dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 28 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 519-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM izfØ;k lafgrk]

1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8)

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] paMhx<+ fLFkr iatkc ,oa

gfj;k.kk mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk yxkbZ

xbZ fØfeuy fjV ;kfpdk la- 12@2014 ,oa 20359@2013 esa mifLFkr

gksus ds fy, Jh xxu iznhi flag cky] odhy dks fo'ks"k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 225@4@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2014

S.O.

519.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

452 GI/2014

(1489)

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- 7]

ubZ fnYyh, iQjojh 9—iQjojh 15] 2014] 'kfuokj@ek?k 20—ek?k 26] 1935

No. 7]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 9—FEBRUARY 15, 2014, SATURDAY/MAGHA 20—MAGHA 26, 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)

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Government

hereby appoints Shri Gagan Pradeep Singh Bal, Advocate

as Special Public Prosecutor for appearing in CWP No. 12/

2014 and 20359/2013 instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (C.B.I.) in the Punjab and Haryana High

Court at Chandigarh.

[F. No. 225/4/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 520-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dukZVd jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (vijk/)]

csaxywj ds fnukad 06 uoacj] 2013 ds vkns'k ,pMh 6 lhvksMh

2013 n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls dqekjh lkStU;k iq=kh panIik xkSMk]

csayFkaxkMh rkyqd] /eZLFkyk ds ;kSu mRihMu vkSj gR;k ds laca/ esa

Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kjk 302 vkSj 376 ds rgr iqfyl /kuk

csyFkaxkMh] /eZLFkyk (dukZVd)] esa ,iQvkbZvkj la- 250@2012 ds

rgr ntZ ekeys dh tkap gsrq vkSj mi;qZDr vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r ;k

buls tqM+s iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=kksa ;k bu leku rF;ksa ls

1490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gksus okys fdUgha vU; vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k djus ds laca/ esa fnYyh

fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkj {ks=k dk

foLrkj laiw.kZ dukZVd jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@5@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 520.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (l) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Karnataka, Home Department (Crimes),

Bangalore vide Order No. HD 6 COD 2013 dated 6th

November, 2013, hereby extends powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of

FIR No. 250/2012 under sections 302 and 376 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police

Station Belthangadi, Dharmasthala (Karnataka) relating to

sexual harassment and murder of Kumari Sowjanya

daughter of Chandappa Gowda, Belthangadi Taluk,

Dharmasthala and attempts, abetments and conspiracies

in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned

offences and any other offence or offences arising out of

the same facts.

[F. No. 228/5/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 521-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g (,e) foHkkx fr#ouariqje

ds fnukad 01 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks- (,e,l) la-

273@2013@x`g n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls Jh Vh-th- uan dqekj n~okjk

dfFkr :i ls laifRr lafpr djus laca/h lrdZrk ekeyk la- oh- bZ-

19@2011@,l-vkj-Vh- vkSj jkT; MkVk dsanz ds izpkyu vkSj j[k&j[kko

dh fufonk vkSj lqiqnZxh esllZ fjyk;al dE;wfuds'ku~l dks nsus lacaèkh

ekeyk la- oh-bZ- 20@2011@,l-vkj-Vh- dh tkap gsrq vkSj mDr

vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r ;k buls tqM+s iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kksa vkSj iM~;=kksa ;k

bu leku rF;ksa ls gksus okys fdUgha vU; vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k djus

ds laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

vf/dkj{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@7@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 521.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (l) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of

1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O.(Ms.) No. 273/

2013/Home dated 1st November, 2013, hereby extends

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for

investigation of the Vigilance Case No. V.E.19/2011/S.R.T.

related to the alleged amassment of wealth by Shri T.G.

Nandakumar and Case No. V.E. 20/2011/S.R.T. related to

the tender and entrustment of operation and maintenance

of the State Data Centre to M/s. Reliance Communications

and attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or

in connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence or offences arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/7/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 522-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT; ljdkj] x`g (iqfyl) foHkkx] iVuk ds

fnukad 18-09-2013 dh vf/lwpuk la- 1@lh-ch-vkbZ-&80&03@2013

,p-(ih) 6997 n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls uok#.k pØorhZ ds vigj.k

ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 ds vf/fu;e la-

45) dh /kjk 364 vkSj 366&d ds rgr iqfyl Fkkuk eqtÝiQjiqj

Vkmu (fcgkj)] esa fnukad 19-09-2012 dks ntZ ekeyk la- 507@12

dh tkap gsrq vkSj mi;qZDr vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r ;k buls tqM+s iz;klksa]

nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM;a=kksa ;k bu leku rF;ksa ls gksus okys fdUgha vU;

vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k djus ds laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu

ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkj{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dsjy

jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@75@2013&,-oh-Mh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 522.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub- section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Bihar, Home (Police) Department, Patna vide

Notification No. 1/C.B.I.-80-03/2013 H. (P) 6997 dated

18.09.2013, hereby extends powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole of the State of Bihar for investigation of Case No.

507/12 dated 19.09.2012 under Sections 364 and 366-A of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) registered

at Police Station Muzaffarpur Town (Bihar) relating to

kidnapping of Navaruna Chakrabarty and attempts,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1491

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection

with the above mentioned offences and any other offence

or offences arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/75/2013-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 523-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dukZVd jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx (vijk/)]

csaxywj ds fnukad 14 uoacj] 2013 ds vkns'k la[;k ,pMh 68

lhvksMh 2013 n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls ekaM~;k 'kgjh fodkl izkfèkdj.k

(dukZVd) n~okjk 5-00 djksM+ #- (ikap djksM+ #i, dsoy) ds

nqfoZfu;kstu ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 ds

vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 34] 408] 419] 420] 468 vkSj 471 ds

rgr iqfyl Fkkuk ekaM~;k if'pe] ekaM~;k ftyk esa ,iQvkbZvkj la-

273@2013 ds rgr ntZ ekeys dh tkap gsrq vkSj mi;qZDr vijk/ksa

ls lacaf/r ;k buls tqM+s iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM~;a=kksa ;k bu

leku rF;ksa ls gksus okys fdUgha vU; vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k djus ds

laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj

vf/dkj{ks=k dk foLrkj laiw.kZ dukZVd jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@6@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O.

523.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Karnataka, Home Department (Crimes),

Bangalore vide Order No. HD 68 CID 2013 dated 14th

November, 2013, hereby extends powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of

FIR No. 273/2013 dated 05.07.2013 under sections 34, 408,

419, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act

No. 45 of 1860) registered at Police Station Mandya West,

Mandya District relating to misappropriation of Rs.5.00

crores (Rupees Five Crores only), Mandya Urban

Development Authority (Karnataka) and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection

with the above mentioned offences and any other offence

or offences arising out of the same facts.

[F. No. 228/6/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 524-—dsUæh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiu vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk 6

ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi /kjk (1) ds n~okjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsjy jkT; ljdkj] x`g (,e) foHkkx fr#ouariqje

ds fnukad 23 uoacj] 2013 dh vf/lwpuk th-vks- (,e,l) la-

287@2013@x`g n~okjk izkIr lgefr ls vi~iw dh e`R;q ds laca/ esa

iqfyl Fkkuk iRrukiqje esa ntZ vijk/ la- 49@2013 (vkijkf/d

tkap foHkkx] vijk/ 'kk[kk] vijk/ la- 53@lhvkj@ ,p,pMCY;w&1@

Vhoh,e@2013) dh tkap gsrq vkSj mDr vijk/ksa ls lacaf/r ;k buls

tqM+s iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM+;a=kksa ;k bu leku rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr

fdlh vU; vijk/ ds vUos"k.k djus ds laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiu ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa vkSj vf/dkj{ks=k dk foLrkj

laiw.kZ dsjy jkT; ij djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 228@4@2014&,ohMh&IIº

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O.

524.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (l) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ( Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Kerala, Home (M) Department,

Thiruvananthapuram vide Notification G.O.(Ms.) No. 287/

2013/Home dated 23rd November, 2013, hereby extends

powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Kerala for

investigation of Crime No. 49/2013 (Criminal Investigation

Department, Crime Branch, Crime No. 53/CR/HHW-1/TVM/

2013) registered at Police Station Pathanapuram relating to

death of Appu and attempts, abetments and conspiracies

in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned

offences and any other offence or offences arising out of

the same facts.

[F. No. 228/4/2014-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2013

dk-vk- 525-—foÙkh; vkfLr;ksa dk izfrHkwfrdj.k ,oa iquxZBu

rFkk izfrHkwfr fgr dk izorZu vf/fu;e] 2002 dh /kjk 21 dh

mi&/kjk (i) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh vkj- oh- oekZ] vè;{k ,oa izca/ funs'kd]

jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad (,u,pch) ds jftLVªkj rFkk izca/ funs'kd ,oa

eq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/dkjh (dsUnzh; jftLVªkj)] Hkkjrh; dsUnzh; vkfLr

1492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

izfrHkwfrdj.k iquxZBu vkSj izfrHkwfr fgr jftLVªh (lhbZvkj,l,vkbZ)

ds :i esa muds dk;Zdky dks vxys N% ekg ds fy, vFkkZr~

1&10&2013 ls 31&3&2014 rd ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] c<+krh gSA

2- Jh vkj- oh- oekZ] jk"Vªh; vkokl cSad ds vè;{k ,oa

izca/ funs'kd ds :i esa vius dÙkZO;ksa ds vfrfjDr dsUnzh; jftLVªkj

dk dk;ZHkkj Hkh laHkkysaxs A

¹iQk- la- 56@5@2007&fjdojhº

fefgj dqekj] funs'kd (fjdojh)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2013

S.O. 525.—In exercise of the powers conferred

under Section 21(1) of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002, the Central Government hereby

extends the tenure of Sh. R.V. Verma, Chairman & Managing

Director, National Housing Bank for the additional charge

for the post of Registrar and Managing Director & Chief

Executive Officer (Central Registrar), Central Registry of

Securitization Asset Reconstruction and Security Interest

of India (CERSAI) for a further period of six months with

effect from 01.10.2013 to 31.03.2014 or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

2. Shri R. V. Verma shall hold the charge of Central

Registrar in addition to his duties as Chairman & Managing

Director, National Housing Bank (NHB).

[F. No. 56/05/2007-Recovery]

MIHIR KUMAR, Director (Recovery)

dk;kZy; eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

t;iqj] 28 tuojh] 2014

(la- 12@2013&14)

dk-vk- 526-—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961(1961 dk 43oka) dh /kjk

10 ds [k.M (23lh) dh mi&/kjk (vi) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rnn~okjk fu/kZj.k

o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy;s dfFkr /kjk ds mís'; ls lqHkk"k cky

fon~;ky; lfefr] xtflaxiqjk] t;iqj dks Lohd`fr nsrs gSa A

2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2lh ,

ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 dh /kjk 10 ds mi[k.M

(23lh) dh mi&/kjk (vi) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsa A

¹Øekad%eqvkvk@vvkvk@(eq)@t;@10(23lh)(vi)@2013&14@7093º

vrqys'k ftany] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF

INCOME TAX

Jaipur, the 28th January, 2014

(No. 12/2013-14)

S.O. 526.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961(43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income

-tax Rules 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Jaipur hereby approves "M/s. Subhash Bal Vidhyalaya

Samiti, Gajsinghpura Jaipur" for the purpose of said section

for the A.Y. 2013-14 onwards, provided that the society

conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub-clause

(vi) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Income-tax Act,

1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO/(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/7093]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

t;iqj] 30 tuojh] 2014

(la- 13@2013&14)

dk-vk- 527-—vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2lh , ds

lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (1961 dk 43oka) dh /kjk

10 ds [k.M (23lh) dh mi&/kjk (via) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr] t;iqj ,rn~}kjk fuèkkZj.k

o"kZ 2013&14 ,oa vkxs ds fy;s dfFkr /kjk ds mís'; ls t;iqj

dsyfxjh vkWb gkWfLiVy ,aM fjlpZ lsaVj] VªLV] t;iqj dks Lohd`fr

nsrs gSa A

2- c'krsZ fd lfefr vk;dj fu;e] 1962 ds fu;e 2lh ,

ds lkFk iBuh; vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 dh /kjk 10 ds mi[k.M

(23lh) dh mi&/kjk (via) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i dk;Z djsa A

¹Øekad%eqvkvk@vvkvk@(eq)@t;@10(23lh)(vi)@2013&14@7129º

vrqys'k ftany] eq[; vk;dj vk;qDr

Jaipur, the 28th January, 2014

(No. 13/2013-14)

S.O. 527.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-

tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-

tax Rules 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax,

Jaipur hereby approves "M/s. Jaipur Calgary Charitable

Eye Hospital & Research Centre Trust, Jaipur" for the

purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2013-14 onwards,

provided that the society conforms to and complies with

the provisions of sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section

10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the

Income-tax Rules, 1962.

