-4-90 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workmen are rejected.
R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 77.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj phQ iksLV ekLVj
tujy] Hkksiky ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
137
vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 6@95½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@9@1993&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 77.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/1995)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of Chief Post Master
General, Bhopal, and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24.12.2013.
[No. L-40011/9/1993-IR (DU)]
P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVRNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/6/95
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
The Circle Secretary,
L1 India RMS Avam Motor Dak Sewa Sangh,
132, Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Ratlam
...Workman/Union
Versus
The Chief Post Master General,
M.P. Circle,
Bhopal
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 23rd day of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 29.12.94 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-40011/
9/93-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Chief
Post Master General MP Circle Bhopal for not giving
temporary status to the workers Annexed in the list
(50 workers) is justified or not? If not, to what relief
the workmen are entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party Union filed Statement of claim at Page
3/1 to 3/3. The case of Ist party Union is that its members
claiming temporary status with the management. Several
requests made by the Union will get no result. Therefore
they approached for reference of the dispute. That Chief
Post Master General had engaged number of workers in
Railway Mail Services in various places. Most of the
workers are working since 1982. It is submitted that those
employees are entitled to temporary status as they have
completed more than 240 days service during calendar year.
That Director (Staff), Department of Post, Dak Bhawan was
pleased to give temporary status to workers working as
casual labour as on 29.11.89 who continued to be currently
employed and have referred continuous service of atleast
one year. Such casual workers engaged for 8 hours
including 1/2 hours lunch time will be paid at daily rated
basis of the minimum pay scale of Grade D employees.
Such employees are to be paid DA, HRA, CCA with benefit
of increments, leave etc. That it was decided that after
having rendered continuous service, casual labours will
be treated at par with Grade D employees for purpose of PF
Contribution. Said decision was taken by department in
compliance of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
The decision of department was circulated to all officers
concerned of the Distt. as per memorandum dated 12.4.91.
The officers working in various branches of RMS started
to engage in the work to the workers for 8 hours but shown
on record as 7 hours. It is also alleged that the workers
were given job for 405 hours rendering the number of
workers idle. The Union submits that the right of workers
is violated showing artificial less hours of the workman.
That the employee at 15 No. have completed 240 days
service and they be accorded temporary status.
3. Written Statement of the IInd party is not seen on
record. My predecessor passed award on 2.6.09 in death of
the management and Union. Said award was challenged by
Ist party union filing Writ Petition No. 1006/2009. The Writ
petition was decided on 20.2.2003. Their Lordship observed
that the Tribunal desires its jurisdiction from terms of
reference and it is necessary to adjudicate the reference
and to answer the reference one way or the other. From
perusal of the award, it is apparent that the tribunal has
failed to adjudicate the dispute referred to it. The award
passed by my predecessor is quashed and directions are
issued to adjudicate the dispute in view of the reference
dated 29.12.1994.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Cheif Post Master
General MP Circle Bhopal for not
giving temporary status to the
workers Annexed in the list
(50 workers) is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the
19 workers are entitled
workman is entitled to?
to temporary status
as per final order.
138
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
REASONS
5. Ist party union is flaiming temporary status for 50
workers as per decision of the department as per circular
dated 12.4.91. The said circular was issued in pursuance of
the directions by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is alleged that
after said circular, though the employees were working for
8 hours but their work was shown as 7 hours. The workman
were given job for 4-5 hours rendering the workers idle.
IInd party not filed Written Statement in the matter. The
Union has filed affidavit of several workers. Shri Rajiv
Kumar Sharma filed affidavit of his evidence narrating the
details about the employees were working for 8 hours
including 1/2 hour lunch time. That they are entitled to
temporary status and other benefits of PF, DA, HRA, CCA
and circular dated 12.4.91 was issued. Said witnesses has
also stated that temporary status was given to Shri Basar
Kamal, Rambabu, Subsequently 13 employees were granted
temporary status namely Shri A. Washid Khan, Batanlal,
Mohd. Unis Khan, R.K. Sharma, P. Bhatnagar, Yubraj,
Mahendra Singh, A.K. Gur, C.D. Mehra, Murarilal,
R.K. Soni, Rajkumar and Shri Ranjan Singh. That names of
34 employees who were refused temporary status by IInd
party. The said witness was cross-examined. The witness
has re-affirmed that the workers were required to working 8
hours but working hours are shown as 7 hours. He has
fully submitted his statement in affidavit. His evidence is
not shattered on material aspects. The management filed
affidavit of Shri P.L. Jha. 7 witness of management
emphasized that temporary status was given to the
employees who were working 8 hours per day and
completed 240 days service in a year. The employees who
did not worked as per said norms were not given temporary
status. As per circular dated 12.4.91 in his cross-examination,
management's witness says personally he doesnot know
any of the employees. Attendance was marked in the
registers and not in Kachha register. The temporary status
was granted to employees working for 240 days in an year
till 29.11.89 and working 8 hours in a days. Other workers
were not granted temporary status. The witness of the
management has stated that he had received information
from the Head of Department. Those documents are not
produced on record. The management's witness in his
cross-examination says that Shri Basar Kamal and Rambabu
were granted temporary status. After judgement by CAT,
13 employees were granted temporary status as per
Annexure B, C produced on record. That 15 employees
who were given temporary status, documents can be
produced on record.
6. Affidavit of Union Shri Mahendra Singh is filed
supporting the claim of Union. Said witness in his cross-
examination says that he was granted temporary status.
He was not consent with the relief prayed by Union but he
was supporting the workers who were denied temporary
status. He has referred to the order passed by CAT dated
3.4.97 and temporary status given to 13 employees. The
evidence of this witness has not been cross-examined.
Mohd. Yunus Khan, Wahid Khan filed Identical affidavit
supporting claim of the Union. In W.P.No. 15050/2005,
Hon'ble High Court confirmed judgment and order dated
6.7.04 passed by CAT, Jabalpur in original application No.
599/2002. In para-6 of the judgment, his Lordship has
reproduced para 3 (iii) of Annexure A/3. It provides that if
part time casual labour has served for 480 days in a period
of two years, he will be treated for purpose of recruitment
to have completed one year of service as full time casual
labour. Para-2 of clarificatory letter dated 17.5.89 is also
reproduced at Page 4 of the judgment. Those Casual
labourers who are engaged for a period of 8 hours a day
should be described as full time casual labourers. Those
casual labours who are engaged for a period less than
8 hours a day should be described as part time casual
labourers. All other designations should be discontinued.
The copy of Swamy's Establishment and Administration is
produced on record relating to the part time, full time casual
labours. The management's witness has not produced
documents received by him from Head of Department. No
evidence is produced about working hours of employees.
Therefore I donot find reason to disbelieve evidence of
witness examined by them. During course of argument, it is
made clear that though reference was filed to give temporary
status to 50 employees appointed from 80 to 87 15
employees were already given temporary status, 14 died,
2 employees were also granted temporary status. The claim
in respect of 19 employees needs to be considered i.e. at
Sl. No. 3, 11, 13, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
46, 47 & 48. All those employees are working since long
period; those employees are working since long period
1982 to 1987. They are not granted temporary status only
on the ground that they were not working for 8 hours.
However the management has failed to produce the reports
received from Head of Department. Therefore evidence of
witnesses of Union needs to be accepted. Therefore I hold
that those 19 employees worked for 240 days in an year, 8
hours every day. They are entitled for temporary status.
The action of management denying temporary status as
per circular dated 12.4.91 is illegal. For above reasons, I
record my finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
7. In view of my finding on Point No. 1, the action of
the management is illegal, 19 employees are entitled to
temporary status. Point No. 2 is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Chief Post Master
General MP Circle Bhopal for not giving temporary
status to the 19 employees is illegal.
(2) IInd party management is directed to accord
temporary status to employees at Sl. No. 3, 11, 13, 16,
22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47 & 48
in list annexed with reference.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
139
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 78.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj ch,l,u,y]
vkWfQl vkWQ th,eVh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds
deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|kSfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 22@2004½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40012@61@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh-;w-½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 78.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2004)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of BSNL, Office of the
GMT and their workmen, received by the Central
Government on 24.12.2013.
[No. L-40012/61/2003-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/22/2004
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Jagdish Prasad,
S/o Shri Mohanlal,
R/o Vill. Nishatpura West,
H.No. 29, Nariyal Kheda,
Near Police Chowki,
Bhopal (MP)
...Workman
Versus
The Divisional Engineer (Admn),
BSNL, Office of the GMT,
Bhopal (MP)
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 9th day of July 2013)
1. As per letter dated 16-2-2004 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-40012/
61/2003-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of Divisional
Engineer (Admn) BSNL, Bhopal in terminating the
services of Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Mohanlal is
justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled
for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 6/1 to 6/5. It is case of Ist party workman that his
services are terminated by IInd party in violation of Section
25-F of I.D. Act. He was initially appointed on 1-6-88 and
he continued to work satisfactorily till 1999. He had worked
for more than 240 days during each of the year. Without
issuing any notice or holding enquiry, his services are
terminated. Principles of Ist come last go was not followed,
other junior employees are continued in service. His
services are illegally terminated. he has submitted duty
chart of employees. He is discriminated by the IInd party.
He has lost his earning source after termination of his
services. He prays for his reinstatement with back wages.
3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to
11/2. It is submitted that workman was never appointed by
management of IInd party. The workman has not worked
from 1-6-88 to 1999 as claimed by him. It is denied that
services of workman are terminated in violation of Section
25-F. As workman was never appointed by management,
provisions of said section are not attracted. It is submitted
that appointments in establishment of IInd party is governed
by rules. That services of Shri Ramsharan Malviya,
Smt. Rama Devi Sharma, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Usha
Pancholi were regularized as they fulfilled conditions as
per the scheme framed by management. The allegation of
workman are baseless. The document relied by workman
was not verified or certified by the officer of the
management. That as per ratio held in different cases by
Apex court temporary employees are not entitled for
regularization. IInd party prayed for rejection of claim prayed
by workman.
4. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for my consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i)
Whether the action of the
In Negative
management of Divisional
Engineer (Admn) BSNL, Bhopal in
terminating the services of Shri
Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Mohanlal
is legal?
(ii) If so, to what relief the workman
As per final order.
is entitled to?
REASONS
5. Workman filed affidavit of evidence covering most
of the facts in his statement of claim. That he had completed
240 days during each of the calendar year. he was working
from 1988 to 1999. He was not paid retrenchment
compensation, no notice was issued to him. His junior
140
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
employees were regularized. Shri Ramsharan Malviya,
Smt. Rama Devi Sharma, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Usha
Pancholi's services were regularized. He has also stated
that he was paid wages in the name of Raju before
termination of his services. In his cross-examination,
workman says that he had not seen public duties for the
post he was working. He had not received such notice. He
doesnot know which kind of notice were published before
regularizing service of the junior employees. He has not
submitted application for appointment. His oral interview
was taken, appointment letter was not issued. His first
appointment was as MDF Selling incharge. He was
appointed on 1-1-88. He had worked in MDF for 6-7 years.
He worked for 240 days during each of the calendar year.
His evidence about working 240 days in each of calendar
year is confirmed in cross-examination. The evidence of
workman on above point is not shattered. Management's
witness A.K. Balpande tried to support the defence of
management of IInd party that as per record available with
BSNL, workman was not engaged by the management. The
claim of workman for regularization is baseless. In his cross-
examination, witness of the management says in Bhopal,
he was working from 1987 to 1992. He had not seen workman
working at Bhopal. While management's witness was
working at Bhopal, he had seen Vinod Kumar, Anupam
Shrivastava working in the office. That he had not seen
ecord of casual employees since 1988 since record is not
maintained. The order dated 15-12-2001 was issued by the
office. The document Exhibit W-1 shows that workman
was appointed as Maali from 1-6-88. Document Exhibit W-
2 is his application submitted by workman shows that he
was working on establishment of IInd party from 1-6-86 to
1990. He prayed for regularization of his service. Document
Exhibit W-3 shows that since employees were regularized
as per said order, namely Shri Ramsharan Malviya, Smt.
Rama Devi Sharma, Smt. Sushila Devi, Smt. Usha Pancholi.
Evidence of workman is corroborated.
6. Workman had submitted application for
regularization of his service but it was not considered. The
reply was given to his application. The management's
witness has no knowledge about working of the workman.
He had not seen the relevant record. Therefore the action
of management terminating services of workman
Jagdish Prasad, S/o Shri Mohanlal is illegal. Accodingly I
record my finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.
7. Point No. 2—In view of finding on Point No. 1 that
the services of workman are illegally terminated without
compliance of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, his application for
regularization was not considered, junior employees are
regularized, question is what relief the workman is entitled.
Workman is not regular employee, his services are illegally
terminated violating Section 25-F of I.D. Act, Reinstatement
with back wages is not appropriate. Reasonable
compensation Rs. 75,000 will be appropriate considering
the circumstances of the case. In addition to above, IInd
party shall pay one month's notice pay, retrenchment
compensation for 150 days for 10 years service. For above
reasons, I record my finding on Point No. 2 accordingly.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) The action of the management of Divisional Engineer
(Admn) BSNL, Bhopal in terminating the services of
Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Mohanlal is legal.
(2) Management is directed to pay compensation
Rs. 75,000 to the workman. In addition to above, IInd
party shall pay one month's notice pay, retrenchment
compensation for 150 days for 10 years service.
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] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 79.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ikykou xzkeh.k
cSad 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]
psUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 59@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@22@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 79.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/2011)
of the Cent. Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute
between the management of Pallavan Gramin Bank and
their workmen, received by the Central Government on
24/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/22/2011-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
CHENNAI
Wednesday, the 20th November, 2013
PRESENT:
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
141
Industrial Dispute No. 59/2011
(In the matter of the dispute of adjudication under
clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section
10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between
the Management of Pallavan Grama Bank and their
workman)
BETWEEN :
Sri K. Duraisamy
:
1st Party/Petitioner
AND
The Chairman
:
2nd Party/Respondent
Pallavan Grama Bank
Head Office
No. 6, Yercaud Road
Salem-7
APPEARANCE:
For the 1st Party/Petitioner
:
M/s P.S. Ratnamani,
Union
Advocates
For the 2nd Party/
:
M/s L. Jayakumar &
Management
Associates,
Advocates
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, vide its Order No. L-12012/22/2011-IR(B-II)
dated 20.06.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute
to this Tribunal for adjudication.
The schedule mentioned in that order is:
"Whether the action of the management of Pallavan
Grama Bank in dismissing Sri K. Duraisamy, Sweeper-
cum-Messenger, Valathi Branch is legal and justified?
To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"
2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal
has numbered it as ID 59/2011 and issued notice to both
sides. Both sides have entered appearance through counsel
and filed Claim and Counter Statement respectively.
However, at the stage of evidence the Respondent has
remained absent and has been set exparte.
3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are
these:
The petitioner was working as Sweeper-cum-
Messenger with the Respondent Bank in its Valathi Branch.
While in service the petitioner received a letter from the
Respondent alleging certain misconducts on the part of
the petitioner. It was alleged that one Elumalai had entrusted
Ration Card and other documents alongwith an amount of
Rs. 500 with the petitioner for opening an account in the
bank, but the petitioner failed to make necessary
arrangements for opening the account. It was also alleged
that the petitioner had obtained Rs. 500 from one Velu
promising him to arrange loan and that when Velu requested
the amount back, the petitioner threatened him. It was also
alleged that the petitioner had received Rs. 750 from one
Kesavan promising to arrange Bullock Cart Loan and when
Kesavan demanded the amount back the petitioner refused.
The Respondent had initially put the petitioner under
suspension by order dated 29.12.2007. Then a Show Cause
Notice was issued to the petitioner. The Show Cause Notice
alleged that apart from the above misconducts the
petitioner had exerted pressure on Velu and Kesavan to
withdraw their complaints. A departmental enquiry was
conducted against the petitioner. On the basis of the
findings in the enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from
service. Though an appeal was filed by the petitioner
against the order of the Disciplinary Authority that also
was dismissed. The petitioner did not commit any of the
misconducts alleged against him. An order may be passed
directing the Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in
service with all attendant benefits.
4 The Respondent has filed Counter Statement
contending as follows:
The petitioner was charge sheeted by the
Respondent for acts of misappropriation in securing illegal
gratification and for destroying evidence. The petitioner
has unauthorizedly received Rs. 500 from a party for
opening a SB Account and had misappropriated the amount.
He had also received illegal gratification by way of cash
from two customers of the Bank promising loans. The
petitioner had also attempted to influence the above two
customers by exerting pressure on them for withdrawing
their complaints alleging illegal gratification. The petitioner
has thus attempted to destroy evidence. Charges were
framed against the petitioner for the above offences. An
enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the report of the
enquiry that all the three charges against the petitioner are
proved, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner is
not entitled to any relief.
5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence
of the petitioner examined as WW1 and the documents
marked as Exs. W1 to Ex.W15. The respondent having
remained absent after examination of the petitioner, no oral
or documentary evidence is available on the side of the
Respondent.
6. The Points for consideration are:
(i) Whether there is any justification in the action of the
Respondent in dismissing the petitioner from its
service?
(ii) What is the relief if any, to which the petitioner is
entitled?
The Points :
7. On going through the file of the departmental
enquiry conducted by the Respondent, I find that it was
142
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
conducted in a fair and proper manner. The petitioner was
represented in the enquiry by a co-worker. No argument
has been advanced before me to the effect that the enquiry
was not conducted fairly and properly. In fact even in the
Claim Statement itself the petitioner has been referring to
the enquiry file to justify his contention. During his
arguments also the counsel for the petitioner has mainly
been relying upon the material placed before the Enquiry
Officer.
8. The petitioner has filed affidavit of examination
reiterating his case in the Claim Petition. He was cross-
examined by the counsel for the Respondent also. He has
stated in his affidavit that the finding in the Disciplinary
Proceedings is without any justification.
9. The proceedings against the petitioner was stated
by the letter dated 29.11.2007 sent to him by the Head
Office of the Bank. In this letter marked as Ex.W1, it is
stated that the petitioner had committed irregularities while
working as Sweeper-cum-Messenger in Valathi Branch of
the Bank. Firstly it is alleged that he has received Rs. 500
from one Elumalai on 11.08.2007 alongwith opening forms,
copy of ration card and his photograph for the purpose of
opening a new Savings Bank Account with the Branch,
but he had not remitted the amount to the Bank's books
and the account was not opened in the name of Elumalai. It
is alleged that when the wife of Elumalai called on the Branch
on 13.08.2007 for getting the Pass Book he denied to have
received the amount from her husband, but when the
Inspector of Branches advised him to remit the disputed
amount if he had actually received it, he had handed over
the amount and got the same remitted to Cash Department.