[No. CCIT/JPR/ITO/(Tech.)/10(23C)(vi)/2013-14/7129]

ATULESH JINDAL, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1493

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 528-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh;

Hkkek la@Hkkx@[k.M@

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk]

uke ,oa irk

ekud dk

o"kZ

o"kZ@ekg

f'k"kZd

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2806155

7&10&2013

fogku bysDVªhdYl

250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ

Hkk ek 1293 % 2005

ekuo 5] xkaonsoh eafnj ds ihNs]

rd jsfVr /kjk ds IyXl vkSj

lkbZ lfoZl ds lkeus] lkrhoyh xkWo]

lkWdsV &

olbZ &iwoZ

ftyk % Bk.ks& 401 208

2806256

7&10&2013

fogku bysDVªhdYl

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds

Hkk ek 3854 % 1997

ekuo 5] xkaonsoh eafnj ds ihNs]

fy, fLops

lkbZ lfoZl ds lkeus] lkrhoyh xkWo]

olbZ &iwoZ

ftyk % Bk.ks& 401 208

2806761

10&10&2013

Hkwoky bUlqys'ku dscy izk- fy-

1100oks rd dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk

Hkk ek 9968 (Hkkx&1)

xyk la- vkSj 5] fcfYaMx la- 2]

ds fy, bysLVksej jksf/r dscy

1988

vafdr b.MLVªh;y bLVsV] ,u

,p la- 8] lkrhoyh jksM]

olbZ&iwoZ] Bk.ks& 401 208

2809565

17&10&2013

fizlhtu bULVª™esaV

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ &

Hkk ek@vk;bZlh 60079 %

124 , Vw tsM b.M bLVsV]

Hkkx&1 iQyseizwiQ buDykstj

Hkkx&1 2007

th ds ekxZ] yksvj ijsy]

^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk

eqacbZ& 400 013

2813253

21&10&2013

ljLorh ok;j ,.M dscy b.MLVªht

ih oh lh jksf/r (Hkkjh M;wVh)

Hkk ek 1554 (Hkkx&1)

IykWV la- lh&1] ,l,y la- 47@2]

fo|qr dscy % Hkkx 1] 1100

1988

osowj xkao] iksLV euksj jksM]

oksYV dk;Zdkjh oksYVrk rd

iky/j] iwoZ]

o lfgr ds fy,

ftyk % Bk.ks& 401 404

2818162

1&11&2013

twl bysDVªhdYl izk- fyfeVsM

250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ

Hkk ek 1293 % 2005

;wfuV la- 1&4] y{eh ,.M bLVsV]

rd jsfVr /kjk ds IyXl vkSj

IykWV la- 7] fgLlk la- 1] losZ la-77]

lkWdsV &

okyho xkao] lkrhoyh jksM]

olbZ &iwoZ]

ftyk % Bk.ks& 401208

1494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2818263

1&11&2013

twl bysDVªhdYl izk- fyfeVsM

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds

Hkk ek 3854 % 1997

;wfuV la- 1&4] y{eh ,.M bLVsV]

fy, fLops

IykWV la- 7] fgLlk la- 1] losZ la-77]

okyho xkWo] lkrhoyh jksM]

olbZ &iwoZ

ftyk % Bk.ks& 401208

2818566

1&11&2013

vkWfcZV b.MLVªht

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds

Hkk ek 3854 % 1997

164@1311] eksrhyky uxj la-1

fy, fLops

xksjs xkWo (if'pe)

eqacbZ & 400 104

2818667

1&11&2013

vkWfcZV b.MLVªht

250 oksYVrk vkSj 16 ,EihvlZ

Hkk ek 1293 % 2005

164@1311] eksrhyky uxj la-1

rd jsfVr /kjk ds IyXl vkSj

xksjs xkWo (if'pe)

lkWdsV &

eqacbZ & 400 104

10-

2818867

4&11&2013

lfork vkW;y VsDuksykWftt fy-

u;k fon~;qrjks/h rsy

Hkk ek 335 % 1993

IykWV la- 140@1] dqokikMk xkWo]

xkWo flYyh] iksLV fdyokuh]

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

flyoklk & 396230

11-

2817968

4&11&2013

lfork vkW;y VsDuksykWftt fy-

lanfer feujy fon~;qrjks/h

Hkk ek 12463 % 1988

IykWV la- 140@1] dqokikMk xkWo]

rsy

xkWo flYyh] iksLV fdyokuh]

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

flyoklk & 396230

12-

28268767

28&11&2013

vikj b.MLVªht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 4 1996

losZ la- 127@1@2] vFkksyk xkWo]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd &Hkkx &4]

Flyoklk mej dqbZ jksM]

,Y;wfefu;e feJ/krq ds yMnkj

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

pkyd] (,Y;wfefu;e eSXuhf';e

flyoklk & 396230

flyhdkWu VkbZi)

13-

2826868

28&11&2013

vikj b.MLVªht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 5 1992

losZ la- 127@1@2] vFkksyk xkWo]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd &Hkkx &5]

Flyoklk mej dqbZ jksM]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd vfrfjDr

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

mPp oksYVrk (400 dsoh vkSj vf/d)

flyoklk & 396230

ds fy, tLrhd`r bLikr izcfyr

14-

2826969

28&11&2013

vikj b.MLVªht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 2 1996

losZ la- 127@1@2] vFkksyk xkWo]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd &Hkkx &2]

Flyoklk mej dqbZ jksM]

,y;wfefu;e pkyd tLrhd`r

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

bLikr izcfyr

flyoklk & 396230

15-

2827062

28&11&2013

vikj b.MLVªht fy-

f'kjksifj izs"k.k iz;kstuksa ds fy,

Hkk ek 398 Hkkx 1 1992

losZ la- 127@1@2] vFkksyk xkWo]

,Y;wfefu;e pkyd &Hkkx &1]

Flyoklk mej dqbZ jksM+]

,Y;wfefu;e yMnkj pkyd

nknjk vkSj uxj gosyh

flyoklk & 396230

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1495

16-

2827668

28&11&2013

fizTe b.MLVªht

?kjsyq vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds

Hkk ek 3854 % 1997

fcfYaMx la- ch] IykWV 770]

fy, fLops

egkjkuh mn;ksx bLVsV]

lkseukFk jksM] neu]

neu ,oa nho & 396 210

17-

2831760

02&12&2013

Ýyse ,.M ,DlIykstu izwiQ

,DlIyksflo ,sVeWfLiQvlZ &

Hkk ek@vk;bZlh 60079%

bD;wiesaUV eSU;wiQSDpfjax da-

Hkkx&1 iQyseizwiQ buDykstj

Hkkx&1 2007

xyk la-1] ikfVy bLVsV] jksM la- 28

^Mh* }kjk miLdj laj{kk

jkeuxj] f'kolsuk 'kk[kk ds lkeus]

okxys bLVsV]

ftyk % Bk.ks & 400 604

¹la- ds- iz- fo-@13% 11º

,u- flag] izeq[k (,e;wchvks & bZbZbZ)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2014

S.O. 528.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and

Product

IS No./Part/Sec./Year

No.

Address (factory)

of the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

2806155

7-10-2013

Vihan Electricals

Plugs and socket outlets

IS 1293 : 2005

Manav 5, Behind Gamdevi

of 250 volts and rated

Mandir,

current up to 16 amperes

Opp Sai Service, Sativali Village

Vasai- East,

Distt : Thane - 401208

2806256

7-10-2013

Vihan Electricals

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

Manav 5, Behind Gamdevi

similar purposes

Mandir,

Opp Sai Service, Sativali Village

Vasai- East

Distt : Thane - 401208

2806761

10-10-2013

Bhuwal Insulation Cable Pvt. Ltd. Elastomer Insulated Cables

IS 9968 : Part 1 : 1988

Gala No. 4 & 5, BLDG. No. 2

Part 1 for working voltages

Ankit Ind. Estate, Near M L K

upto and Including 1100 V

Indl. Estate, N H No. 8,

Sativali Road,

Vasai- East

Distt : Thane - 401208

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2809565

17-10-2013

Precision Instrument Co.

Explosive Atmospheres -

IS/IEC 60079 : Part 1 :

124, A to Z Indl. Estate,

Part 1 : Equipment Protection

2007

G K Marg, Lower Parel,

by Flameproof Enclosures ‘‘d’’

Mumbai - 40013

2813253

21-10-2013

Saraswati Wires & Cables

PVC Insulated (Heavy Duty) IS 1554 : Part 1 : 1988

Industries

Electric Cables Part 1 for

Plot No. C-1, SL No. 47/2,

working Voltages upto and

Vevoor Village,

Including 1100V

Post Manor Road,

Palghar (E)

Distt : Thane - 401404

2818162

1-11-2013

Juice Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Plugs and socket outles

IS 1293 : 2005

Unit No. 1-4, Laxmi Indl. Estate,

of 250 volts and rated

Plot No.7, Hisa No.1, Survey

current up to 16 amperes

No.77,

Village Valiv, Sativali Road,

Vasai (East)

Distt: Thane -401208

2818263

1-11-2013

Juice Electricals Pvt. Ltd.

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

Unit No. 1-4, Laxmi Indl. Estate,

similar purposes

Plot No.7, Hisa No.1, Survey

No.77,

Village Valiv, Sativali Road,

Vasai (East)

Distt: Thane -401208

2818566

1-11-2013

Orbit Industries

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

164/1311, Motilal Nagar No.1

similar purposes

Goregaon (West),

Mumbai - 400104

2818667

1-11-2013

Orbit Industries

Plugs and socket outlets

IS 1293 : 2005

164/1311, Motilal Nagar No.1

of 250 volts and rated

Goregaon (West),

current up to 16 amperes

Mumbai - 400104

10.

2817867

4-11-2013

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd.

New insulating oils

IS 335 : 1993

Plot No.140/1, Kuvapada Village,

Village Silli, Post Kilvani,

Dadra and Nagar Haveli,

Silvassa -396230

11.

2817968

4-11-2013

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd.

Inhibited mineral insulating

IS 12463 : 1988

Plot No.140/1, Kuvapada Village,

Oils

Village Silli, Post Kilvani,

Dadra and Nagar Haveli,

Silvassa -396230

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1497

12.

2826767

28-11-2013

Apar Inds. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

IS 398 : Part 4 : 1988

Survey No.127/1/2, Village,

overhead transmission

Athola , Silvassa

purposes : Part 4 Aluminium

Umarkui Road,

alloy stranded conductors

Silvassa,

(aluminium magnesium silicon

Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli.

type)

396230

13.

2826868

28-11-2013

Apar Inds. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

IS 398 : Part 5 : 1992

Survey No.127/1/2, Village,

overhead transmission

Athola , Silvassa

purposes : Part 5 Aluminium

Umarkui Road,

conductors-galvanized steel

Silvassa,

reinforced for extra high

Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli-

voltage (400 kV and above)

396230

14.

2826969

28-11-2013

Apar Inds. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

IS 398 : Part 2 : 1996

Survey No.127/1/2, Village,

overhead transmission

Athola , Silvassa

purposes : Part 2 Aluminium

Umarkui Road,

conductors galvanized steel

Silvassa

reinforced

Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli-

396230

15.

2827062

28-11-2013

Apar Inds. Ltd.

Aluminium conductors for

IS 398 : Part 1 : 1996

Survey No.127/1/2, Village,

overhead transmission

Athola , Silvassa

purposes : Part 1 Aluminium

Umarkui Road,

stranded conductors

Silvassa,

Distt : Dadra and Nagar Haveli-

396230

16.

2827668

28-11-2013

Prism Industries

Switches for domestic and

IS 3854 : 1997

Building No.B, Plot No. 770,

similar purposes

Behind Maharani Udyog

Estate, Somnath Road,

Distt : Damann

Daman & Diu - 396210

17.

2831760

2-12-2013

Flame & Explosion Proof

Explosive Atmospheres -

IS/IEC 60079 : Part 1 :

Equipment MFG. Co.

Part 1 : Equipment Protection

2007

Gala No. 1 Patil Estate, Road No. 28

by Flameproof Enclosures ‘‘d’’

Ramnagar Ramnagar. Opp.

Shivsena Shakha, Wagle Estate,

Distt: Thane - 400604

[No. CMD/13 : 11]

N. SINGH, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 529-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gS] os jí dj fn, x, gSa %µ

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

1498

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe

jí djus dh frfFk

la-

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

3694175

,l th ekdsZfVax

Hkk ek 4250 % 1980

11@11@2013

4 f'ko ikoZrh lnu] iq"ik flYd

fctyh ds ?kjsyw [kkn~; feDlj

fey ds ikl ]

(nzohijd vkSj xzkbaMj)

,u ,l Mh jksM] xksfoan uxj

ekykM iwoZ] eqacbZ & 400097

3636173

dqcsj b.MLVªht

Hkk ek 3854 % 1997

12@11@2013

igyk ekyk] 31@244] eksrh yky uxj

?kjsyw vkSj leku iz;kstuksa ds

la- 3] ,e th jksM]

fy, fLops

xksjsxkWo & if'pe

eqacbZ & 400062

7003546

izsfllh;u bysDVªhdYl]

Hkk ek 371 % 1999

11@11@2013

xkyk la- 1] 3 ,oa 4 pkS/jh

lhfyax jkst

b.MLVªh;y bLVsV]

foyst uo?kj] olbZ iwoZ]

ftyk Bk.ks & 401202

¹la- ds- iz- fo-@13%13º

,u- flag] izeq[k (,e ;w ch vks & bZbZbZ)

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2014

S.O. 529.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988 the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the

following schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :—

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name and Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Licensee

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

3694175

S. G. Marketing

IS 4250 : 1980

11/11/2013

4 Shiv Parvati Sadan,

Domestic electric food-mixers

Near Pushapa Silk

(liquidizes and grinders)

Mills, NSD Road, Govind Nagar,

Malad-E

Mumbai - 400097

3936173

Kuber Industries

IS 3854 : 1997

12/11/2013

1st Floor, 31/244, Motilal Nagar,

switches for domestic and

No. 3, M G Road,

similar purposes

Goregaon West,

Mumbai - 400062

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1499

7003546

Precision Electrical

IS 371 : 1999

11/11/2013

Gala No. 1, 3 and 4 Choudhary

Ceiling Roses

Industrial Estate Village Navghar

Vasai,

Vasai (E)

Distt :Thane

Pin - 401202

[No. CMD/13:13]

N. SINGH, Head (MUBO-EEE)

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 530-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fu;e 4 ds mi&fu;e (5) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gaS] os LohÑr dj fn, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal

LohÑr djus

ykblsal/kjh dk

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk- ek-

Hkkx vuqHkkx o"kZ

la-

la[;k

dh frfFk

uke o irk

dk 'kh"kZd

la[;k

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

2837166

21&12&2013

esllZ dqydsj ,xzks izksM~DVl

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

xV ua- 972] oMxkao ikVksys

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

rkyqdk [ksM

feujy ty ds vykok)

ftyk iq.ks

egkjk"Vª

412105

2838774

1&1&2014

esllZ xq:izdk'k ,dok

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykWV ua- 14

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

guqeku uxj

feujy ty ds vykok)

ftyk fgaxksyh

egkjk"Vª

431513

2838875

31&12&2013

esllZ lkbZ d`".kk baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

xV ua- 14

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

g- ua- 179

feujy ty ds vykok)

xMsxkao

rkyqd ,oa ftyk ukansM

egkjk"Vª

431604

2839978

1&1&2014

esllZ ,l ds baMLVªht

iwoZ<fyr daØhV ikbi

458

& 2003

xV ua- 2261

(izcyu lfgr vkSj

iksLV Jhxksank

jfgr)& fof'kf"V

rkyqd Jhxksank

ftyk vgenuxj

egkjk"Vª

413701

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2818768

7&1&2014

esllZ ckykth baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykWV ua- Mh&169

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

,evk;Mhlh 'ksanzk

feujy ty ds vykok)

ftyk vkSjaxkckn

egkjk"Vª

431001

2842967

16&1&2014

esllZ g"ko/Zu iQwM~l ,aM

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

csojstt

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

l-- ua- 147@,@5

feujy ty ds vykok)

ekatjh (chds)

gosyh

ftyk iq.ks

egkjk"Vª

411307

2843868

18&1&2014

esllZ ckykth baMLVªht

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

IykWV ua- MCY;w&9

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

,evk;Mhlh ,fj;k

feujy ty ds vykok)

ftyk ijHk.kh

egkjk"Vª

431401

2844567

17&1&2014

esllZ Vksikl VkbYl

iwoZ<fyr daØhV dscy

5820

& 1970

xV ua- 967

dol

lulokMh

f'k:j

ftyk iq.ks

egkjk"Vª

2844668

20&1&2014

esllZ lqizHkk izksVsdfVo

oL=kkfn &mPp ?kuRo

7903

& 2011

izkWMDV~l izk- fy-

iksyhbFkyhu cqus duMs

;wfuV ua- 2

ls cus frjiky&fof'kf"V

l ua- 584

fgLlk ua- 5

,V@ih lkloM

rkyqdk iqjanj

ftyk iq.ks]

egkjk"Vª&

412301

10-

2845266

22&1&2014

esllZ t;fgan iQwM ,aM csojstst

iSdstcan is;ty

14543

& 2004

xV ua 47@2lh@2@1

(iSdstcan izkd`frd

xkoMsokMh

feujy ty ds vykok)

iksLV dkanyxkao

rkyqdk lkmr lksykiwj

ftyk lksykiwj]

egkjk"Vª&

431221

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1501

11-

2845569

23&1&2014

esllZ vt; baMfLVª;y

laokru vkSj o"kkZ ty&

13592

& 1992

dkWiksZjs'ku fy-

laxzg.k ds ra=k lfgr

xV ua- 381] 382

Hkouksa ds vUnj o ckgj

,@ih foax

dh feV~Vh rFkk vif'k"V

rkyqdk [kaMkyk

fujkos'ku ra=k ds fy,

ftyk lkrkjk]

vuE;d`r iksyhfoukby

egkjk"Vª&

DyksjkbM (ihohlh&;q)

412801

ikbisa & fof'k"V

¹la- lh-,e-Mh-@13%11º

ch- ,e- guhiQ] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 530.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the Regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in

the following schedule :—

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licences

Grant Date

Name and

Title of the

IS No.

Part Sec.

Year

No.

Address of

Standard

the Party

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2837166

21-12-2013

M/s. Coolcare Agro Products

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Gat No. 972

water (other than

Vadgaon Patole

packaged natural

Taluka Khed

mineral water)

District Pune,

Maharashtra-

412105

2838774

1-1-2014

M/s. Guruprakash Aqua

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Plot No. 14

water (other than

Hanuman Nagar

packaged natural

District Hingoli,

mineral water)

Maharashtra-

431513

2838875

31-12-2013

M/s. Sai Krushna Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Gut No. 129

water (other than

H. No.179

packaged natural

Gadegaon

mineral water)

Taluka & District Nanded

Maharashtra-

431604

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8) (9)

1502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

2839978

1-1-2014

M/s. S. K. Enterprises

Precast concrete

458

- -

2003

Gat No. 2261

pipes (with and

Post Shrigonda

without

Taluka Shrigonda

reinforcement)

District Ahmednagar,

Maharashtra-

413701

2818768

7-1-2014

M/s. Balaji Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Plot No. D-169

water (other than

MIDC Shendra

packaged natural

District Aurangabad,

mineral water)

Maharashtra

431001

2842967

16-1-2014

M/s. Harshwardhan Foods

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

& Beverages

water (other than

S. No. 147 A/5

packaged natural

Manjari (BK)

mineral water)

Haveli

District Pune,

Maharashtra-

411307

2843868

18-1-2014

M/s. Balaji Industries

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Plot No. W-9

water (other than

MIDC Area

packaged natural

District Parbhani,

mineral water)

Maharashtra-

431401

2844567

17-1-2014

M/s. Topaz Tiles

Precast concrete

5820

- -

1970

Get No. 967

cable cover

Sanaswadi

Shirur

District Pune,

Maharashtra

2844668

20-1-2014

M/s. Suprabha Protective

Textiles -Tarpaulins

7903

- -

2011

Products Pvt. Ltd.

made from high

Unit No. 2

density polyethylene

S. No. 584, Hissa No. 5

woven fabric

A/P Saswad

Taluka Purandhar

District Pune,

Maharashtra-

412301

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1503

10.

2845266

22-1-2014

M/s. Jaihind Food & Beverages

Packaged drinking

14543

- -

2004

Gat No. 47/2C/2/1

water (other than

Gavdewadi

packaged natural

Post Kandalgaon

mineral water)

Taluka South Solapur

District Solapur,

Maharashtra-

413221

11.

2845569

23-1-2014

M/s. Ajay Industrial

Unplasticized PVC

13592

- -

1992

Corporation Ltd.

pipes for soil and

Gat No. 381, 382

waste discharge system

A/P Wing

for inside and outside

Taluka Khandala

buildings including

District Satara,

ventilation and

Maharashtra-

rainwater system

412801

[No. CMD/13:11]

B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ‘F’ and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 531-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;e (6) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZ;h xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS %µ

vuqlwph

Ø-

ykblsal la[;k ykblsal/kjh dk uke o irk

ykblsal ds vUrxZr oLrq@izØe

jí djus dh frfFk

la-

lh,e@,y&

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

fuy

¹la- lh ,e Mh@13%13º

ch- ,e- guhiQ] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 531.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations, 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below

have been cancelled/suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :—

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name and Address of the

Article/Process with relevant Indian

Date of

No.

Licensee

Standards covered by the licence

Cancellation

CM/L.

cancelled/suspension

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

NIL

[No. CMD/13:13]

B. M. HANEEF, Scientist ‘F’ and Head

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7) (8)

(9)

1504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ñf"k ea=kky;

(Ñf"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 532-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa Ñf"k ea=kky;] Ñf"k ,oa lgdkfjrk foHkkx ds lEc¼

dk;kZy; ouLifr laj{k.k] laxjks/ ,oa laxzg funs'kky;] iQjhnkckn

ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu dk;kZy; dks ftlds

80» deZpkjh o`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/lwfpr djrh gS :—

{ks=kh; ouLifr laxjks/ dsUnz]

th-,l-Vh- jksM] fudV fVªMsUV gksVy]

ehuEckDde]

psUubZ&600027 (rfeyukMq)

¹ la- 3&3@2011&jk-Hkk-uh-º

vkj- ch- flUgk] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

( Department of Agriculture and Cooperation)

( Official Language Divsion)

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 532.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of the Rule

10 of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby

notifies the following office which is under the

administrative control of the Directorate of Plant Protection,

Quarantine & Storage, Faridabad an attached office of the

Department of the Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of

Agriculture, wherof 80% staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi :—

Regional Plant Quarantine Station,

G.. S. T. Road, Near Trident Hotel

Meenambakkam,

Chennai- 600027 (T.N.)

[ No. 3-3/2011-Official Language Policy]

R.B. SINHA, Jt. Secy.

(Ñf"k vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 533-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Ñf"k ea=kky;] Ñf"k

vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds

fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e(4) ds

vuqlj.k esa Hkk-Ñ-v-i- ds v/huLFk Hkkjrh; Ñf"k vuqlak/u

ifj"kn~] ,yk] vksYM xksok dks ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa

us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vfèklwfpr

djrh gS A

¹ la- 13&10@2009&fgUnhº

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

( Department of Agriculture Research and Education)

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 533.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &

Education hereby notifies the Indian Council of Agricultural

Research (ICAR), Ela, Old Goa where more than 80% of

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[No. 13-10/2009-Hindi]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 534-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Ñf"k ea=kky;] Ñf"k

vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa Hkk-Ñ-v-i- ds dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku

dkfdukM+k dsUnz] dkfdukM+k] vkU/z izns'k dks ftlds 80» ls

vfèkd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;kZlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹ la- 13&10@2009&fgUnh@25&51º

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 534.—In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &

Education hereby notifies the Central Institute of Fisheries

Education Kakinada Centre, Kakinaka, Andhra Pradesh

where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[ No.13-10/2009-Hindi/25-51]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 535-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] Ñf"k ea=kky;] Ñf"k

vuqla/ku ,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa

ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4)

ds vuqlj.k esa Hkk-Ñ-v-i- ds dsUnzh; ekfRL;dh f'k{kk laLFkku

dkfdukM+k dsUnz] dkfdukM+k] vkU/z izns'k dks ftlds 80» ls

vfèkd deZpkfj;ksa us fgUnh dk dk;kZlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k

gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹ la- 13&10@2009&fgUnh@25&51º

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1505

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 535.— In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &

Education hereby notifies the Central Institute of Fisheries

Education Kakinada Centre, Kakinaka, Andhra Pradesh

where more than 80% of staff have acquired the working

knowledge of Hindi.

[ No.13-10/2009-Hindi/25-51]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 536-— dsUnzh; ljdkj] Ñf"k ea=kky;] Ñf"k vuqlaèkku

,oa f'k{kk foHkkx] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy,

iz;ksx) fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e (4) ds

vuqlj.k esa Hkk-Ñ-v-i- ds v/huLFk Hkkjrh; Ñf"k vuqlak/u

ifj"kn~] ,yk] vksYM xksok dks ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkfj;ksa us

fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS] ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr

djrh gS A

¹ la- 13&10@2009&fgUnhº

js[kk vkuUn] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 536.— In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Language (use for Official Purpose of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government, Ministry of

Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Research &

Education hereby notifies the Indian Council of Agricultural

Research (ICAR), Ela, Old Goa where more than 80% of

staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[ No.13-10/2009-Hindi]

REKHA ANAND, Under Secy.

dks;yk ea=kky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 537-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl)

vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS ) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu

tkjh Hkkjr ds jkti=k] vlk/kj.k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii)]

rkjh[k 01 ekpZ] 2013 esa izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk

ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kd dk-vk- 499(v)] rkjh[k 28

iQjojh] 2013 ds izdk'ku ij mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph

esa o£.kr Hkwfe (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS)

esa vkSj ml ij ds lrgh vf/dkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh

/kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYYkaxeksa ls eqDr

gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, gSa_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lsaVªy

dksYkiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] jk¡ph (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh

daiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk] ftUgsa dsUæh;

ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s vuqikyu djus

ds fy, jtkean gS_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11

dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g

funs'k nsrh gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds bl izdkj fufgr

lrgh vf/dkj rkjh[k 1 ekpZ] 2013 ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa bl

izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds

v/hu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~

(1)

ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds

v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa

vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~ fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa

dh dsUæh; ljdkj dks izfriw£r djsxh_

(2)

'krZ (1) ds v/hu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk] dsUæh;

ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds

iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 14 ds

v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk ,sls

fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj mDr vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk

djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr

lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs

vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij

ds lrgh vf/dkjksa ds fy, vkSj muds laca/ esa

vihy] vkfn] lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~

mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd,

tk,axs_

(3)

ljdkjh daiuh] dsUæh; ljdkj ;k mlds

in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa

{kfriw£r djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa

;k ml ij ds lrgh vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUæh;

ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#¼

fdUghas dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_

(4)

ljdkjh daiuh ds ikl dsUæh; ljdkj ds iwoZ

vuqeksnu ds fcuk mDr Hkwfe esa vkSj ml ij ds

bl izdkj fufgr lrgh vf/dkjksa dks fdlh vU;

O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh_

vkSj

(5)

ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu

djsxh] tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d

gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a

;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,a A

¹iQk- la- 43015@19@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

nksfefud MaqxMqax] voj lfpo

1506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 538-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd] blls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa o£.kr ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa ls dks;yk vfHkizkIr

fd, tkus dh laHkkouk gSA

vkSj mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds C;kSjs js[kkad la[;kd lh&1 (bZ)III@,pvkj@894&0713] rkjh[k 13 tqykbZ]

2013 dk fujh{k.k ] osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM] (jktLOk foHkkx)] dksy bLVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj&440 001 (egkjk"Vª) ds dk;kZy;

esa ;k eq[; egkizca/d (,DlIyksjs'ku izHkkx)] dsUnzh; [kku ;kstuk ,oa fMtkbu laLFkku] xksaMokuk iWysl] dkads jksM jkaph&834001 ds

dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700 001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k ftyk dyDVj] ¯NnokM+k (eè; izns'k)

ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20)(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa dks;ys dk

iwosZ{k.k djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS_

mDRk vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ dksbZ O;fDr] bl vf/lwpuk ds jkti=k esa izdk'ku dh rkjh[k ls uCcs fnu ds Hkhrj {ks=kh;

egkizca/d] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] dUgku {ks=k] iksLV vkWfiQl] Mqafxj;k] rglhy tqUukjnso] ftyk ¯NnokM+k (eè; izns'k) ;k egk

izca/d (Hkwfe vkSj jktLo)] osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] Hkwfe vkSj jktLo foHkkx] dksy bLVsV] flfoy ykbZUl] ukxiqj&440 001

(egkjk"Vª) ds dk;kZy; ls] &

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 537.—Whereas on the publication of the

notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of

Coal, number S.O. 449(E), dated the 28th February, 2013, in

the Gazette of India, 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 Surface rights in and or over the

land described in the Schedule appended to the said

notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested

absolutely in the Central Government free from all

encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the

said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is

satisfied that the Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi

(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 surface

rights in and 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:—

(i)

the Government Company shall reimburse the

Central Government all payments made in

respect of compensation, interest, damages

and the like, as determined under the

provisions of the said Act;

(ii)

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 surface rights, in and

over the said land, so vested, shall also be

borne by the Government Company;

(iii)

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 and its officials

regarding the surface rights in or over the said

land so vested;

(iv)

the Government Company shall have no power

to transfer the surface rights in and over the

said land so vested, to any other person

without the prior approval of the Central

Government; and

(v)

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. 43015/19/2009-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1507

(i)

mDr vf/lwpuk dh /kjk 4 dh mi&/kjk(3) ds v/hu dh xbZ fdlh dkjZokbZ ls gqbZ ;k gksus okyh laHkkfor fdlh uqdlku ds

fy, vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 ds v/hu izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk _

(ii)

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk (13) dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu iwosZ{k.k vuqKfIr;ksa ds izHkkoghu gksus ds laca/ es ;k mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 13 dh mi&/kjk (4) v/hu [kUku iV~Vs izHkkoghu gksus ds fy, izfrdj dk nkok dj ldsxk vkSj mls mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk (13) dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (i) ls [kaM (iv) esa fofu£n"V enksa dh ckcr mixr O;; dks min£'kr

djus ds fy, iwoksZDr Hkwfe ls lacaf/r lHkh ekufp=kksa] pkVks± vkSj vU; nLrkostksa dks ifjnÙk dj ldsxk A

vuqlwph

/km ,DlVsa'ku CykWd

dUgku {ks=k

ftyk fNUnokM+k (eè; izns'k)

¹js[kkad la- lh-& I(bZ)III/ ,pvkj@894&0713] rkjh[k 13 tqykbZ] 2013º

Ø xzke dk

rglhy ftyk

{ks=k (gsDVj esa)

oqQy

la- uke

jktLo ou dEikVZesaV la[;k

(gsDVj esa)

eqjs[kqjkbZ

tqUukjnso fNUnokM+k 124-12

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00394

2-95

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00395

4-19

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00406

205-43

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00408

0-50

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00407

208-57

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00444

31-75

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00443

7-68

124-12

461-07

585-19

2 Hkkyh /ke tqUukjnso

fNUnokM+k

51-72

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00444

169-56

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00443

3-06

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00445

76-71

51-72

249-33

301-05

3 pUnh;k tqUUkkjnso

fNUnokM+k

53-03

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00445

49-72

102-75

oqQlweiFk

4 fpdrcjh tqUUkkjnso fNUnokM+k

'kwU;

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00441

0-53

5 pUnkfu;k tqUUkkjnso fNUnokM+k

23-27 ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00407

47-07

dks;ykokjh

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00417

91-34

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00443

4-69

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00442

0-60

23-27

143-70

166-97

6 /km tqUUkkjnso fNUnokM+k

424-63 ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00445

92-35

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00444

26-58

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00443

243-41

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00407

3-68

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00417

4-77

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00442

45-13

ih- ,iQ- dEikVZesaV la- 00441

122-52

424-63

538-44

963-07

oqQy% 676-77 &

1442-79

2119-56

oqQy {ks=k% 2119-56 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 5237-43 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

1508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek o.kZu

d&[k&x&?k %

js[kk xzke eqjs [kqjkbZ dh xzke lhek ij fcUnq ^d* ls vkjaHk gksrh gS fiQj xzke eqjs [kqjkbZ ls gksdj fcUnq ^[k*] fcUnq

^x* ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj xzke eqjs [kqjkbZ vkSj xzke pUnh;k dks;ykokjh dks lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh

gS vkSj xzke pUnh;k dks;ykokjh esa fcUnq ^?k* ij feyrh gSA

?k&Ä&p&N&t&> %

js[kk xzke pUnh;k dks;ykokjh ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj xzke pUnh;k dks;ykokjh vkSj xzke /km dh lfEefyr xzke

lhek dks ikj djrh gS fiQj js[kk xzke /km esa fcUnq ^M* fcUnq ^p* fcUn ^N* fcUn ^t* ls gksdj xqtjkrh gS fiQj js[kk

xzke /km vkSj xzke fpdrcjh dh lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh gS vkSj xzke fpdrcjh esa fcUnq ^>* ij feyrh

gS A

>&×k&V %

js[kk xzke fpdrcjh ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj xzke fpdrcjh vkSj xzke /km dh lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh

gS fiQj js[kk xzke /km esa fcUnq ^×k* ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj xzke /km vkSj xzke pUnkfu;k oqQlweiFk dh lfEefyr

xzke lhek ij fcUnq ^V* ij feyrh gSA

V&B&M&<&d %

js[kk xzke pUnh;k oqQlweiFk esa fcUnq ^B* fcUnq ^M* js[kk fcUnq ^<* ls gksdj xqtjkrh gS fiQj xzke pUnkfu;k oqQlweiFk

vkSj xzke Hkkyh /ke dh lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh gS fiQj js[kk xzke Hkkyh /ke ls gksdj xqtjrh gS vkSj

xzke Hkkyh /ke vkSj xzke eqjs[kqjkbz dh lfEefyr xzke lhek dks ikj djrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ^d* ij feyrh

gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@10@2013 &ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

nksfefud MqaxMaqx] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 538.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the land in the

locality described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

And Whereas, the plan bearing number C-1 (E)III/HR/894-0713, dated the 13th July, 2013 containing the area of

land described in the said Schedule may be inspected at the office of the Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department),

Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the Chief General Manager (Exploration Division),

Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, Gondwana Palace, Kanke Road, Ranchi -834 001 or at the office of the Coal

Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata - 700 001 or at the office of the District Collector, Chhindwara (Madhya

Pradesh);

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas

(Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government

hereby gives notice of its intention to prospect for coal in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule;

Any person interested in the land described in the aforesaid Schedule may-

(i)

claim compensation under section 6 of the said Act for any damage caused or likely to be caused by

any action taken under sub-section (3) of Section 4 thereof; or

(ii)

claim compensation under sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the said Act in respect of prospecting license

ceasing to have effect or under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the said Act for mining lease ceasing to

have effect and deliver all maps" charts and other documents relating to the aforesaid rand. to show the

expenditureincurred in respect of items specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of

the said Act,

to the Office of the Area General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited, Kanhan Area, Post Office Dungaria, Tahsil Junnardeo,

District Chhindwara (Madhya Pradesh) or General Manager (Land and Revenue), Western Coalfields Limited, Land and

Revenue Department, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440 001 (Maharashtra) within ninety days from the date of publica-

tion of this notification in the Official Gazette.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1509

SCHEDULE

DHAU EXTENSION BLOCK

KANHAN AREA

DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)

[Plan bearing number C-1(E)III/HR/894- 0713, dated 13th July, 2013]

SI.

Name of

Tahsil

District

Land

Total

No.

Village

(in hectares)

(in

Revenue Forest Compartment number

hectares)

Murre

Junnar-

Chhind-

124.12

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00394

2.95

Khurai

deo

wara

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00395

4.19

P.F. COMPT.NO. 00406

205.43

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00408

0.50

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00407

208.57

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00444

31.75

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00443

7.68

124.12

461.07

585.19

Bhali

Junnar-

Chhind-

51.72

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00444

169.56

Dham

deo

wara

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00443

3.06

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00445

76.71

51.72

249.33

301.05

Chand-

Junnar-

Chhind-

53.03

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00445

49.72

102.75

aniya

deo

wara

Kusum-

path

Chikat-

Junnar-

Chhind-

Nil

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00441

0.53

bari

deo

wara

Chandia

Junnar-

Chhind-

23.27

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00407

47.07

Koyala-

deo

wara

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00417

91.34

wari

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00443

4.69

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00442

0.60

23.27

143.70

166.97

Dhau

Junnar-

Chhind-

424.63

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00445

92.35

deo

wara

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00444

26.58

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00443

243.41

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00407

3.68

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00417

4.77

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00442

45.13

P.F. COMPT. NO. 00441

122.52

424.63

538.44

963.07

Total:

676.77

1442.79

2119.56

Total area: 2119.56 hectares (approximately) or 5237.43 acres (approximately).

Boundary description:

A-B-C-D :

Line starts from Point 'A' in village boundary of Murre Khurai, then line passes nearby Point 'B', 'C' through

village Murre Khurai, then crosses common village boundary of villages Murre Khurai and Chandia

Koyalawari and meets at Point 'D' in village Chandia Kcyalawari. '

D-E-F-G-H-I : Line passes through village Chandia Koyalawari, then crosses common village boundary of villages Chandia

Koyalawari and Dhau, then line passes nearby Point 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H' through village Dhau, then line crosses

common village boundary of villages Dhau and Chikatbari and meets at Point 'I' in village Chikatbari.

1510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

I-J - K :

Line passes through village Chikatbari then crosses common village boundary of villages Chikatbari and

Dhau, then line passes nearby Point 'J' through village Dhau and meets at Point 'K' on common village

boundary of villages Dhau and Chandaniya Kusumpath.

K-L-M-N-A :

Line passes nearby Point 'L', 'M', 'N' through village Chandaniya Kusumpath then line crosses common

village boundary of villages Chandaniya Kusumpath and Bhali Dham then line passes through village Bhali

Dham and crosses common village boundary of villages Bhali Dham and Murre Khurai and meets at starting

Point 'A'.

[F. No. 43015/10/2013-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 4 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 539-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vfèkfu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh

vfèklwpuk la[;kd dk-vk- 3241(v) ] rkjh[k 19 vDrwcj] 2012 Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx II] [kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) ] rkjh[k 27 vDrwcj]

2012 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij] mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~

mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS) mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYYkaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh;

ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, Fks _

vkSj mDr dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lkmFk bZLVuZ dksYkiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] lhir jksM] Mkd?kj la[;k 60]

ftyk&fcykliqj&495006 (NÙkhlx<+) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS)] ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUæh;

ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s vuqikyu djus ds fy, rS;kj gS_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 327-862 gsDVj(yxHkx) ;k 810-14 ,dM+ (yxHkx) Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds Hkw&lrg vf/dkj rkjh[k

27 vDrwcj] 2012 ls dsUæh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr cus jgus ds LFkku ij] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] ljdkjh

daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~% —

(1)

ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/ksa ds v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkfu;ksa vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr~

fd, x, lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUæh; ljdkj dks izfriw£r djsxh_

(2)

'krZ (1) ds v/hu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk] dsUæh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, mDr

vfèkfu;e dh /kjk 14 ds v/hu ,d vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls mDr vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk ds fy,

fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;] ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa

;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa] vihy] vkfn] lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr~ mixr lHkh O;; Hkh

ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd, tk,axs_

(3)

ljdkjh daiuh] dsUæh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriw£r djsxh] tks bl izdkj

fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUæh; ljdkj ;k mlds vf/dkfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo#¼ fdUghas

dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa vko';d gks_

(4)

ljdkjh daiuh dks dsUæh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk mDr Hkwfe dks vkSj mlds vf/dkj ;k vkSj fdlh vU; O;fDr

ds vf/dkjksa dks varfjr djus dh 'kfDr ugha gksxh vkSj

(5)

ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funsZ'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh] tks dsUæh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds

fof'k"V {ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,a A

¹iQk- la- 43015@13@2010&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

nksfefud MaqxMqax] voj lfpo

ORDER

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 539.—Whereas on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal,

number S.O. 3241 dated the 19th 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 or over the land described in the schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free

from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1511

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 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 surface rights of 327.862 hectares (approximately) or 810.14 acres (approximately) 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 compen-

sation, 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 tribunal shall be borne by

the Government company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect of all legal proceedings like ap-

peals, 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 expendi-

ture 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 said 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. 43015/13/2010-PRIW-I]

DOMINIC DUNGDUNG, Under Secy.

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 540-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] ljdkjh LFkku (vizkf/Ñr vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971(1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3

}kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dk-vk- 1838] rkjh[k 30 tqykbZ] 1998 }kjk izdkf'kr Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/lwpuk esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] vFkkZr~

lkj.kh ds LrEHk 1 esa vf/dkjh dk inuke 'kh"kZd ds v/hu ¶baLVhV~;wV bathfu;j] jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd bathfu;jh laLFkku (,uvkbZVhvkbZbZ)]

eqEcbZ¸ ds izfof"V ds LFkku ij ¶dk;Zikyd bathfu;j] jk"Vªh; vkSn~;ksfxd bathfu;j laLFkku (,uvkbZVhvkbZbZ)] eqEcbZ¸ izfof"V j[kh tk,xhA

¹iQk- la- 30&2@2013&Vh- ,l- 7º

izoh.k izdk'k] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

( Department of Higher Education)

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2014

S.O. 540.—In pursuance of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby amends the notification of the Government of India

published vide Number S. O. 1838 dated 30th July, 1998 as follows, namely:—

In the Table , under the heading Designation of the Officer, in column 1 for the entry“ Institute Engineer, National

Institute of Industiral Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai”, the entry “Executive Engineer, National Institute of Industrial

Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai” shall be substitued.

[ F. No.30-2/2013-TS.VII]

PRAVEEN PRAKASH, Jt. Secy.