Secondly, it is stated that one Velu has preferred a complaint
on 29.05.2007 alleging that the petitioner had obtained
Rs. 500 from him promising enhanced crop loan limit but
had not extended any help in securing the loan. It is further
alleged that another complaint has been received from one
Kesavan on 26.05.2007 alleging that he had obtained
Rs. 750 from Kesavan promising to arrange a Bullock Cart
Loan. Ex W2 is the reply given to the letter by the petitioner
denying the allegations. However, he has admitted even in
his reply letter that he has paid Rs. 500 alleged to have
been received from Elumalai though according to him it
was only to avoid an ugly situation and not because he
had received the money. Ex W3 is the order of suspension
on the petitioner. Ex.W4 is the Show Cause Notice issued
to the petitioner asking him why disciplinary action should
not be initiated against him for the irregularities allegedly
conducted by him. The order of suspension seems to have
been revoked and the petitioner is seen posted at another
branch of the Respondent Bank by Ex.W5 order. Ex. W7 is
the file regarding the enquiry conducted against the
petitioner. For the purpose of enquiry, apart from the
irregularities earlier referred to a charge that the petitioner
had exerted pressure and influenced Kesavan and Velu
from whom he had allegedly obtained illegal gratification
also is seen incorporated. The Enquiry Officer has found
that all the charges framed against the petitioner are proved.
The comments of the petitioner was called for in respect of
the findings of the enquiry as seen from Ex. W9 and he had
given his reply which is marked as Ex.W10. Ex. W11 is the
order of the disciplinary authority proposing punishment.
By Ex.W12 the punishment of removal from service was
imposed on the petitioner.
10. In the enquiry proceedigs Elumalai from whom
the petitioner had allegedly received Rs. 500 and Velu and
Kesavan from whom he had received Rs. 500 and
Rs. 750 respectively were examined. The English translation
of the deposition of these witnesses have been furnished
to me for perusal. It could be seen on going through the
evidence of Kesavan and Velu that these witnesses have
retracted from their allegation allegedly made by them
against the petitioner by way of written complaints. Velu
has stated during his examination that he was a customer
of the Respondent Bank for 15 years. He has stated that he
had earlier availed Jewel Loan and Crop Loan from the
bank. Accodring to him he had applied for crop loan for
conducting his daughter's marriage but the loan was not
given and he was harassed for almost 25 days. He was
disgusted on account of this and he had filed complaint
against the petitioner. He has stated during his examination
that he had not given any money to the petitioner at all.
However, he admitted during his examination that the
signature found in the complaint against the petitioner is
that of his itself.
11. The evidence given by Kesavan also is in tune
with the evidence given by Velu. He had stated that he had
given a complaint against the petitioner, but it was because
the Manager refused to give him further loan. He seems to
have written a letter immediately after his complaint against
the petitioner stating that he has not paid any money to
the petitioner. He has stated during his examination that he
was in an intoxicated state when he wrote the complaint.
12. In spite of the refusal of these two witnesses to
support the Management the Enquiry Officer has entered
a finding that the petitioner has accepted money from
thsese two witnesses as stated in their complaints.
According to the Enquiry Officer, the witnesses have
retracted from their statements on account of the pressure
exercised by the petitioner who was very much concerned
about retaining his job with the Respondent Bank. As
pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner there is no
direct evidence at all to show that any pressure has been
exercised upon these witnesses by the petitioner. Becuase
these two witness have retracted from their version in the
complaint allegedly given by them the enquiry officer has
assumed that pressure was exercised by the petitioner.
13. It could be seen that the two complaints allegedly
made by Velu and Kesavan are of an earlier date than the
complaint that was given by Elumalai. However, no action
seems to have been taken against the petitioner on the
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
143
basis of these complaints before the incident referring to
Elumalai occurred in the Bank. The Respondent has not
stated why the above complaints, though of earlier dates
were kept in the cold storage. In the normal course the
management who had taken action regarding the incident
in respect of Elumalai immediately should have acted in
such manner regarding the complaints said to have been
given by Velu and Kesavan also. In such circumstsnce,
there was no justification in the Enquiry Officer finding
that pressure has been exercised by the petitioner upon
these two withnesses. When the witnesses have
categorically stated before the Enquiry Officer that they
have not paid any amount to the petitioner there was no
justification for the Enquiry Officer to find otherwise on
the basis of the complaints said to have been given by
them earlier. So the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding
the charges on the basis of the alleged complaints of Velu
and Kesavan and the charge of exertion of pressure are
without any justification.
14. Now what remains for consideration is the charge
based on the allegation made by Elumalai that Rs. 500 has
been entrusted alongwith other necessary documents with
the petitioner for the purpose of opening an SB Account
but it was not done and the petitioner has denied to have
obtained the money from him at all. Elumalai has been
examined as W2 in the enquiry proceedings. He has
deposed that he had wanted to avail housing loan of
Rs. 5000 on the basis of his LIC policy but the bank had
stated that he should have an account to avail loan. When
he went to the bank on 10.08.2007 he was asked to bring a
photograph. Xerox copy of the ration card, surely and the
money. On the next day which happened to be saturday, he
had gone to the Bank with all these. He was told that it was
late on the day to open the Bank account. The petitioner
had asked him to hand over all the documents and money
to him and he had obliged. He had sent his wife to the Bank
on 13.08.2007 to get the Pass Book. However, the petitioner
stated to his wife that he did not receive money from
Elumalai. His wife informed him about this and they together
went to the bank again and met the petitioner. The petitioner
insisted that he had not taken money from Elumalai. An
Officer of the Bank opened the drawer of the petitioner and
it was found to contain the photograph of Elumalai, Xerox
copy of his ration card and also his application form. After
this an account was opened in his name and a Pass Book
was given to him. He stated that he does not know who
paid the money for opening the account. he stated during
his cross-examination that he was not aware that the money
is to be paid at the counter and this is why he had paid it to
be petitioner.
15. On a perusal of the evidence of Elumalai. I do not
find any reason to discard his evidence that the petitioner
had received Rs. 500 alongwith the documents for opening
an account. It is very much clear from the evidence in the
enquiry proceedings itself that the documents required for
opening an account by Elumalai were discovered from the
drawer of the petitioner and it was after this the account
was opened in the name of Elumalai. If all the documnets
were entrusted with the petitioner it is only natural that
minimum amount required for opening the account also
was also entrusted with the petitioner. There is admission
by the petitioner that he himself had paid the money for
opening the account. He has admitted in his affidavit itself
that he had paid the money. If actually he had not received
the amount it was not necessary for him to oblige the
superior officer of the branch by paying the money to enable
Elumalai to open the account. The circumstances certainly
point out to the misconduct committed by the petitioner in
this respect. The Enquiry Officer was perfectly justified in
entering such a finding.
16. Now the question to be considered is whether
the Respondent Bank is justified in imposing the grave
punishment of dismissal from service on the petitioner. I
have already found that Charges-2, 3 and 4 made against
the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings are not
established. These is no case for the Respondent that the
petitioner has antecedents of such misconduct. The
petitioner who has thought of denying receipt of the amount
from Elumalai has paid the amount when he became aware
of the consequences. When the nature of the offence and
this conduct of the petitioner in paying the amount
immediately is taken into account I feel that the Respondent
was not justified in taking the drastic measure of dismissal
of the petitioner from service. The proceedings have started
as early as in November 2007. The petitioner was dismissed
from service by order dated 23.10.2008. Five years have
elapsed after the dismissal. The petitioner was without any
employment and without any wages during this period.
The denial of wages for the period itself will be sufficient
punishment for the petitioner for the misconduct committed
by him. The punishment of dismissal from service is not in
proportion to the gravity of the offence committed. The
petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.
17. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service within a month. The
petitioner will not be entitled to wages for the period from
the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. He will
be entitled to continuity of service and all other benefits.
18. The reference is answered accordingly.
(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this
day the 20th November, 2013)
K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer
Witnesses Examined
For the Ist Party/Petitioner
: WW1, Sri M. Kalaiarasan
For the 2nd Party/Management : None
144
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Documents Marked:
On the petitioner's side
Ex. No.
Date
Description
Ex. W1
29.11.2007
Letter for the Chairman of the
Bank
Ex. W2
20.12.2007
Petitioner's reply to the letter
of the Chairman of the Bank
Ex. W3
29.12.2007
Letter of Suspension
Ex. W4
18.06.2008
Show Cause Notice
Ex. W5
09.07.2008
Revocation of suspension and
transfer order
Ex. W6
12.07.2008
Reply to Show Cause Notice
Ex. W7
30.01.2009
Adjudication of the Enquiry
Officer
Ex. W8
09.10.2009
Enquiry Report
Ex. W9
16.10.2009
Show Cause Notice
Ex. W10
02.11.2009
Reply to Show Cause Notice
Ex. W11
06.01.2010
Show Cause Notice by the
Chairman as to imposition of
punishment
Ex. W12
28.01.2010
Order of dismissal
Ex. W13
21.02.2007
Pallavan Grama Bank (Officers
and
Servants)
Service
Regulation 2007
Ex. W14
04.03.2010
Appeal by the petitioner
Ex. W15
19.06.2010
Order passed in the appeal
On the Management's side
Ex.No.
Date
Description
N/A
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 80.—vkSn~;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 vuqca/k
esa fufnZ"V vkSn~;ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkSn~;ksfxd vf/kdj.k]
vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 393@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh
gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@512@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 80.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 393/2004) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad 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
24/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/512/2000-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT
Binay Kumar Sinha, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour
Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 21st October, 2013
Reference (C.G.I.T.A.) No. 393 of 2004
Reference I.T.C. No. 47 of 2001 (old)
Reference (ITC) No. 319 of 2009
The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India,
Gujarat Vepari Mahamandal,
Industrial Branch,
Odhav road, Ahmedabad
(Gujarat)-382430
........First Party
And
Their Workman
Shri Jayeshgiri Natvargiri Gosai
Through the General Secretary
Gujarat Shramjivi Parishad,
Near Dwarkanath Hindi Higher
Secondary School, Gujarat Vepari
Mahamandal, Tolnaka, Odhav Road,
Ahmedabad (Gujarat)-382430 .............Second Party
For the First Party
: Shri Bhushan K. Oza, Advocate
For the Second Party
: Shri R.B. Chowdhary, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New
Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/512/2000-IR(B-I) dated
24.07.2001, in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the
I.D. Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication in terms
of reference under the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the demand of Gujarat Shramjivi Parishad,
Ahmedabad for reinstatement with full back wages
along with continuity of service and all consequential
benefits in respect of Shri Jayeshgiri Natvargiri Gosai
by the management of State Bank of India in
justified?"
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
145
If so, to what relief the concerned workman is
entitled?"
2. The case of the second party/workman/Union is
that Jayeshgiri was working since 22.06.1994 as watchman
as permanent employee with sincerity and devotion and
he was being paid Rs. 100 per day as the rate of minimum
wages. He was working daily 12 hours and if any day there
was any delay in duty then he was threatened by
responsible person of Bank to terminate him. Due to fear of
losing service he could not make complaint before
appointment authority. He was not given benefits like
earned leave, festival leave, bonus, overtime for extra work
etc. So he decided to raise voice against the management
of Bank as a result he was terminated w.e.f. 03.02.2000 by
the 1st party illegally without complying with the provision
of labour law. No show cause notice was asked from him,
no departmental enquiry held against any alleged
misconduct and the provision of section 25F, 25G and 25H
of the I.D. Act, 1947 have been breached by the 1st party
employer. The workman Jayeshgiri completed 240 days of
works in every year prior to his termination. On these scores,
prayer is to declare his termination illegal and unjust and to
reinstate him with full back wages with continuity of service
and consequential benefits on the original post and also
with cost of Rs. 5001 and also for any other relief to which
the workman is found entitled.
3. As against this, the contention of the 1st party
Bank as per its written statement Ext. 10 is that the 2nd
party workman was not appointed as permanent employee
on 22.06.1994. This also untrue that he was getting Rs. 100 per
day and was working for twelve hours a day. Rather the
real fact is that the 2nd party workman Jayeshgiri was kept
as watchman on stopgap arrangements on temporary basis
from 26.06.1994 and since there was no need for his duty
so there was no need for his duty so he was terminated
from 03.02.2000. He was getting Rs. 70 towards daily wages
which was raised to Rs. 100 per day. He was engaged
intermittently and he never worked condtinuously. The
workman was working as home guard in the state of Gujarat
and he was kept temporary for doing night duty of
watchman in the said branch of Bank on daily rated basis.
The Bank used to engage ex-service man for duty of night
watchman in the bank where as concerned workman
Jayeshgiri was working as a home guard in the state of
Gujarat and so for a stop gap arrangement he was kept for
duty in the night as watchman. Concerned workman was
not given any appointment letter since his engagement as
night guard (watchman) was not done under the process
of recruitment rules for regular employee. He never
completed 240 days of work in a year and so there was no
need for compliance of the provision of section 25F of the
I.D. Act and the 1st party has not also violated the provision
of section 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act. The reference is not
maintainable; the 2nd party has no cause of action. The
2nd party is not entitled for any relief and the reference is
liable to be dismissed.
4. In view of the rival contention of the parties in
their pleadings, the following issues are taken up for
consideration and adjudication:
ISSUES
(i) Is the reference maintainable?
(ii) Whether the 2nd party/Union has valid cause of
action for raising the demand?
(iii) Whether the concerned workman Jayeshgiri Gosai
has completed 240 days of works in the calendar
year preceding his oral termination on 03.02.2000?
(iv) Whether the 2nd party workman/Union is entitled to
the relief of reinstatement and back wages along with
continuity of service as per terms of reference?
(v) What orders are to be passed?
FINDINGS
5. ISSUE No. iii:— The 2nd party through a list Ext.11
produced four kinds of documents. Ext. 11/1 is the copy of
representation dated 19.06.2000 submitted to the
conciliation officer (A.L.C.) central on the subject of
reinstatement of the workmen with full back wages and
continuity of service by the Union General Secretary and
its copy sent to the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Gujarat Vepari
Mahamandal Adyogik branch, Odhav Road, Ahmedabad,
(the present 1st party). Ext. 11/2 is acknowledgement due
of copy of letter sent to the Chief Manager S.B.I. of said
branch. Ext. 11/3 series are attendance sheet of the 2nd
party Jayeshgiri Natvargiri Gosai from 22.06.1994 and
onward regarding his night duty as watchman in the said
branch of S.B.I. from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. containing his
signature and also containing seal of the S.B.I., Odhav
Branch. These attendance sheet are in 85 pages from
22.06.1994 to 02.02.2000. Ext.11/4 is copy of certificate dated
05.02.2000 given to the concerned workman that the
services of Shri Jayeshgiri Natvargiri Gosai as a watchman
had been utilised as and when required by the Bank since
22.06.1994. The conduct of Shri Gosai has been satisfactory.
The concerned workman Jayeshgiri deposed in oral
evidence vide Ext. 12 and supported his stand that he
worked as watchman from 22.06.1994 to 02.02.2000 as night
guard in the Odhav branch of S.B.I. His evidence is that he
was appointed on permanent post. But admitted during
cross examination by the lawyer of the 1st party that no
appointment letter was issued to him going through the
recruitment process. He admitted that his wages was daily
rated and that his name was not sponsored by the
employment exchange. In his oral evidence, it has come
that from 22.06.1994 to 02.02.2000 he completed 240 days
of work every calendar year. However, he admitted at page
7 of his oral evidence that he was a home guard appointed
by the state of Gujarat and that when he joined bank as
146
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
watchman before that he was serving as home guard and
that in the day he was working as a home guard and in the
night he was performing duty of watchman in the said
branch of Bank.
6. The 1st party did not adduce oral evidence of
management witness, rather relied upon its stand taken in
written statement also find support during cross
examination of workman Jayeshgiri (Ext. 12) where in it was
admitted by the concerned workmen that he was appointed
home gaurd and in day time he was doing home guard duty
and in the night performing duty of night watchman in
Odhav branch of S.B.I. and that he was being paid Rs. 100 on
daily basis and that he was not appointed as regular
employee of Bank, no appointment letter was given to him,
his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange.
7. From the evidence oral and documentary discussed
above, this fact is well proved that Shri Jayeshgiri Natvargiri
Gosai completed 240 days of work on daily rated basis in
every calendar year and also in the calendar year preceding
his oral termination w.e.f. 03.02.2000. So before his
retrenchment the employer (1st party) had legal obligation
u/s 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 for giving him retrenchment
compensation and notice pay which was not complied with
by the 1st party.
8. This issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the
2nd party workman Shri Jayeshgiri Gosai that he completed
240 days of work in the calendar year preceding oral
termination on 03.02.2000.
9. ISSUE NO. iv:—Shri R.B. Chowdhary learned
Union representative argued that since the employer Bank
(1st party)had violated the mandatory provision of section
25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. So the concerned
workman who completed 240 days of work in every year is
entitled for reinstatement to the post of night guard in
Odhav Branch of S.B.I. with full back wages and continuity
of service. In support of such argument Mr. Chowdhary
has relied upon the case law of Devinder Singh-appellant
Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur—respondent (2001) (6)
Supreme Court cases 584. But from perusal of this case law
it is obvious that the same is based on termination of a
workman engaged on contract basis and that too
termination was affected one month before his contractual
engagement was to expire as the workman had worked for
more than 240 days within definition of section 25B of I.D.
Act. In the instant case the status of the 2nd party workman
Jayeshgiri was not as that of contractual engagement his
engagement was as that of daily rated worker and more so
in day time he was working as home guard appointed under
the state of Gujarat and in the night he had been engaged
on daily rated basis by the management of Odhav branch
of S.B.I. On recommendation of local Odhav Police for
protecting bank property from thief active in that locality.
More so, concerned workman Jayeshgiri was gaining
double income in the day time getting wages/salary as
home guard from the state Government of Gujarat and in
the night duty of night watchman was getting daily rated
wages from the bank (1st party). So it cannot be expected
as to his regular appointment as bank's night guard on
recommendation of local police when the fact was quite
known that he is appointed home guard under the service
of state of Gujarat. So the case law relied upon (Supra) on
behalf of the 2nd party Union is not applicable to the facts
and circumstances of the instant case. The case law of
Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Nathuram (2010 LLR 97
S.C.) as relied on by Mr. Chowdhary for back wages does
not appear to be applicable in the instant case because in
the given case law the fact was that the respondent was
appointed as a casual labour in the erstwhile Rajasthan
State Electricity Board was caught accepting bribe by Anti-
Corruption Bureau and in appeal High Court acquitted
respondent of charges levelled against him and the
corporation (Jaipur Vidhyut Nigam Ltd.) reinstated the
respondent and after retirement from service the respondent
filed writ petition for grant of back wages as per regulation
of the management/corporation provide that in case of
acquittal of an employee charged for any offence, he will
be entitled to full back wages and so back wages to the
respondent was allowed. The case law of state of Punjab
and others-appellant Vs. Babita Kumari 2006 S.C.C. (L&S)
396 also does not come to the rescue of the 2nd party
workman claiming for reinstatement with full back wages
because of change of the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in catena decision that a casual labour/worker even
completed 240 days of work in some Calendar year is not
entitled for reinstatement with back wages as a matter of
right in case of violation of the provision of section 25F of
the I.D. Act, 1947 by the employer rather reasonable
monetary compensation will sub serve the ends of Justice.