1512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 541-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ

dksyiQhYMl fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 320@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

16&01&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@136@2000&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 541.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 320/

2000) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Saoner Sub Area of

WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/136/2000-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/320/2000

Date: 18.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Saoner Sub Area of WCL,

Saoner, Distt. Nagpur (MS)

V/s.

Party No. 2 :

Shri Satish P. Naik

Ward no. 15, Saoner, Po & Teh

Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

AWARD

( Dated 18th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Satish P.

Naik, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/136/2000-

IR (CM-II) dated 08/21.11.2000, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Saoner

Sub-Area of WCL, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in awarding

the punishment of dismissal from services to

Shri Satish Purshattam Naik, General Mazdoor, w.e.f.

25.03.1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman is entitled and from which date?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman, Shri Satish

Purshattam Naik, (“the workman” in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of WCL, (“party

no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was served with the charge

sheet dated 24/27.01.1998, on the allegation of remaining

unauthorized absent from duty from 12.07.1997 to

24.01.1998 and the charge sheet was duly replied by him,

in which, it was specifically mentioned that he was not

unauthorizedly absent or absent without any notice to

the employer and he was suffering continuously from

stomachache and was undergoing treatment at WCL

hospital and he had duly informed about the same to the

superintendent of Mines/colliery Manager, Saoner Mines

no.2 by submitting applications dated 31.07.1997,

26.08.1997, 29.09.1997, 25.10.1997 and 29.11.1997 and he

did not commit any misconduct as contemplated under

clause 26.30 of the Standing order and the reason of his

absence due to his illness was duly communicated by him

to the party no.1, by submission of the medical report,

medical card and certificate issued by the P.H.C., Saoner

and he felt ill in the first shift on 11.07.1997 and was treated

in the Dispensary of W.C.L. at Saoner from 12.07.1997 to

28.07.1997 and from 29.07.1997 he was treated at P.H.C.,

Saoner and inspite of knowing that he was on medical

leave, issuance of the charge sheet by party no.1, itself

was bad in law and he was allowed to join duty vide order

dated 15/16.06.1998, issued by the Colliery manager, Saoner

Mine no.1 and since then till his dismissal, he was on duty

and the order of his dismissal on the allegation of

unauthorized absence is patently illegal, arbitrary and bad

in law.

It is further pleaded by the workman that the

Manager without taking into consideration his explanation

and the documents produced by him, conducted the

departmental enquiry and completed the same in an

arbitrary manner and the Enquiry Officer did not give him

sufficient opportunity to defend himself and completed

the enquiry in a haste in one sitting on 16.09.1998 and the

report of the enquiry officer is without any date, which

creates doubt about the fairness of the enquiry and the

enquiry officer did not consider the documents in regard

to his treatment and the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

without any basis and the information of his medical

treatment for the period from 12.07.1997 to 28.07.1997 was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1513

entered in the “sick & unfit” register of labour officer,

Mine no.1 and therefore, the conclusion of the Enquiry

Officer that no information was given by him to the

management about his illness is per se illegal, arbitrary

and bad in law and he was treated at PHC, Saoner from

29.07.1997 to 17.02.1998 and then at Jawaharlal Hospital,

Kamptee of WCL from 18.02.1998 to 17.04.1998 and there

was no fault on his part and the impugned order of dismissal

dated 25.03.1999 is illegal and bad in law. The workman

has prayed to quash and set aside the order of dismissal

dated 25.03.1999 and to reinstate him in service with

continuity, full back wages and consequential benefits.

3. The party no.1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that charge sheet dated 27.01.1998 was

issued against the workman for remaining absent

unauthorisedly from 12.07.1997 to 24.01.1998 and the

workman did not inform the Manager, Mine no.1 about his

so called sickness and the Enquiry Officer in his findings

has clearly stated that after the workman reported sick in

WCL dispensary on 12.07.1997, he never turned up for his

treatment nor intimated about his sickness and the

workman in a planned way had taken step to cover up his

unauthorized absence and the workman was a habitual

absentee and he was punished on more than one occasion

and the workman was allowed to join his duties vide order

dated 15/16.06.1998, pending decision of the enquiry and

the Enquiry Officer allowed several adjournments to the

workman in the enquiry and also allowed him to take

assistance of coworker, which he availed and the enquiry

officer considered the documents produced by the

management as well as the workman and based his findings

on the documents and the workman was a habitual

absentee and in the past, charge sheets dated 03.12.1992,

6/7.01.1994 and 01.08.1994 were submitted against him and

punishment of warning, stoppage of one increment and

stoppage of one increment respectively were passed

against the workman and the punishment imposed against

the workman is justified and the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman

from services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the

fairness or otherwise of the departmental enquiry was been

taken as a preliminary issue for consideration and by order

dated 29.10.2013, the departmental enquiry conducted

against the workman was held to be legal, proper and in

accordance with the principles of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

charged for remaining unauthorized absent for the period

from 12.07.1997 to 24.01.1998 and during the relevant

period, the workman was sick and was under the treatment

of the doctors of the Hospital of the party No.1 and the

Superintendent/Manager of Saoner Mine was duly

informed about his illness and treatment by the workman

by his applications dated 31.07.1991, 26.08.1997, 29.09.1997,

25.10.1997 and 29.11.1997 and the workman was not absent

from duty unauthorisedly or without sufficient cause. It

was further submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that in the departmental enquiry, no documentary

evidence or proof was placed on record by the

management, in support of the charge of unauthorized

absence of the workman and it is pleaded by the party

No.1 in the written statement that the documents/papers

were given to the workman on 10/11.3.2000, i.e. after

completion of the departmental enquiry and the said fact

shows that the punishment of dismissal is based on

afterthought documents and no document was proved

and established in support of the charge and the charge

sheet issuing authority was not examined in the enquiry

and as such, the punishment is not only harsh, but also,

disproportionate and contrary to evidence on record. It

was further submitted by the learned advocate for the

workman that the workman was ill and he produced the

documents in support of his illness and treatment and the

Enquiry Officer without taking into consideration the said

documents properly, erroneously held the charges levelled

against the workman to have been proved and the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are perverse as the same are against

the evidence on record and as basing on such perverse

findings, unreasonable and disproportionate punishment

has been imposed, the order of punishment is liable to be

set aside and the workman is entitled to be reinstatement

in service with continuity and full back wages.

In support of the contention, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in A.I.R. 1986 S.C.-2118 (Kashinath Dikhista Vs. Union of

India), A.I.R.1982 S.C.-937 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs.

Mohd. Sharif) and A.I.R. 1974 SC-2335 ( State of Punjab

Vs. Bhagat Ram).

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party No.1 that in this case, vide order

dated 29.10.2013, it has already been held that the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman to

be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice and it is well settled that the Tribunal does

not sit as a court of appeal in such a case and the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are based on the evidence on record

of the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer has assigned

reasons in support of his findings after analyzing the

evidence adduced by the parties in the enquiry and as

such, the findings of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to

be perverse and grave misconduct of unauthorized

absence from duties has been proved against the workman

in a properly conducted departmental enquiry and

therefore, the punishment imposed against the workman

cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate, so there

is no scope to interfere with the punishment. The learned

advocate for the party No.1 further submitted that though

on 12.07.1997, the workman reported sick for the first time

1514

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the dispensary of the management, thereafter, he never

reported in the said dispensary for treatment and the

workman also did not inform the management about his

sickness and he did not obtain any leave in accordance

with service Rules and the workman also did not produce

any document in support of his illness before the Enquiry

Officer and the management right from the beginning had

disputed the claim of the workman of sending applications

for leave, under certificate of posting and in absence of

production of cogent evidence by the workman to prove

the receipt of such applications by the management, such

claim cannot be accepted and the punishment imposed on

the workman is in accordance with the Rules.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party No.1 that without the submission made above,

in case the reference is answered in favour of the workman,

then the workman is not entitled to back wages, as he has

failed to prove that he was not gainfully employed after

the date of his dismissal and otherwise also, it cannot be

presumed that the workman sat idle for so many long years

and the reference is liable to be answered in the negative.

In support of the contention, the learned advocate

for the Party No. 1 placed reliance on the decision reported

in (2008) ISCC – 224 (L & T Komatsu Ltd. Vs. N. Udaya

Kumar).

7. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a

number of decisions that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction

to sit over the findings of the Enquiry Officer as the

Appellate Authority and a finding recorded in a domestic

enquiry cannot be characterized as perverse by the Labour

Court, unless it can be shown that such a finding is not

supported by any evidence or is entirely opposed to the

whole body of the evidence adduced.

So, keeping in view the settled principles as

mentioned above and in the decisions cited by the learned

advocates for the parties, now, the present case in hand is

to be considered.

8. On perusal of the documents of the departmental

enquiry conducted against the workman, it is found that

the Enquiry Officer in his report has categorically

mentioned that the workman in his defence produced

eleven documents and on perusal of the said documents,

he found that the workman was absent from duty from

12.07.1997 to 24.01.1998, but during the said period, he

was ill and undergoing treatment and first of all, he was

treated at Saoner WCL Dispensary from 12.07.1997 and

such information has been entered in the sick and unfit

thereafter, the workman was treated at PHC, Saoner from

29.07.1997 to 17.02.1998, but he did not intimate about the

same in the office of Mine No. 1 and no leave was

sanctioned and the workman should have intimated about

his illness and treatment time to time to the management,

but he did not do so and therefore, the charge under clause

26.30 of the Standing Order of remaining unauthorized

absent is proved. However, on perusal of the proceedings

of the enquiry, it is found that on 16.09.1998, the defence

representative produced the documents about the illness

and treatment of the workman and copies of the

applications sent by the workman to the management under

certificate of posting for sick leave and gave statement

that the workman was sick from 12.07.1997 and was treated

in different hospitals including the dispensary and hospital

of WCL and intimated the management about his illness

and treatment and also applied for sick leave. The workman

also confirmed the statement given by his co-worker, in

his statement given before the Enquiry Officer. The

documents produced on behalf of the workman were taken

on record of the enquiry without any objection. The

management representative did not challenge the

genuineness of the documents produced by the workman.

Even, it was not suggested that the applications sent by

the workman were not received by the management. It is

clear from the documents produced by the workman that

during the relevant period, he was ill and under medical

treatment and he also intimated such facts to the

management and also prayed for grant of sick leave and

his absence from 12.07.1997 to 24.01.1998 was not without

sufficient cause. The Enquiry Officer in his report has

admitted such facts partially i.e. about the absence of the

workman from duty from illness from 12.07.1997 to

28.07.1997 and about entry of the same in the sick and

unfit register of the management. It is held that the findings

of the Enquiry Officer are against the evidence on record

of the enquiry and therefore are perverse. As basing on

such perverse findings, the punishment of dismissal of

the workman from services has been passed, the same

cannot be sustained. The order of dismissal of the

workman is held to be illegal.

9. Now, the question remains for consideration is

as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled. As the

order of punishment of dismissal of the workman from

services is held to be illegal, the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and all other

consequential benefits.

So far the back wages is concerned, it is not pleaded

and proved by the workman that since the date of dismissal

from services, he has not been gainfully employed.

However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of

the case, I think that grant of 50% of back wages from the

date of dismissal of the workman till the date of his actual

reinstatement in service, will serve the ends of justice in

this case. So, the workman is granted 50% of back wages

from the date of his dismissal till the date of his actual

reinstatement in service. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Saoner Sub-Area

of WCL, Saoner, Distt. Nagpur in awarding the punishment

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1515

of dismissal from services to Shri Satish Purshattam Naik,

General Mazdoor, w.e.f. 25.03.1999 is illegal and unjustified.

The workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and all other consequential benefits. The

workman is also entitled for 50% back wages from the date

of his dismissal till the date of his actual reinstatement in

service. The Party No. 1 is directed to comply with the

award within one month of the publication of the award in

the official gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 542-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkjih,iQlh

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@ Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 190@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&01&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@86@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 542.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 190/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of O/o RPFC, Nav Bharat

Press Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-42012/86/2002 - IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/190/2002

Date: 23.12.2013

Party No. 1(a) :

The Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner, Nav Bharat Press

Complex, Rajbandha Maidan,

G. E. Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

(b) :

The Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner O/o. RPFC,

Nav Bharat Press complex,

Rajbandha Maidan,

G. E. Road, Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Komaldas Ghidode, S/o

Shri Bulwadas, Village: Tulsi Baradera,

Thana: Mandir-Hasaud,

PO : Kurud, Camp-Kurud,

Distt. Raipur (Chattisgarh)

AWARD

(Dated : 23rd December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Employees Provident Fund Commissioner

and their workman, Shri Komaldas Ghidode, Ex-peon for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-42012/86/2002-IR(CM-II)

dated 30.10.2002, with the following schedule :

“Whether the termination of services of Shri

Komaldas Ghidode, Ex-Peon (on daily wages) of

O/o. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur

of Employees Provident Fund Organisation under

Ministry of Labour w.e.f. 03.07.99 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to?

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were notice to

file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, Sh. Komaldas Ghidode

(“the workman” in short) filed the statement of claim and

the management of Regional Provident Fund

Commissioner (“Party no. 1” in short) filed the written

statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed by the party

no.1 as a peon on daily wages basis on 29.09.98 and he

worked till 03.07.99 continuously and he completed 268

days of work, but without any reason, the party no.1

terminated his services orally on 03.07.99 and he agitated

the matter before the party no.1, by his letter dated 05.07.99

and the first party appointed one Mohanlal Yadav in his

place and his appointment was after conducting an

interview by party no.1, for the post of temporary peon

and the post on which, he was working was a clear and

vacant post and before termination of his services, the

mandatory provisions of the Act were not complied with

and he was not given one month’s notice in advance or

one month’s salary in lieu of the notice and retrenchment

compensation and as such, the termination of his service

is illegal and the provision of section 25-G was also not

complied with and one junior employee, Pramod Kumar

Ratre was appointed permanently as a peon. The workman

has prayed for setting aside the order of termination and

to reinstate him in service as a peon with full back wages

and continuity in service.