Shri Bhushan K. Oza, learned counsel for the 1st party
(Bank) has relied upon the case of senior superintendent
Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal (2010(0)
GLH.EL.SC 48285=2010(6) SCC773=2010(3) CLR17. Yet in
another case law of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs.
Mansingh and others (2011 STPL (web 966 S.C) it has been
held by their Lordship that this Court in catena of decisions
has clearly laid down that although an order of retrenchment
passed in violation of section 25F I.D. Act may be set aside
but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This
court has distinguished between a daily wager who does
not hold a post as that of a permanent employee and that
instead monetary compensation would meet the ends of
Justice.
10. In view of the facts and circumstances of the
instant case discussed above and also keeping in view the
case laws cited on behalf of the parties. I am of the
considered view that the 2nd party workman Shri Jayeshgiri
Natvargiri Gosai is not entitled to reinstatement to work on
the post to which he was performing as a daily rated wager
prior to 03.02.2002 in spite of his retrenchment without
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
147
following the provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
As he is not entitled to any back wages because he was
not holding post as that of a regular/permanent employee.
Instead he is found entitled for a reasonable monetary
compensation in this case which is to be examined what
amount of reasonable compensation is to be awarded to
him keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the
case while discussing issue No. V.
11. In view of he discussion above, I find and hold
that the 2nd party workman is not entitled for reinstatement
with or without back wages and for continuity of service.
This issue is decided accordingly against the 2nd party.
12. ISSUE No. V.:—Considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case that the 2nd party workman
Shri Jayshgiri Natvargiri Gosai is in gainful employment of
a home guard under the state of Gujarat even after his oral
termination w.e.f. 03.02.2000. So, there is no such case for
grant of huge monetary compensation to him, rather a lump
sum compensation of Rs. 40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand
Only) is found reasonable to be awarded to the 2nd party
Shri Jayeshgiri Gosai which will sub serve the ends of
justice.
13. ISSUE NO. I & II:—This reference is maintainable
so far as entitlement of compensation from the 1st party
(Bank) is concerned and so in this way the 2nd party/
Union has valid cause of action to raise the dispute.
This reference is accordingly allowed in part. No order
as to cost.
That 1st party is directed to pay the amount of
compensation of Rs. 40,000 to the 2nd party Shri jayeshgiri
Natvargiri Gosai with interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of this award.
This is my award.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 81.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj y{eh foykl
cSad fyñ izcaè ra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp
vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vfèdj.k vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 106@2005½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2013 izkir gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@74@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 81.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 106/2005) of
the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
and their workmen, received by the Central Government on
24/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/74/2005-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer, CGIT-
cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad,
Dated 24th October, 2013
Reference: (CGITA) No. 106/2005
The General Manager,
Laxmi Vilas Bank Ltd.
Personnel Department,
Administrative Office,
Karur-639006, Karur
.....First Party
AND
Ms. Nayana K. Bhutwala,
67-68-11,
Hari Hari Cooperative Housing Society-1
Near Katargam Main Road,
Surat-395004
Surat (Gujarat)
......Second Party
AWARD
The Central Government/Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vides Order No. L-12012/74/2005 IR(B-I) dated
08.11.2005 under clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub
section (2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947, referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal
on terms of reference in the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of management by dismissing
Ms. Nayana K. Bhutwala, Ex-staff from the service
of the Bank is legal and justified? If no, what relief
the workman is entitled to? And to what extent?"
2. Even after several notice was issued the workman
(S.P.) though appeared at Surat when the case record was
pending before Industrial Tribunal, Surat but failed to
submit statement of claim. On transfer of the case record to
this C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court by the order of M.O.L.,
New Delhi, again fresh notice sent to the parties to appear
before this Tribunal and to file S/c and W.S. respectively,
the workman (the 2nd party) failed to appear before this
Tribunal. There is no statement of claim in support of this
Industrial dispute. However, the 1st party filed pursis
148
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
(Ext. 18) to close or dispose of this case due to absence of
the 2nd party (workman).
3. The 2nd party since failed to file statement of claim
and so no need to keep this case record awaiting for filing
of S/c. So the workman (S.P.) has failed to prove that the
action of management by dismissing her from the services
of the Bank is not legal and justified. The S.P. (workman) is
not entitled to any relief. Reference is, therefore, answered
in favour of the management of Bank (1st Party).
The reference is dismissed. No order as to cost.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 82.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dk èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa
fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k]
vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1104@2004½ izdkf'kr djrh gS
tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@255@98&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 82.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 1104/2004)
of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial
dispute between the management of Statement Bank of
India and their workmen, recieved by the Central
Government on 24/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/255/98-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
AHMEDABAD
PRESENT
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-
Labour Court, Ahmedabad
Dated 18th October, 2013
Reference: CGITA No. 1104 of 2004
Reference (ITC) No. 06 of 1999 (old)
1. The General Manager,
State Bank of India,
(Development & Personnel Banking)
Lal Darwaja, Bhadra
2. The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Surendranagar Branch,
Surendranagar-363001
.......First Party
And
Their Workman
Shri Mansukh Popatlal Vaaghela
Dr. Ambedkar Nagar No.-1,
Opp. Ambedkar Chowk,
Cause Way Road, Surendranagar-1
Second Party
For the 1st party : Shri Prakash S. Gogia, Advocate
For the 2nd party : Shri Nalin U. Bhatta, Advocate
AWARD
The Central Government/Ministry of Labour,
New Delhi vide its order No. L-12012/255/98-IR(B-I) dated
12.3.1999 in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of
sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, referred the dispute for
adjudication in terms of reference under the Schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank
of India, Ahmedabad/Surendranagar in terminating
the services of Shri Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela is
legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned
workman is entitled to?"
2. The case of the workman (the 2nd party) as per
statement of claim (Ext. 2) is that he was working at
Surendranagar branch of SBI as a peon w.e.f. 11.3.1994 and
wages per day was Rs. 18 and lastly he was getting
Rs. 50 per day at the time of termination. He was doing
manual works of different types regularly and his works
was of permanent nature and he was working from
8.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. But he was orally terminated by the
1st party on 9.9.1997 and he was not given legal dues or
any retrenchment compensation, where as he worked for
240 days in a year. He worked for 77 days in 1994, 260 days
in 1995, 251 days in 1996 and 122 days in 1997. The 1st
party committed breach of section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947.
The 1st party employed new person after his termination
and thus committed breach of section 25(H) of the I.D. Act,
1947. The 1st party bank have not taken into consideration
of his past record of service before termination. He failed
to get employment elsewhere and he is unemployed, facing
financial crisis. On these scores, prayer is that the action of
the 1st party in terminating him is illegal and injust, he be
reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service
w.e.f. 9.9.1997 and also for cost of the litigation and to pass
order to which the workman is found entitled.
3. As against this, the case of the 1st party (Bank) as
per written statement (Ext. 5) is that the 2nd party workman
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
149
was a casual daily rated worker and he himself left his
service and it is not a case of dismissal, discharge or
termination. The 2nd party was called to perform the casual
work at Surendranagar branch of the Bank. No permission
of Zonal office of SBI was taken before takig the service of
the 2nd party at Surendranagar branch. It has been denied
that the 1st party (Bank) had terminated the service of the
workman on 9.9.1997 orally. The workman himself has
stopped coming to Bank and so no question of payment of
retrenchment compensation and notice pay to him. But if
this court comes to the conclusion that the 2nd party
workman was entitled to retrenchment compensation and
notice pay, the same may be awarded to him but he is not
entitled for reinstatment. However, the 1st party have
denied the averments of statement of claim para wise. On
these scores, prayer is that the 2nd party is not entitled to
relief and the reference is fit to be rejected with cost.
4. In view of the pleadings and rival contention of
the parties the following issues are taken up for discussion
and adjudication in the light of terms of the reference:—
ISSUES
(i) Whether the reference is maintainable?
(ii) Has the 2nd party (workman) valid cause of action to
raise dispute?
(iii) Whether the workman Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela
has completed 240 days of works in calendar year
preceding his oral termination on 9.9.1997?
(iv) Whether the 2nd party workman is entitled to the
relief of reinstatement and for back wages? If not, to
what relief he is entitled?
(v) What orders are to be passed?
FINDINGS
5. ISSUE NO. iii :— The 2nd party workman
Shri Veghala has produced with a list Ext. 6 as many as 242
documents which are mainly zerox copies of voucher and
petty encahsment of bills to the 2nd party workman for the
period 10.1.1995 to 4.8.1997 (upto Ext. 6/236). Thereafter
from Ext. 6/237 to 6/242 are copies of legal notice to Bank
regarding demand and for reinstating him on the post and
the docuemnts of concliation process before A.L.C.
(Central) Adipur including written reply of the Bank. The
oral (evidence) of the 2nd party (Mr. Vaghela) is at Ext. 10.
In the cross examination by the 1st party's lawyer, the
concerned workman has specifically admitted that he was
working as a daily wager and he was not a regular
appointtee. He also admitted that the 1st party Bank has
their own regular peons and that no recruitment procedure
was followed by the Bank at the time of engaging him.
6. On behalf of the 1st party Bank vouchers from
1995 to 1997 and petty cash register from 9.8.1996 to
30.1.1997 have been exhibited as the 2nd party workman
has accepted those documents by putting his endorsement
of no objection on 11.3.2004 on the list of documents filed
on 21.9.2003 (Ext. 12). The oral evidence on behalf of the
1st party Bank was given by Shri Dhaivat Mehta at Ext. 20
who was the Branch Manager at Surendranagar Branch of
SBI at the relevant time. This management witness has
categorically denied the allegation of the 2nd party and he
stated that the concerned workman Mr. Vaghela's status
was of a daily wager and he was engaged for casual work
and he (2nd party) never worked on regular post nor he
was performing the job of regular employee rather he had
performed the temporary nature of job and that the 2nd
party has not completed 240 days in the calendar year.
7. From scrutinising the pleadings of the parties,
statement of claim and written statement and the
documentary evidence vide Ext. 6 series and Ext. 12 series
of the 2nd party and the 1st party respectively and also
considering the oral evidence of the 2nd party (Ext. 10) of
the 1st party witness (Ext. 20). I am of the considered view
that the 2nd party workman Shri Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela
was working as casual labour in Surendranagar Branch of
State Bank of India and he completed more than 240 days
of work in some calendar year and he also completed 240
days of work in calendar year preceding his alleged
termination on 9.9.1997 if his works are counted backward
from 8.9.1997 to 9.9.1996 completing calendar year in this
way.
8. Thus from the discussion above, I find and hold
that the workman, the 2nd party Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela
had completed 240 days of work in calendar year proceding
his termination on 9.9.1997. This issue is, therefore, decided
in favour of the 2nd party.
9. ISSUE NO. iv:— The learned counsel for the 1st
party has cited a case law of D.G.M. Oil Mill & Natural Gas
Corp. Ltd. another Vs. Ilias Abdul Rehman [J.T. 2005 (II)
S.C. 87] which is based on number of days of work in broken
period cannot be taken as continuous employment for the
purpose of section 25F of the I.D. Act that the employer
breached the provision in terminating the casual worker.
This case law is not helpful to the 1st party considering the
evidence oral and documentary examined above while
arriving at conclusion to issue No. iii in the foregoing. So,
now it has to be born in mind that there has been violation
by the 1st party (Bank) in not providing retrenchment
compensation and notice pay to the 2nd party. But, due to
breach of provision of section 25F by the employer Bank
the 2nd party (Mr. Vaghila) has had no right for
reinstatement and back wages because he in the capacity
of casual labourer was not holding a post as that of regular
employee this has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Catena of decisions. In the case of senior superintedent
(telegraph) traffic Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar Seal & other
(2010 iii CLR 17 S.C.) their Lorsdhip of the Hon'ble Apex
Court have held that grant of reasonable compensation to
150
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
the workman instead of reinstatement and back wages in
case of termination of service if found illegal will sub serve
the ends of Justice.
10. This issue is accordingly decided that the 2nd
party workman Shri Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela is not
entitled for reinstatement as casual worker and for any
back wages rather since his oral termination w.e.f. 9.9.1997
without complying with mandatory provision of section
25F of the I.D. Act is illegal. So, he (the 2nd party) is found
entitle for reasonable compensation from the 1st party.
11. ISSUE NO. i & ii:— This reference is maintainable
so far as entitlement of compensation from the 1st party is
concerned and so in this way, the 2nd party has valid cause
of action to raise the dispute.
12. ISSUE NO. v:— Considering all the facts and
circumstances of the case, a lump sum compensation of
Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) is awarded to
the 2nd party workman Shri Mansukh Popatlal Vaghela
which will sub serve the ends of justice.
This reference is allowed in part. No order as to cost.
The 1st parties are directed to pay the amount of
compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the 2nd party with interest
@ of 9% per annum from the date 18.6.2002 when the
workman deposed in support of his statement of claim.
This is my award.
BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 83.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj ;qufVM oLVju
cSad fyñ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds
chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd
vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 158@98½
dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks 24@12@2013 dks izkIr
gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@299@97&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 83.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 158/98)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial
Dispute between the management of United Western Bank
Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government
on 24/12/2013.
[No. L-12012/299/97-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/158/98
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Chhavikant Ramnath Chaturvedi,
Dr. Bajpai Ward, Murri Road,
Khandelwal House,
Gondia, Distt. Bhandara (MS)
.....Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
United Western Bank Ltd.,
Hospital Road, Gondia,
Distt. Bhandara (MS)
....Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 11th day of November, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 22-7-98 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/
299/97-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the action of the management of the United
Western Bank Ltd. represented through (1) It's
Branch Manager, Gondia and (2) It's General Manager
at Satara in stopping from working Shri Chhavikant
Ramnath Chaturvedi, a small Saving Deposit Agent
w.e.f. 1-6-1996 and not allowing him to work as an
Agent or as a clerk, is just, proper and legal? If not,
to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim
at Page 2/3 to 2/8. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
appointed as an Agent to collect deposits on behalf of the
United Western Bank. The agreement was executed
between parties authorizing workman for collection of
deposit from various individuals and establishments. The
workman was required to fill in account opening forms,
daily deposit slips, preparation of scrolls and deposit the
cash in the Bank. He was required to post deposit entries
of each individual to their respective amount in the bank
books. He was receiving amount Rs. 3453 per month on
average by way of his collection charges. That he is
workman within meaning of Section 2(s) of I.D. Act. He
was working from 1990 to 1996. Large number of persons
were employed but they were not absorbed on equivalent
post.
3. That scheme called Madhy Sanchay Deposit was
closed by IInd party. However employees were not
absorbed on equivalent post. Retrenchment compesnation
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
151
provided under Section 25-F was not paid. Ist party was
directed to deposit all goods of Accounts with the Bank. It
is contented that the termination of his services by
communication dated 18-6-96 is illegal. His representation
dated 24-2-97 was not considered. The management of the
Bank contented that there was no employee-employer
relationship. The matter was taken before ALC(C) for
conciliation. On failure of conciliation proceeding, reference
has been made. Workman claims to be entitled for
reinstatement and compensation.
4. IInd party Bank filed Written Statement at Page
5/1 to 5/7. It is case of IInd party that workman was engaged
as Madhu Sanchaya Deposit Agent. That relationship of
workman and the management Bank was of a Principal and
agent only. MSD Scheme at Nagpur and Jalgaon regions
were closed. Said decision was taken by Head Office on
27-5-96. He agreement with Ist party workman was cancelled.
Ist party workman has misconstrued he agreement as
termination of his service.
5. IInd party did not dispute execution of agrement
dated 7-11-90 between parties. Relationship of employer
employee has been denied. It is denied that Ist party
workman is covered under Section2(s) of I.D. Act. It is
denied that his services are terminated illegally in violation
of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. IInd part submits that the
workman is not entitled to relief claimed by 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
management of the United
In Affirmative
Western Bank Ltd.
represented in stopping from
working Shri Chhavikant
Ramnath Chaturvedi, a small
Saving Depost Agent w.e.f.
1-6-1996 and not allowing
him to work as an Agent or
as a clerk is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the
Relief prayed by
workman is entitled to?"
workman is
rejected.
REASONS
7. From pleadings of Ist party workman narrated
above, he is claiming to be employee of IInd party and his
services are terminated in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.
Act, he was not paid retrenchment compensation. The IInd
party has denied relationship of employer employee with
the workman and the management of IInd party. All other
material contentions of workman are also denied. Workman
has not adduced any evidence to substantiate his claim.
The evidence of workman is closed on 13-5-09. The
management filed affidavit of witness Ravindra Manohaor
Deochake. The affidavit of the management's witness is
devoted on all the material contentions detailed in the
Written Statement filed by the IInd party. That the workman
was engaged as an Agent for collecting deposit from
customers. He was not working as an employee. There was
no control on his working hours. There was no minimum
ceiling of deposit made by him. He is not covered as
workman defined under I.D. Act. There were no fixed office
hours for MSD Agent. Workman was not required to attend
office for whole day. As a matter of practice amount
collected during a day as an Agent used to be deposited in
Bank before closure of the Bank. The evidence remained
unchallenged as workman did not cross-examine the
management's witness. I do not find reason to disbelieve
unchallenged evidence of the management. Workman has
failed to adduce evidence to substantiate his contentions.
Thus the workman's contention that his services illegally
terminated in violation of Section 25-F is not established. It
is also not established that Ist party workman is covered
as workman under Section 2(S) of I.D. Act. Therefore I
record my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
8. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of United Western Bank
Ltd. represented in stopping from working Shri
Chhavikant Ramnath Chaturvedi, a small Saving
Deposit Agent w.e.f. 1-6-1996 and not allowing him
to work as an Agent or as a clerk is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 84.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsanzh; ljdkj lgk;d funs'kd]
dsUnzh; flYd cksMZ ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa
ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsanzh; ljdkj
vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ
la[;k 118@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsanzh; ljdkj dks
24@12@2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@246@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 84.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 118/
2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the
Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Asstt. Director, Central Silk Board and their
workmen, which was received by the Central Government
on 24/12/2013.
[No. L-42012/246/99-IR (DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
152
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
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.
Reference No. 118 of 2000.
PARTIES
:
Employers in relation to the
management of Asstt. Director,
Central Silk Board.
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT
:
SHRI H.M. SINGH, Presiding
Officer.
APPEARANCES
:
For the employers
:
Shri Ram Kishore,
Scientist-'C'
For the workman
:
None
State
:
Jharkhand
Industry : Textile
Dated, the 29th January, 2010
AWARD
By Order No. L-42012/246/99/IR(DU) dated 17.2.2000
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 followng dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
"Whether the action of the management of Basic
Seed Multiplication and Training centre at
Kharsawan to terminate the service of Shri Motilal
Mahato, workman w.e.f. 6.2.97 from the roll of
BSMATC is legal and justified? If not, to what relief
the workman is entitled?"
2. This reference was received in this Tribunal on
1.3.2000. But inspite of notice being sent to the parties
neither the concerned workman appeared before this
Tribunal nor any written statement has been filed on behalf
of the concerned workman. It, therefore, appears that the
concerned workman is not interested to contest the case.
In such circumstances I render a 'No Dispute' award
in the present reference case.