3. The party no.1 in its written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged for limited

period to meet some exigencies from time to time, during

1516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the period from 08.10.98 to 02.07.99 and he actually worked

for 200 days, for which, he had already been paid and the

workman on 08.06.1999 submitted an application for

issuance of an experience certificate, as he was planning

to work in Bhilai Nagrik Sahkari Bank, Bhilai and thereafter,

the workman stopped coming to its office and the workman

kept quite for about for one and half years and suddenly

served a notice through his advocate in December, 2000.

It is further pleaded by the party No.1 that the workman

has committed a legal error in counting the days of his

engagement and while counting the days of work, the

days on which he had actually worked and for which,

wages had been paid are to be counted and while

calculating the days of work, the days on which no work

had been done or no wages had been paid, the same

should not have been taken into account. It is further

pleaded by the party no.1 that the Employees Provident

Fund Organization is a statutory body constituted under

the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

provisions Act, 1952, by the Government of India and there

is recruitment rules for appointment of Group ‘D’ posts

and so far the appointment of Shri Ratre and Shri Mohanlal

Yadav is concerned, the appointing authority, Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner-I, M.P. Region had

published a press notification calling for applications from

general public for appointment to the post of peon,

watchman and sweeper for M.P. Region including Raipur

office and in response to the said notice, applications of

62 candidates direct from the open market were received

and name of 74 candidates from the local employment

exchange were sponsored and the appointing authority

after observing all the procedure laid down in the Rules

for recruitment of Gr. “D” employee, selected and

appointed some persons including Shri Ratre and Shri

Yadav and though the workman stopped attending the

office in July, 99 and in the very same month, the press

notice for appointment was issued and the workman did

not apply for appointment, in response to the said press

notice and the said fact indicated that at the relevant time

the workman was not interested to serve with it. It is also

pleaded by the party No.1 that as the workman worked for

200 days, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to

his case and as the workman did not work for the minimum

period as prescribed in the Act, it was not under any

obligation to observe the procedure provided in the Act

and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have no

application to the case of the workman and for that the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The workman has examined himself as a witness

in support of his case and reiterated the facts mentioned

in the statement of claim, in his examination-in-chief, which

was on affidavit.

The workman in his cross-examination has admitted

that he was appointed initially for 89 days temporarily and

he worked in the different sections as per list.

One Ram Lakhan Gupta, an Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner has been examined as a witness on behalf

of the party No.1. The evidence of the party No.1 is also

on affidavit. The witness for the party No.1 in his

examination in chief has reiterated the facts mentioned in

the written statement. In his cross-examination, this

witness has stated that he has no personal knowledge

about the engagement and disengagement of the workman

and the contents of his affidavit are based on the

documents available in the office and the appointment of

the workman was made on 29.08.1998 on daily wages basis

and a call letter was sent to the workman to appear in the

interview. This witness has also stated that Mohanlal

Yadav was appointed as a regular peon, after his selection

in a regular recruitment test there is no provision for

maintaining seniority list of daily wagers.

5. It is the own case of the workman that he was

engaged on 29.08.1998 and was orally terminated on

03.07.1999. It is clear from the pleadings of the workman

that he did not work for a total period of 12 months.

At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about

the decision of the three judges Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1963 S C -1994 (Sur Enamel

and Stamping Works Ltd. Vs. The workmen)

It is held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that:-

“Sec. 25-B- Completion of one year of continuous

service by workman- Proof of -

“Before a workman can be considered to have one

year of continuous service in an industry, it must be

shown first that he was employed for a period of not

less than 12 calendar months and next that during

those 12 calendar months had worked for not less

than 240 days. Where as in the instant case, the

workman have not at all been employed for a period

of 12 calendar months it becomes unnecessary to

examine whether the actual days of work numbered

240 days or more. For, in any case, the requirement

of section 25-B would be satisfied by the mere fact

of the number of days being not less than 240 days.”

So, applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision as mentioned above,

to the case in hand, it is found that the workman does not

satisfy the requirement of Section 25-B & 25-F of the Act

and as such, the provisions of the said section are not

applicable to his case.

6. More over, in this case, the workman has claimed

that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding

12 months of the date of his alleged termination, i.e.

03.07.99. On the other hand, the party no.1 has denied

such plea and has pleaded that the workman worked for

200 days in total. It is well settled that in such a case, the

initial burden lies on the workman to prove that he worked

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1517

for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the

alleged date of termination and such burden doesn’t shift

to the management and mere filing of the affidavit by the

workman, claiming to have worked for more than 240 days

doesn’t discharge the burden of proof and for that, other

reliable evidence is required to be produced. Keeping in

view the settled principles as mentioned above, now the

present case at hand is to be considered. The workman

has filed the documents, Exts. W-5, W-6 and W-7 series

(Exts. 7/1 to W 7/16) in support of his claim.

Ext. W-5 is the call letter sent by party No.1 to the

workman to appear in the interview on 23.04.1998. On

perusal of Ext.W-5, it is found that it was clearly mentioned

in the same that the interview was for temporary peon on

daily wages. Ext.W-6 shows thatt after the interview on

23.04.98, the workman was appointed as a peon for 89

days on temporary basis. The workman has filed 16

documents, Exts W-7/1 to 7/16, showing his engagement

by party no.1 subsequent to his first appointment for 89

days. On perusal of those documents, it is found that the

workman was engaged by the party no.1 for a day or two

intermittently from 13.02.99 to 27.06.99 and those document

shows that he worked for 17 days from 13.02.99 to 27.06.99.

The workman has not produced any other documents to

show that he had completed 240 days of work prior to

03.07.99. As the workman has failed to discharge the initial

burden of proving that he worked for more than 240 days,

in the preceding 12 months of the date of his alleged

termination.

It is also clear from the materials available on record

that Shri Pramod Kumar Ratre And Shri Mohanlal Yadav

were appointed as peons on permanent basis after their

due selection as per Rules of recruitment of party No.1. In

view of the materials on record and the discussion made

above, it is found that the provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-

G and 25-H of the Act are not applicable to the case of the

workman and the workman is not entitled to any relief. .

Hence it is ordered:

ORDER

The termination of services of Shri Komaldas

Ghidode, Ex-Peon (on daily wages) of O/o. Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur of Employees

Provident Fund Organisation under Ministry of Labour

w.e.f. 03.07.99 is legal and justified. The workman is not

entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 543-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 136@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@12@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 543.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Rayatwari Sub Area

of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/12/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/136/2002

Date: 02.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The sub-Area Manager,

Rayatwari Sub Area,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post- Rayatwari, Dist. Chandrapur (M.S.)

Party No.2 :

Shri S.R. Pandre,

General Secretary,

Lal Bavata Kamgar Union,

Bhiwapur Ward No.27,

Post & Distt. Chandrapur

AWARD

(Dated : 2nd December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Rayatwari Sub Area of Western Coalfields

Limited and their workman, Shri Kamata Prasad Sadhu, for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/12/2002-IR (CM-II)

dated 08.08.2002, with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Durgapur

Rayatwari Colliery of Western Coalfields Limited in

fixing the wages of Shri Kamata Prasad Sadhu, piece

rated Loader converted to time rated Timber Mistry

category – IV at middle point of the basic of category-

IV vide order No. WCL/CHA/Durgapur/2110 dated

26/30.07.1997 is legal and justified in terms of the

settlement dated 02.11.1992? If not, to what relief is

the workman entitled?”

1518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri

Kamata Prasad Sadhu , (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of , (“Party No. 1”

in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was working with the party

No.1 from1973 in the permanent job of Tub Loader and

was getting group wages of Loader as per the provisions

of N.C.W.A and due to high blood pressure, he was under

treatment of colliery Dispensary from the year 1992 to 1993

and he was sent by the colliery doctor to the Area Hospital,

Chandrapur for further treatment and the Area Hospital,

Chandrapur sent him to Government Hospital, Chandrapur

for treatment, as per the advice of the Sub Area Manager,

Rayatwari Sub Area and the Civil Surgeon of Government

Hospital recommended for light duty for two months and

as per the recommendations of the Civil Surgeon, party

no.1 gave him light duty in time rated job, but paid salary

of piece rated group wages of Tub Loader as per N.C.W.A.

and in 1992, he submitted four applications to party No. 1

to allow him for time category, mentioning there in that as

per the work, he would accept the category, but party

No.1 did not consider his prayer and lastly on 05.05.1993,

he filed an application again for time rated job and he

would accept wage as per the category, but party No.1

remarked “ Not possible” and returned the said application

to him and inspite of the same, the party No.1 allowed him

to continue in time rated job till 31^st January, 1998 and paid

salary of piece rated/group wages, basic and SPRA as per

5^th NCWA, but by letter No. 2110 dated 30.07.1997, which

was received by him in the month of January 1998, the

party No.1 reduced his basic group wages and SPRA and

due to such action of party No.1, he sustained a loss of

about Rs.100/- per day and reduction of his wages was

bad in law and was not in good faith and there was a

settlement between the management of WCL and the union

on 02.11.1992 to give protection of group wages including

SPRA, but the party No.1 did not implement the said

settlement in Rayatwari Sub Area, whereas, the said

settlement was implemented in other Mines including

Nandgaon Incline Chanda Rayatwari Colliery and as such

he is entitled for protection of his basic group wages and

SPRA of Tub Loader.

The workman has prayed to set aside the order dated

26/30.07.1997.

3. The party No.1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter alia that the workman was working as a piece

rated loader on permanent job since 1993 and was getting

group wages of loader as per NCWA till he remained in

piece rated job and because of the ill health of the workman

and as per the recommendation of the doctor and on

humanitarian consideration, the workman was allowed to

work in time rated job and in 1992 and1993, the workman

requested to allow him to work in time rated job

permanently, giving an under taking to accept the wages

as per work allowed in time rated job and the workman was

allowed to continue to work in time rated job and was

allowed to draw the wages and by letter No.2110 dated

30.07.1997, the workman was permanently shifted to time

rated category from piece rated category and because of

such placement, the wages of the workman was reduced

and the workman cannot make any grievance of that

because, he had himself requested for his conversion to

time rated worker and be paid wages as per work allowed

in time rated job and there was no question of issuing of

any charge sheet or notice for change of designation and

the change was made as per the request of the workman

himself.

The further case of the party No.1 is that there was

a settlement between it and the INTUC union on 02.11.1992

for protection of group wages, but subsequently there

was vast changes to the said settlement and some clauses

of the said settlement were changed by fresh agreement in

the year 1995 with INTUC union and it was agreed not to

protect the wages of piece rated worker on his conversion

into time rated and it was also agreed that the wages of the

worker should be fixed in time scale wage group and the

workman cannot be permitted to approbate or reprobate

at the same time and the workman having been made

request for allowing him work in time rated scale with wages

to be paid to time scale employee, he is stopped in law to

resile from his earlier stand and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that the workman

after filing of his evidence on affidavit in support of his

claim, did not appear in the case for his cross-examination.

After several adjournments, as the workman did not appear

for his cross-examination. It was reported that the General

Secretary of the union, who was representing the workman

died. So, notices were issued to the workman in the

addresses including his permanent address to appear in

the case, but all the notices returned back without service.

As neither the workman nor anybody else appeared on

behalf of the workman, as per order dated 06.08.2013, the

evidence of the workman on affidavit was expunged and

order was passed to proceed ex-parte against the workman.

Party No. 1 declined to adduce any oral evidence in

this case, so after hearing argument from the side of the

management, on 18.09.2013, the case was closed and was

posted for award.

5. It is settled beyond doubt that if a party

challenges the legality of an order, the burden lies upon

him to prove the illegality of the order and if no evidence

is produced, the party invoking the jurisdiction of the

Court must fail.

Applying the settled principles as mentioned above

to the present case in hand, it is found that in this case,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1519

though the workman has challenged the order of fixation

of his pay at middle point of the basic of Category-IV by

order dated 26/30.07.1997 to be illegal, he has not adduced

any evidence to prove the illegality of the said order.

Hence, the reference cannot be answered in favour of the

workman. Hence, it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 544-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 132@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@276@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 544.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/

2002) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/276/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/132/2002

Date: 04.12.2013

Party No. 1(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajani, Nagpur.

(b) :

The Assistant Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Food Supply Depot, Wardha (East),

Wardha (M.S.).

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Ramesh S/o Bapurao Tundam,

Wardha, Tehsil and District- Wardha,

Wardha ( M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 4th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Food Corporation of India and their

workman, Shri Ramesh Bapurao Tundam, for adjudication,

as per letter No.L-22012/276/2001-IR (CM-II) dated

25.07.2002, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of F.C.I.,

Nagpur in not absorbing Sh. Ramesh S/o Bapurao

Tundam, Godown Mazdoor, F.C.I., Wardha w.e.f.

01.01.1993 consequent upon abolition of contract

work of handling and transportation awarded to

M/s. Anna Nigam Mathadi Kamgar Mazdoor

Sahakari Sanstha (Maryadit), Contractor, Wardha is

legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri

Ramesh Bapurao Tundam , (‘the workman” in short), filed

the statement of claim and the management of Food

Corporation of India (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their

written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he entered into the service of

party No.1 as a godown mazdoor w.e.f. 20.08.1991 and was

posted at Wardha (East) Supply Department and from the

date of his initial appointment, he had been in continuous

service of party No.1 till the date he was orally discontinued

from services and the reason for his such oral termination

as advanced by party No.1 was non-availability of work

and while terminating his services, party No.1 had assured

him that they would appoint him again as and when work

would be available and he had completed 240 days of

continuous service in the preceding year of his termination

and thus had acquired the status of a permanent employee

as contemplated under section 25 B of the Act and the

termination of his services by party No.1 in breach of the

mandatory provisions of the Act is illegal and bad in law

and as a godown mazdoor, he was performing the work of

cleaning and collecting grains and materials in the godown

and he was a workman as contemplated under Section

2(S) of the Act and Party No. 1 is an industry as per the

definition of Section 2(j) of the Act.