H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 85.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947
¼1947 dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-,l-
,u-,y-] fcgkj VsfydkWe lfdZy 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;&1] /kuckn
ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 104@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;
ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&40011@09@2006&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 85.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/
2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of BSNL, Bihar Telecom Circle and their
workman, which was received by the Central Government
on 24.12.2013.
[No. L-40011/09/2006-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL G OVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD
In the matter of a Reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D.
ACT, 1947
Ref. No. 104 of 2006
Employers in relation to the management of BSNL
Bihar Telecom Circle
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT : Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES :
For the Employers
:
Sri S. Prasad, Advocate
For the Workman
:
Sri D. Mukherjee, Advocate
State: Jharkhand
Industry-Telecom
Dated : 15-03-2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-40011/9/2006-IR (DU), dt. 15.11.2006,
the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in
exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-
section 1 and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for
adjudication to this Tribunal:
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
153
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of BSNL,
Arwal in terminating the service of Shri Ramdeo
Kumar w.e.f. 08.04.2005 is legal and justified? If not
to what relief the workman is entitled?"
2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour
on 06.12.2006. After notice both parties appeared, the
workman files their written statement on 22.06.2007 and
after that he files rejoinder on 06.02.09.
3. In this case, both the MWs have consistently
stated that the workman was never worked in their
establishment. They further stated that the documents filed
by the workman are photocopies and such are not
admissible in evidence and such photocopies have taken
is fabricated documents.
4. The learned counsel for the workman gave stress
on a document which was on BSNL pad, in which the
concerned workman ordered to give telephone connection
to some one. On which the learned counsel for the
management is submitted that on the said pad, no letter
No. of the company is there. The person signed on the said
document is not an officer of the BSNL and as such the
said lone document should not be accepted as evidence.
More ever that is a photocopy.
5. The workman examined in the case has stated that
he has not having any appointment letter. He further stated
that T.T.A. is not an officer of BSNL.
6. The T.T.A MW-2 though examined his evidence
has no help either to the management or to the workman.
He also says that Ext. W-6 does not bear his signature.
7. In this case there is not adequate evidence, to
hold that the workman was working in the BSNL in any
capacity.
8. Considering the fact and circumstance, I hold that
the action of the management of BSNL is legal and justified.
Hence the workman Sri Ramdeo Kumar is not entitled any
relief. The reference passed against the workman.
This is my award.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 86.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; izlkj
Hkkjrh fuxe] vkdk'kok.kh 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;&1] /kuckn ds iapkV
¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj
dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&42012@58@2008&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]
ih-ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 86.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2008)
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour
Court-1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the
industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the
management of Prasar Bharti Corporation of India,
Akashwani and their workman, which was received by the
Central Government on 24.12.2013.
[No. L-42012/58/2008-IR(DU)]
P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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 the
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Reference No. 46 of 2008
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of
Prasar Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani
AND
Their Workmen
PRESENT
:
Shri RANJAN KUMAR SARAN,
Presiding Officer
APPEARANCES:
For the Management
:
None
For the Union/workman
:
None
State: Jharkhand
Industry : Information &
Broadcasting
Dated : 12-2-2013
AWARD
By Order No. L-42012/58/2008-IR (DU), dt. 06.10.2008,
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 dispute
for adjudication to this Tribunal:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Prasar
Bharti Corporation of India, Akashwani in terminating
the service of their workman Shri Sanjay Kumar and
Shri Basuki Prasad Sharma without complying
Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act and not regularizing
them in service in the post of Announcer-cum-
compare is legal and justified?: To what relief the
concerned workman are entitled to?"
After having received the Order No. L-42012/58/2008-
IR (DU) dt. 06.10.2008, the aforesaid reference from the
Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for
154
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
adjudication of the dispute as reference case No. 46 of
2008 was registered on 02.10.2008 but till 17.1.2013 no
Written Statement and document was filed on behalf of the
Union/workman. Ultimately two notices were issued to the
sponsoring Union for filling of Written Statement &
document by speed post/Registered post but till 17.1.2013
no one appears nor any steps have been taken by them.
In view of such circumstance it seems that the
workman or the Union is not interested to contest their
case further. And as such, it is ordered:
ORDER
That let a "No Dispute" Award be passed. Send the
copies of the award to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour
& Employment, New Delhi for information and needful.
Reference is accordingly disposed off.
R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 87.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad
izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas 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 236@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh g]S tks
dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@82@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 87.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 236/99) 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
24.12.2013.
[No. L-12012/82/99-IR(B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
NO. CGIT/LC/R/236/99
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav,
S/o Shri M.P. Yadav,
SBI Colony, E/4, Sector-6,
Distt. Durg (MP)
..... Workman
Versus
Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Market Branch,
Sector-10,
Bhilai, Distt Durg (MP)
Assistant General Manager,
State Bank of India, Region-III,
Shankar Nagar,
Raipur (MP)
...... Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 29th day of October, 2013)
1. As per letter dated 18-6-99 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-12012/
82/99-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates to:
"Whether the termination of service of Shri Manoj
Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri M.P. Yadav, Ex-Temporary
Messenger-cum-Farrash at Section 10 Branch of State
Bank of India Bhilai vide letter No. s-119 dated
24-2-97 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman
is entitled?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at
Page 4/1 to 4/4. Case of Ist party workman is that he was
temporarily appointed on post of messenger by IInd party
on daily rated basis. He was appointed for intermittent
duration shown in para-2 of his statement of claim. He
claims that he was working for whole year in 1996 and 55
days from January 97 to 24-2-97. That he had performed
duties of messenger more than 240 days in calendar year.
He had acquired status of permannent employee within
Section 25 (B) of I.D. Act. That IInd Party was given artificial
break. The work was available, the post was also available
but the IInd party abruptly discontinued services from
24-2-97 without issuing showcause notice. There was no
adverse report against him. He worked with devotion,
obediently.
3. Ist party workman further submits that as per order
dated 16-1-90, he was called for interview for post of
messenger by the Regional Manager. He was interviewed
on 31-1-90. He was selected for post of messenger in the
vacant post. The Regional Manager Raipur vide letter dated
19-9-95 directed Branch Manager to select one messenger
for these branches as they were suitable candidates
selected after interview. The Branch manager Bhilai
appointed Ist party as messenger on different posts. That
his discontinuation without notice is illegal retrenchment.
Section 25-F (a,b,c) of I.D. Act were not complied. Principles
of natural justice were not followed. He was not given
opportunity of re-employment. Fresh candidates were
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
155
appointed by IInd party. Thus IInd party violated Section
25-F of I.D.Act. On such grounds, Ist party prays for his
reinstatement with consequential benefits.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8/1 to
8/10. The name of Ist party workman is denied outright. As
per IInd party, Ist party workman worked for 74 days, 55
days in 1985 and 85 days in 1996-97. Details given in
Para-1 of the Written Statement. That Ist party not worked
for 240 days during any of the year is not covered as
workman under Section 25(B) of I.D. Act. That Ist party
was employed on contract basis for 85 years. Workman
was employed on daily wages. His contract ended every
days at end of the day. His discontinuation is covered
under Section 2(00)(bb) of I.D. Act. Workman was
interviewed on 31-1-90 along with other eligible candidates.
He was selected and was kept on waiting list. However he
cannot claim right to be absorbed in the Bank. Ist party
employee was daily rated employee for few days as per
exigency of the work. That Ist party was given opportunity
to place permanent selection, he was interviewed. His name
was figured much below of the waiting list. Therefore he
could not be appointed. That the present interview doesnot
get right of appointment as his name was figured low in
Waiting List. The allegation of workman is denied. IInd
party prays for rejection of claim of workman.
5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3
reiterating his contentions in the statement of claim.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which
arise for may consideration and determination are as under.
My findings are recorded against each of them for the
reasons as below:—
(i) Whether the termination of
In Affirmative
service of Shri Manoj Kumar
Yadav, S/o Shri M.P. Yadav,
Ex-Temporary Messenger-cum-
Farrash at Section 10 Branch of
State Bank of India Bhilai vide letter
No. s-119 dated 24-2-97 is legal?
(ii) If not, what relief the workman
Relief prayed by
is entitled to?"
workman is rejected.
REASONS
7. Though workman is challenging termination of his
service from 24-2-97 on the ground of discrimination,
violation of Section 25-F, H of I.D. Act, he failed to adduce
any evidence in support of his claim. The evidence of
workman was closed on 1.7.2013.
8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness
Shri Vijay Vasant Raikwad covering most of the contentions
of IInd party. Management's witness has stated that Ist
party workman worked for 74 & 55 days in 1985, 85 days in
1996-97 at different branches. That workman had not
completed 240 days service in one calendar year. His
evidence remained unchallenged as Ist party workman did
not cross-examine the management's witness. Workman
has not adduced evidence. He has not cross-examined
witness of the management's witness. Therefore there is
no evidence to establish that termination of his services is
in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. Therefore I record
my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.
9. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(i) Termination of service of Shri Manoj Kumar Yadav,
S/o Shri M.P. Yadav, Ex-Temporary Messenger-cum-
Farrash at Section 10 Branch of State Bank of India
Bhilai vide letter No. s-119 dated 24-2-97 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
ubZ fnYyh] 24 fnlEcj] 2013
dkñvkñ 88.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947
dk 14½ 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
vfèdj.k] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50@99½ dks izdkf'kr
djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24-12-2013 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA
[lañ ,y&12012@146@98&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]
lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh
New Delhi, the 24th December, 2013
S.O. 88.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 50/99) 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 workman, received by the Central Government on
24.12.2013.