It is further pleaded by the workman that Party No. 1

had been maintaining a seniority list of labourers working

under the Assistant Manager, Wardha Depot and in that

list, his name was shown at serial number 81 and the said

seniority list was a bogus list and the same was not a

1520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

genuine list and the same was prepared without taking

into consideration the initial entry of the workers in its

services and a similar seniority list had been prepared and

maintained by Transport and Dock Workers Union, which

was representing the workers employed with Party No. 1

and the said list had been prepared by the union by taking

into consideration the initial date of appointment of the

workers and the said union negotiated with party No. 1 to

give first preference to the labourers, whose names were

appearing in the seniority list prepared by it (union) in

employment and accordingly, by taking into consideration

his placement in the union’s seniority list at serial no. 78,

he was appointed as a labourer with Party No. 1 and Party

No. 1, while preparing its seniority list, discarded the

number of years of service put in by him and placed him at

serial no. 83, which was much below to the juniors, who

had joined services of Party No. 1 subsequent to him and

the seniority list prepared by Party No. 1 was in violation

of Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957

(“the Rules’ in short) and Party No. 1 placed the names of

Baby W/o Shrawan Mude, Dinesh Bura, Vijay S/o

Punjabrao Dafale and Vasant S/o Ganuji Dhole, who were

juniors to him in service, above him in the seniority list

and Party No. 1 also included the names of “Hamal” in the

said seniority list above his name and before termination

of his services, Party No. 1 neither issued any notice nor

paid any wages in lieu of the notice or retrenchment

compensation as required under Section 25-F of the Act

and Party No. 1 retained the services of his juniors, while

terminating his services and Party No. 1 also recruited

fresh hands in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G

of the Act and the ground of termination of his services

due to non-availability of work was also quite improper, as

ample work was available with party No. 1 and activities

were/are going on round the year and the termination of

his services by Party No. 1 was in violation of the

mandatory provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of

the Act and Rule 81 of the Rules and such action of Party

No. 1 amounts to unfair labour practice and victimization

in colorable exercise of power.

The workman has prayed for his reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement denying

all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim

has pleaded inter-alia that it (FCI) was created by the

Government of India by the enactment, “Food Corporation

of India Act, 1964” and it deals with procurement, storage,

preservation and distribution of food grains and the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide gazette

notification no. SO-83(E) dated 01.11.1990, under Section

10(i) of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)

Act, 1970, prohibited employment of contract labour in

the specified depots including FCI’s owned go-downs at

Wardha and for that its management entered into an

agreement dated 07.05.1991 with the Transport and Docks

Workers Union, Mumbai (“the union” in short) and

Labours working with the contractor were brought under

departmentalization ( “A” category) labours and further

by agreement dated 18.09.1992 arrived at between it and

the above union, the labour strength i.e. 110 labours and

80 go-down mazdoors was fixed and accordingly, a

committee consisting of its representatives,

representatives of the above said union and the society

was constituted and the committee verified and identified

the labourers, on the basis of the records maintained by it

and the records available with the Handling and Transport

contractors appointed by it from time to time and the list

of 142 loaders and 89 Go down Mazdoor prepared and

submitted the union vide their letter No. ID/FCI-8/3036

dated 25.09.1992 and the committee verified and identified

110 loaders and 80 go-down mazdoors strictly as per the

seniority and the committee submitted its report dated

30.09.1992 and the name of the workman was not included

in the said list, he being a junior.

Party No. 1 has further pleaded that the workman

was engaged by the contractor and not by it and therefore,

there was no employer-employee relationship between it

and the workman and due to recession of work, the

voluntary retirement scheme was introduced by the

management of FCI, Headquarters, New Delhi vide circular

no. 14/2003 dated 22.09.2003, so as to curtail labour

strength as well as the administrative charges, which

clearly shows that no work is available with the FCI.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that it had floated

tender for Go down Mazdoor and the said tender was

given to an agency and the said agency is a necessary

party and in the absence of the said agency, this

proceeding is not maintainable and the services of the

workman was terminated by the agency, because their

contract came to an end and it had not given any assurance

to the workman to appoint him again and the workman has

no right to challenge the legality and propriety of the

alleged termination and some of the loaders had filed the

Writ Petition bearing No. 3401/97 before the Hon’ble

Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble

High court by their judgment dated 29.07.2002 held that in

view of the decision in Steel Authority of India & others

Vs. National Union of Water Front Workers and others

reported in 2001(7) SCC -1, the relief cannot be granted to

the petitioners and for that the proceeding is to be rejected

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documents, both the

parties have led oral evidence in support of their respective

claims. The union has examined the workman as a witness,

whereas, one Shri Rajesh Narayan Janbandhu has been

examined as witness on behalf of Party No. 1. The

examination-in-chief of the witnesses of both the parties

are on affidavit and the witnesses have reiterated the facts

mentioned in the statement of claim and written statement

in their respective evidence.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1521

5. The workman in his cross-examination has stated

that he cannot say the date of the discontinuance of his

services and no written order of appointment was given

to him by the FCI and in the statement of claim and so also

in his evidence on affidavit , he has not mentioned the

date of his discontinuance and he worked for 200 days in

total in FCI and he has not filed any document to show

that he worked from 20.08.1991 till the year 92-93 at Wardha

(East) Supply Depot.

6. The witness for the Party No. 1 in his cross-

examination has stated that as per Exhibit M-IV, the

Transport and Dock Workers’ Union, Bombay had

submitted a list of 142 loaders and 89 Go-down Mazdoors

and as per Ext.M-IV, request was made for issuance of

identity cards to the said 142 loaders and Go-down

Mazdoors and Ext. M-V is the report of the committee

which verified and identified the workmen working at FSD,

Wardha and the name of the workman was at serial no. 76

of the list of the 89 Go-down Mazdoors and the workman

was shown as medically fit in Ext. M-V and as per the

agreement between management and the union, it was

decided for industrialization of the contract labourers

working with FCI.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was

a contract labourer and he was engaged by the contractor,

who had been given contract for supply of labourer and

there was never any master and servant relationship

between the Party No. 1 and the workman and there is no

question of termination of the services of the workman by

Party No. 1 and it was the contractor, who might have

terminated the services of the workman, when the contract

given to the said contractor came to an end. It was further

submitted by the learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that

the Party No. 1 entered into an agreement with the union

on 07.05.1991 and accordingly, the labourers working with

the contractor were brought under departmentalization

labour and the workman was never assured by Party No. 1

for providing employment and by further agreement dated

18.09.1992 with the union, the labour strength was fixed

i.e. 110 loaders and 80 go-down labourers and accordingly,

a committee consisting of representatives of Party No. 1,

the union and labour society was constituted and the

committee after due verification and identification on the

basis of records, strictly as per the seniority and the

committee submitted the list on 30.09.1992 and the name

of the workman was not included in the said list as he was

a junior and ineligible and as such he was not given the

employment and issuance of notification for abolition of

the contract labour does not provide for automatic

absorption of contract labourers and therefore, the action

of Party No. 1 in not providing employment to the workman

is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. It is necessary to mention here that no argument

was advanced on behalf of the workman and on the date

fixed for argument, neither the workman nor the advocate

for the workman appeared to make argument.

9. At the outset, I think it proper to mention that

the schedule of reference in this case is regarding the

legality or otherwise in not absorbing the workman with

effect from 01.01.1993, consequent upon abolition of

contract work of handling and transportation awarded to

M/s Anna Nigam Marathi Kamgar Mazdoor Sahakari

Sanstha (Maryadit), contractor, Wardha. From the schedule

of reference and so also from the materials on record, it is

crystal clear that this is not a case of illegal retrenchment

of the workman from services as provided in the Act. It is

also clear from the materials on record that the workman

was never appointed by the party No.1 in its service and

there was no master and servant relationship between the

party No.1 and the workman. So, there is no question of

termination of the services of the workman or compliance

of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, by the party

No.1. So, the entire claim of the workman made in the

statement of claim and as stated in his evidence on affidavit

about his retrenchment and reinstatement in service

cannot be entertained or considered.

10. On perusal of the documents on record, it is

found that Ext. M-II is the copy of the memorandum of

settlement U/S 2 (p) and 18 (1) of the Act and rule 58 of the

Rules, dated 07.05.1991, between party No.1 and the union

and by the said settlement, it was agreed by party No.1 to

abolish the contract system and to introduce

departmentalisation of the labors working in their depots

at Wardha and Panvel w.e.f. 01.05.1991 and to decide the

strength of labour force for loading, unloading and other

ancillary work mutually between it and the union.

It is also found from Ext. M-III, the copy of the

memorandum of settlement between party No. 1 and the

union dated 18.09.1992 that consequent to the

memorandum of settlement dated 07.05.1991, it was decided

by Party No. 1 and the union to departmentalization of 110

loaders and 80 mazdoors, subject to their identification

and medical fitness. It is also found that the union by its

letter dated 25.09.1992 (Ext.M-IV) submitted a list of 231

workers (142 loaders and 89 go-down mazdoors) for their

identification, medical examination and issuance of identity

cards to those workers as per above said agreements. It is

also found that the name of the workman was at serial no.

76 of the list of the go down mazdoor submitted alongwith

Ext. M-IV.

However, on scrutiny of the said list, it is found that

the same was not according to the seniority of the workers

engaged in FCI by the contractor, as because, according

to the said list, the initial date of working of the workman

has been mentioned as 01.05.1991, whose name appears

at serial no. 78 of the said list, whereas, the initial dates of

working of the workers, whose names are found below the

name of the workman at serial nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85,

1522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and 90 have been mentioned as 25.5.90,7.8.90, 25.5.90,

16.9.90, 25.5.90 and 21.4.90 respectively, which were much

earlier to the engagement of the workman.

Ext. M-V is the copy of the report of the committee

constituted as per the terms of the settlement dated

07.05.1991. The workman has submitted the copy of the

seniority list of mazdoors claiming the same to be prepared

by the Party No.1. On perusal of the said list, it is found

that the name of the workman is at serial no. 81. According

to the workman, the names of Baby, Dinesh, Vijay and

Vasant, who were juniors to him, were mentioned above

his name. However, on perusal of the said list, it is found

that the names of Baby, Dinesh, Vijay and Vasant are at

serial nos. 79, 80, 73 and 46 in the list and the respective

dates of their working are 27.10.90, 2.3.91, 25.5.90 and

21.4.90, which are much earlier to the date of working of

the workman i.e. 1.5.91. Hence, there is no force in the

submission made by the workman in that respect. The list

prepared by the Party No. 1 has not been challenged in

the conciliation or at the time of preparation of the list of

go-down mazdoors by the committee.

It is clear from the materials on record that as the

name of the workman was not included in the list of 80 go-

down mazdoors, which was prepared by the committee

strictly in accordance with the seniority of the workers,

the workman was not given employment and no illegality

was committed by the Party No. 1, as it acted according

the settlements signed by it and the union. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 545-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@43@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 545.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Chanda Rayatwari

Colliery Chandrapur Area of WCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/43/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/29/2013

Date: 16.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Chanda Rayatwari Colliery,

Chadrapur Area of WCL,

Post: Rayatwari,

Teh. & Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

Versus

Party No.2 :

The Joint General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

C/o, Shri C.R. Tembhare,

Vaidhay Nagar, Near Ayyapa Mandir,

Tukum Ward 2,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 16th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Chanda Rayatwari Colliery, Chandrapur

Area of WCL and the union, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor

Congress for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/43/

2013-IR (CM-II) dated 30.05.2013, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Chanda

Rayatwari Colliery of Chandrapur Area, Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri

Anand the dependent son of Shri Chabinath Singh

who has already put in 37 years service, which is

contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of NCWA is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The notice sent to the union (petitioner) by RPAD

was served personally on the Joint General Secretary and

service of notice on him was held to be sufficient.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1523

The management of WCL appeared through their

advocates, Shri B.N. Prasad and Shri S.T. Sahasrabudhe.

Inspite of adjourning the case thrice for filing of

statement of claim by the petitioner, the petitioner neither

appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So, on

16.12.2013, the reference was closed, holding that the

petitioner was not interested to proceed with the reference

and the reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 546-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@191@2000&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January , 2014

S.O. 546.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2001)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Ballarpur Sub Area

of WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/191/2000-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/69/2001

Date: 20.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub- Area Manager,

Ballarpur Sub Area,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Post. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Lomesh Khartad,

Secretary, National Colliery Workers

Congress, Br. Ambedkar Nagar,

Ballarpur, Post &Tah-Ballarpur,

Dist. Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 20^th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri Laxman

Durge and 21 other contract labour, for adjudication, as

per letter No.L-22012/191/2000-IR (C-II) dated30.08.2001,

with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Ballarpur

Colliery of WCL, PO. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur in

not regularizing S/Sh. Laxman Durge & 21 other

contract labour (list enclosed) is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief they are entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the Union, National

Colliery Workers Congress, (“the union” in short) filed

the statement of claim on behalf of the workmen, S/Shri

Laxman Durge and 21 others ( As per the list enclosed

with the letter of reference), (‘the workmen” in short), and

the management of WCL (“Party No. 1” in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the 22 workmen as presented by the

union in the statement of claim is that it is a registered

trade union under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and the

Party No. 1 is a Government Company and is a “State”

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of

India and the workmen had been working at Ballarpur

underground Mine no. 3 & 4 Pits from February, 1992 to

June, 1996 continuously and they had put in 190 days of

attendance in consecutive years,during their employment

and they were engaged in prohibited categories of work

and the records were manipulated and Party No. 1 failed to

maintain the registers and records in respect of the

1524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workmen, in contravention of the statutory provisions of

the Mines Act, 1952 and Mines Rule, 1955, Coal Mines

Regulation, 1957 and directions and circulars issued by

the Competent authority from time to time and the

workmen were engaged in the underground in regular

mining statutory operations of winning of coal, such as

drilling, dressing, blasting, coal loading, cutting, making

isolation stopping and ventilation stopping etc i.e. jobs

as prescribed by law Rules i.e. Mines Act and Rules and

other laws and they were being supervised, controlled,

directed, administered and guided by the Party No. 1,

through its officers in the underground mines and there

was a smoke screen arrangement by Party No. 1, by putting

intermediary, the so called contractor, to deprive the

workmen from their legitimate dues and to keep them away

from being treated as company’s employees.