[No. L-12012/146/98-IR (B-I)]
SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,
JABALPUR
No. CGIT/LC/R/50/99
SHRI R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer
Shri Abdul Khalique Khan,
10, Tilak Nagar,
Dewas (MP)
...Workman
Versus
Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore
State Bank of India (after Merger),
156
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 4, 2014/PAUSA 14, 1935
[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]
Head Office, 5, Y.N. Road
Indore.
...Management
AWARD
(Passed on this 1st day of November 2013)
1. As per letter dated 31.12.98 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-12012/146/98/IR(B-I). The dispute under reference relates
to:
"Whether the action of the management of Managing
Director, State Bank of Indore (State Bank of India
after merger) in terminating the services of Shri Adbul
Khalique Khan w.e.f. 13.3.97 is justified? If not, to
what relief the workman is entitled for?"
2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to
the parties. Workman filed statement of claim at Page 2/1 to
2/6. Case of workman is that as per order dated 13.3.97,
penalty or removal from service is passed against him. The
legality of the order of removal from service is challenged
by this reference. It is further submitted that the workman
entered service in State Bank of Indore as clerk on 16.9.72.
Because of his meritorious service, he was promoted as
Teller. That no adverse report was received against him. As
per ordersheet dated 24-3-94, he was placed under
suspension. Chargesheet was issued to him on 22-9-94.
3 charges were alleged against him pertaining to
embezelment of money, making false entries in pass book,
issuing pass book of loan account without permission and
authentication and discounting of cheques relating to large
amounts. That additional chargesheet was issued to him
on 11-10-94 alleging charges of making fake pass book
entries, obtaining payment of cheques against clearing,
making of entries in self account which cannot be treated
as normal transactions.
3. Workman has also pleaded that the enquiry
proceedings were conducted in which the employees and
the officers of the branch concerned were produced as
witnesses. The enquiry was not properly couducted, no
handwriting expert was consulted or produced before the
enquiry for establishing that the entries made in the pass
book and other documents were in his handwriting. The
customers had given statements that no money is due to
them from workman. That workman had submitted before
Enquiry Officer that the documents pass book, slips should
be subjected to scrutiny by expert. That Enquiry Officer
recorded findings that charges were proved. The findings
of the Enquiry Officer are based on conjectures without
supporting evidence. That there is no evidence to prove
the charges. The management had tried to inflict penalty
without justifying the chargesheet issued to him. On such
ground, workman prays for setting aside the order of his
removal from service.
4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to
6/10. It is not disputed that workman was initially appointed
as clerk on 16-9-92. He was promoted to the post of Teller
posted at Bank Note Press Branck, Dewas from 30-5-83.
That while Ist party workman was posted as letter in Bank
Note Press, Branch Deveas, he committed acts of omission,
mis-appropriation, irregularities. Complaints were received
from customer. After receving complaint, Bank decided to
make preliminary investigation. Shri Neeraj Nayak an officer
of the Bank was entrusted to make preliminary investigation
of the complaint. After receiving preliminary investigation
report, workman was suspended on 24-3-94. The
chargesheet was issued and enquiry was conducted
against workman. Workman was given opportunity for his
defence. That Shri Ram Atre was appointed as Enquiry
Officer and Shri H.K. Gupta was Presenting Officer. The
copy of preliminary report was furnished to the workman.
The Departmental enquiry was conducted on various
dates. The statements of management's witnesses Ashok
Dubey, Rajeev Pednekar, Pramod Moghe, Girish Dubey
and Ramnarayan Parmar were recorded. Witnesses were
cross-examined by Defence Representative. Principles of
natural justice were followed. The charges were proved
from evidence in the Enquiry Proceedings. The Enquiry
Report was served on Ist party workman. The Disciplinary
Authority exercised powers in Para-21 (4)(b) of Bipartite
Settlement dated 14-2-95 imposed punishment of removal
of service of Ist party workman. The period spent from him
for suspension was to be treated as off duty. The appeal
filed by workman was rejected. All other advers contentions
of Ist party workman are denied by IInd party. IInd party
prays for rejection of claim.
5. Vide order dated 16-3-2012, my predecessor found
enquiry conducted against workman as legal. That
management has no need to prove misconduct by evidence
in Court.
6. Considering pleadings on record, the points
which arise for my consideraton 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 Managing
Director, State Bank of Indore
(State Bank of India after merger)
in terminating the services of Shri
Abdul Khalique Khan w.e.f.
13-3-97 is legal?
(ii) Whether workman is entitled
In Negative
to benefit of superannuation?
(iii) If not, what relief the
Relief rejected.
workman is entitled to?
REASONS
7. Issue No. 1-As stated above, enquiry conducted
against workman is found legal and proper. Management
is not required to adduce evidence to prove misconduct of
the workman. Thus the question remains whether the
misconduct alleged against workman is proved from
evidence in Enquiry Proceedings or findings of Enquiry
Officer are not supported by evidence. The record of
¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º
Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 4] 2014@ikS"k 14] 1935
157
Enquiry Proceedings is produced. The witnesses of the
management were cross-examined by Defence
Representative. As learned counsel for workman did not
advanced any argument about the findings of the Enquiry
Officer and evidence in the Enquiry Proceedings.
Absolutely no arguments were advanced that findings of
Enquiry Officer that misconduct alleged against workman
are proved therefore I make a precise reference that
witnesses of the management have stated that the entries
in pass book and relevant documents were in handwriting
of Ist party workman. The Ist party workman has exercised
in his pleadings as well as before the Enquiry Officer that
opinion of expert should be obtained about signatures of
documents, pass books, pay slips etc. The evidence of
Enquiry Officer clearly shows that he had not obtained
opinion of handwriting expert. He had compared signature
of workman from the documents in Bank with the signatures
on relevant documemt. The burden of proof in domestic
enquiry is not similar to burden of proof in criminal
proceedings. The degree of burden of proof is much less in
matter of Departmental Enquiry. The charges are not
required to be proved beyond reasonable doubts as in
criminal case. The evidence is to establish probabilities
needs to be considered. As discussed above, learned
counsel for Ist party workman. Shri N.K. Salunke did not
advanced arguments about findings of Enquiry Officer are
not supported by sufficient evidence or any evidence or
whether it is case of no evidence. The learned counsel
rather advanced arguments that order removal was passed
as per Para 21(4)(b) of the standing orders. It was
emphasized that workman be given superannuation claims.
That the application was also submitted along with
statement of claim but no order was passed.
8. Learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Mishra
appearing for his Sr. Rajnish Gupta Advocate submitted
that the superannuation dues can be paid if found eligible.
There was no dispute that State Bank of Indore is merged
in State Bank of India. Careful examination of record of
Enquiry Proceeding shows that findings of Enquiry Officer
are supported by evidence and same cannot be said
perverse.
9. Learned counsel for Ist party workman Shri Salunke
submitted that the Appellate Authority had made
observations about the superannuation benefits is justified.
Considering arguments advanced by learned counsel that
directions may be given to the management for payment of
superannuation benefit to workman, it is necessary to refer
to observations made by the Appellate Authority in his
order. At Page 2 of the order passed by Appellate
Authority, it is observed that I have come to the conclusion
that punishment of removal from service as contained in
Para 21(b) of Bipartite Settlement dated 14-2-95 which
doesnot disqualify you from other superannuation benefits
is justified. In these circumstances, there is no justification
to interfere with the punishment imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority. The appeal was dismissed and the
order of Disciplinary Authority was confirmed. The
Discipilinary Authority has passed final order of
punishment dated 17-3-97 (D-15). At page 3, the Disciplinary
Authority writes your past record of service and also your
prayer for compassion, I impose following punishment on
you as contemplated in Para 21(iv)(b) of the Bipartite
Settlement dated 14-2-1995—
"Removal from service" Period spent by you
suspension shall be treated as off duty and
consequently you are not entitled to any salary,
allowance increments, other benefits to which you
would have been entitled to had you been on duty.
Copy of Bipartite Settlement is produced on record.
Clause 21(iv)(b) Document 4/108 provides—
(iv) In supersession of clause 19.6 of the Settlement
dated 19-10-66 between IBA ad AIBEA para (521(5) of the
Sastry award ad para 18.28 of the Desai award, clause
17.6 of the settlement between IOB ad AIOBEU dated
14-12-66 and Clause 19.6 of the Settlement between BOB
and AIBOBEF dated 23-12-1966 and Clause IV(3) of the
Settlement dated 31-10-1979, an employee found guilty of
gross misconduct may—
(a) .......................
(b) Be compulsorily retired/removed from service/
discharged with superannuation benefits as would
be due otherwise at that stage and without
disqualification from future employment is not
connected with the punishment of compulsory
retirement or removal from service.
The benefit imposed by the Disciplinary Authority
is of removal from service. The order of Disciplinary
Authority is silent about the superannuation benefit rather
the order of the Disciplinary Authority speaks that the
period of suspension would be treated on duty and the
workman would not get any allowances as if he would
have received while on duty. Thus the order of punishment
imposed by the Disciplinary Authority doesnot includes
payment of superannuation benefit to the workman though
the Appellate Authority has made certain observations
about entitlement of superannuation benefits to the
workman. However the order passed by Disciplinary
Authority was not modified/altered. The appeals has been
dismissed. Therefore I do not find substance in the
argument advanced by the learned counsel for workman.
Considering the misconduct relating to mis-appropriation
of amount, punishment cannot be said disproportionate.
For above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1, 2 in
Affirmative.
10. In the result, award is passed as under:—
(1) Action of the management of Managing Director,
State Bank of Indore (State Bank of India after merger)
in terminating the services of Shri Abdul Khalique
Khan w.e.f. 13-3-97 is proper.
(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.
R.B. PATLE, 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.