It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workmen that the so called contractor was not a contractor

as envisaged in Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act and he was not competent to undertake

such jobs and he had no valid license and he was

supplying more than 20 workers on continuous basis for

years and the attendance of the workmen was being

marked by the register keeper/attendance clerk of Party

No. 1 in the prescribed “Form C” register in accordance

with the provision of Section 48 of the Mines Act and

Rule 78 of the Mines Rules, 1955 and though, Party No. 1

is in possession of all the documents, it is suppressing

the same and such action of Party No.1, calls for drawing

of adverse inference against Party No. 1.

The further case of the union is that the so called

contractor had been supplying the labours and Party No.

1 had been engaging them directly and documents to that

effect are with the Party No. 1 and the Party No. 1 was not

only deploying the workers on supply by the contractors,

but also, taking action against them, by stopping them

from working and therefore, they were the workers of the

Party No. 1 and the attendance of the workmen was

manipulated and the contractor used to pay less amount

as wages and they were not made members of CMPF and

they were not paid attendance bonus and other benefits

and the management officials had supervised the payment

and the concerned workmen were given statutory training

under Mines Vocational Training Rules and they were

stopped from working arbitrarily and without following

the provisions of retrenchment under the Act and the jobs,

which the workmen were doing, are regular, permanent

and perennial in nature and the same are full time job and

incidental to production of coal and other workers have

been engaged by management for doing the same and as

such, the workmen are entitled to be taken on the roll of

the Party No. 1 with full back wages and consequential

benefits.

The further case as advanced by the union is that

the Ministry of Finance, Government of India issued Office

Memorandum dated 10.02.1984 to all Government

Department and Public Sector undertakings, not to engage

contract labour normally on jobs of permanent nature and

basing on such memorandum, the JBCCI decided that

industry shall not employ labour through contractor or

contractor’s labour on jobs of permanent and perennial

nature and to carry out such work departmentally and

made provisions for the same, under para 11.5 of chapter

XI in NCWA-III and the member Secretary of JBCCI issued

implementation instruction no. 35 dated 17.07.1984 to all

the coal companies, repeating the provisions under para

11.5 to 11.5.4 of NCWA-III, with a direction to implement

the said provisions and such provisions were made in

NCWAs-IV, V and VI also and provisions of NCWAs are

mandatory and binding on Party No. 1 and management of

Wani Area, Majri Area, Chandrapur Area and Nagpur Area

regularized similarly situated workers and as such, the

workmen are entitled for their regularization in services of

Party No. 1 by treating them as management’s workmen

w.e.f. 01.02.1992 and for wages from 01.06.1996 till the date

they will be allowed to resume duty and all other

consequential benefits.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that in October, 1995, 15 persons claiming

to have worked under a contractor, namely, Shri S.K.

Khatod at Ballarpur 3 & 4 pits, during the years 1992 and

1993, submitted a joint application dated 18.10.1995 to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur

demanding their regularization and it(management of WCL)

contested their claim, as a result of which, the conciliation

ended in a failure and the ALC (C), Chandrapur submitted

his failure report to the Central Government vide his letter

dated 11.04.1996 and the Ministry of Labour did not

consider the said dispute fit for reference, as conveyed

vide letter dated 18.03.1997.

It is further pleaded by Party No. 1 that the President

of the Union vide his letter dated 24.03.1999 addressed to

the ALC (C), Chandrapur raked up the matter again

claiming regularization of the workmen and the union also

filed some documents in support of its claim and most of

the said documents were manipulated and manufactured

with the intention to cover up the weakness of the claim

and in the original claim, there were only 15 persons,

whereas, in the subsequent claim, the number was inflated

to 22 persons and it is clear that union is trying to induct

the name of some persons, who had not worked with the

contractor, therefore, no credence can be given to the claim

of the union and the union never raised the claim before it

and directly approached the ALC (C), Chandrapur and in

order that a matter assumes the character of an industrial

dispute, the demand must be made before the management

and if there is no demand and no refusal thereof, there

cannot be any valid industrial dispute and therefore, no

industrial dispute exists between the parties warranting

adjudication and the union is not the union of the workmen

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1525

of Ballarpur Colliery and the union has not assumed the

character of a representative union, therefore, the union is

not competent to raise the industrial dispute on behalf of

the workers of Ballarpur Colliery.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the workmen

involved in the reference were employed by the contractor

for the purpose of execution of work awarded to him under

the terms of the contract and they were paid by the

contractor and they were never its employees and there

was no employer-employee relationship between it and

the workmen and one Shri S.K. Khatod was awarded

contract for doing different kind of jobs at Ballarpur Colliery

on the basis of tenders and all the contracts were in writing

on legal documents and duly signed by it and the contractor

and the contractor had submitted the payment sheets with

regard to the wages paid to his workers, which were duly

certified by the officers of the employer, as required under

the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and

the contract was of sporadic nature and for fixed period

and the contractor was not engaged in prohibited or

permanent or perennial nature of jobs and the contractor

never engaged more than 19 persons on any day against

any specified job and the name of the contractor’s workers,

who were paid wages and duly certified, do not tally with

the list of the workmen and obviously, the list has been

inflated by the union and induction of names have been

made with ulterior motive and on verification of the list of

the 22 workmen, it is noted that many of the said persons

had not worked with the contractor during the period in

question and the details of the persons are incomplete,

vague and it is not possible to identify them and the

workmen did not work continuously in Ballarpur Colliery

3 & 4 Pits from February, 1992 to June, 1996 and they did

not put 190 days attendance during the execution of the

work by the contractor and otherwise also, there is no

question of regularization of contract workers and the

workmen were not engaged in prohibited categories of

work and it had maintained statutory registers under the

Mines Act, Rules and Regulations in respect of all the

persons, who were required to work in the underground

and it had never violated the provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act and the workmen

were never appointed or engaged by it, but however, any

person who goes to work in the underground, he is

subjected to Safety Rules and Regulations, which are to

be taken care of by the competent person in the mine and

the contract was given to the contractor legally and there

was no question of any smoke screen and the documents

submitted by the union are false, fabricated and forged

and it was not deploying the workmen engaged by the

contractor and any person, who is deployed in

underground, whether departmental or otherwise is given

statutory training under Vocational Training Rules for

safety reason and there is no question of regularizing the

workmen and they are not entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, it is pleaded by the union that

the reference has been made as per the recommendations

of the ALC (C), Chandrapur and after due examination by

the Ministry at different levels and the earlier application

was rejected on technical grounds and the same was raised

by the workmen themselves and not by the union and the

earlier rejection by the Ministry has no relevancy with the

instant dispute and earlier, some workers chose to approach

the ALC (C), Chandrapur and others did not, but the same

does not debar other workers to raise the dispute through

the union and the dispute is valid and in view of the

provisions of Section 36 of the Act and the dictum of the

Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Courts in different

judgments, it is competent to raise the dispute on behalf

of the workmen and Party No. 1 has concealed the true

facts and the documents are concocted and manipulated

with a view to hide the camouflage arrangements and the

job of lifting of so called shaley coal and loading the same

into coal tubs and sending the same to coal depots on

surface, relate to production of coal and sale and the same

is prohibited category of job and the other jobs are also

prohibited categories of jobs and the workmen are entitled

for regularization and for other relief.

5. Both the parties have led oral evidence in support

of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

Three witnesses have been examined on behalf of

the union. The witnesses examined on behalf of the union

are Chandrakant Telang (workman), Devraj Nishad

(workman) and Lomesh Maroti Khartad, said to be the

General Secretary of the union.

One witness, namely, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Dy.

Manager (Personnel) of Ballarpur 3 & 4 Pits has been

examined on behalf of the party No.1.

The respective examination-in-chief of the witnesses

examined on behalf of the union and the only witness

examined on behalf of the party No.1 are on affidavit.

6. In their evidence on affidavit, the three witnesses

examined on behalf of the union have reiterated the facts

as mentioned in the statement of claim and the rejoinder.

However, workman, Chandrakant Telang in his

cross-examination has admitted that he was not given any

appointment letter by the party No.1 and he was working

under the contractor and from 1996, the contract between

WCL and the contractor was terminated. It is to be

mentioned here that in the statement of claim, in paragraph

5, it is claimed by the union that the workmen were working

continuously in the underground mine of Ballarpur Colliery

3 & 4 Pits since February, 1992 till June, 1996, but in his

examination-in-chief, workman Chandrakant Telang

contradicting such claim, has stated that after taking

vocational training, he was working in Ballarpur Colliery 3

& 4 Pits since 1991. Moreover, in his cross-examination,

1526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

this workman has admitted that he himself and other

workers had represented the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(C), Chandrapur for redress and in that application,(Ext.-

M-I),they had mentioned that they were working from

March, 1992 to 1995 and he has not filed any document to

show that he started working in 1991 and continued till

1996 and Ext. M-I had been signed by 15 workers including

himself and all the 15 workers were working under the

contractor and they were engaged by the contractor in

WCL and he does not remember the name of the other

workers working under the contractor, besides the 15

workers, who had signed on Ext. M-I and alongwith the

application, Ext. M-I, they had submitted the documents

Exts. M-II and M-III.

7. Workman, Devraj Nishad in his cross-examination

has stated that he had worked from 1992 to 1995 under the

contractor and when the contract work of the contractor

was stopped, their engagement was also stopped and the

contractor was making payment of their wages.

8. Witness No. 3 for the union, Lomesh M. Khartad

in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that

the workmen in question worked with WCL from February,

1992 to June, 1996 and the workmen were engaged in WCL

by the contractor and when the contract given to the

contractor, S.K. Khatod was over, the contractor

disengaged the workmen from WCL, from July, 1996.

9. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, the witness for the

management in his evidence has stated that the workmen

were engaged by Shri S.K. Khatod, the contractor and

they were never engaged by the management as

departmental workers and the contracts between the

management and the contractor had been entered into

after inviting tenders in valid and legal manner and the

jobs entrusted to the contractor were neither permanent

nor perennial in nature and the same were not prohibited

under the notification of the Government under prohibition

of contract work in the coal mines.

Though, the witness for the management has been

cross-examined at length, his assertion that the workmen

were engaged by the contractor and contractor, Shri S.K.

Khatod was given the contracts and the nature of the

works given to the contractor was not of permanent or

perennial in nature has virtually not been challenged.

The witness for the management has admitted that

the contractor, Shri S.K. Khatod did not obtain any license

as a contractor to supply contract labours and agreements

with the contractor were executed subsequent to the date

of giving of the contracts and ventilation and isolation are

incidental jobs for safety and production of the mine.

10. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workmen that the Party No. 1 is a

state and it is expected that it should not discriminate and

acts strictly in accordance with law and the workmen were

engaged in continuous, perennial and incidental nature of

jobs and essential for production of coal, safety of persons

and mine and in prohibited category and they were working

under the supervision, control and directions of the Sirdars,

Overmen, Asstt. Manager and other officers and their

attendance was being marked in form ‘C’ register, which

can be found from the document, W-2 and they were

workmen of the management and smoke screen

arrangement was made by the management to show them

as contract workers and the discontinuance of the

workmen amounts to retrenchment and the provisions of

Sections 25-F, 25-B and 25-G were not flowed and the

management had regularized the services of other similarly

situated workers, as clear from the documents W-7 to

W-13 and from the entry made on the document W-15 by

the Asstt. Manager, about the stopping of three workmen

from work clearly indicates master and servant relationship

between the management and the workmen and the

workmen are entitled for regularisation. It was further

submitted by the learned advocate for the union that there

was violation of the contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act and Rules and the witness for the

management has admitted such violation by the

management and on that ground also, the workmen are

entitled for regularization.

In support of such contention, the learned advocate

for the union placed reliance on the decisions reported in

2007 (115) FLR-427 (Mohan Mahto Vs. M/s. Central Coal

Fields Ltd.), 2008 II CLR-147 (U.P. State Electricity Board

Vs Pooran Chandra Pandey) and 2001 LAB IC-322

(International Airport Authority Employees Union Vs.

International Airport Authority of India).

11. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workmen were never

engaged by the management of Ballarpur Sub Area and

they were engaged by Shri S.K. Khatod, the contractor

and contracts between the management and the said

contractor had been entered into after inviting tenders in

valid and legal manner and contract of the works of

construction of isolation stopping, ventilation stopping,

cleaning of shaley coal and mud and cutting of drains,

which were neither permanent nor perennial in nature were

given to the said contractor and the same were also not

prohibited under the notification of the Government

regarding prohibition of contract work in the coal mines

and it is crystal clear from the admission made by the

witnesses examined by the union, the evidence of the

witness for the management and the documentary evidence

on record that the workmen were engaged by the

contractor and there is no question of the regularization

of the workman.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the Party No. 1 that there was never any violation of the

provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1527

Abolition) Act or Rules by the party No.1 and the

contractor had never engaged more than 19 workers on

any day and therefore, there was no need for him to obtain

any license for the same and the case of the workmen is

not a case of retrenchment and on that ground also, the

workmen are not entitled to regularization. In the

alternative, it was submitted by the learned advocate for

the Party No. 1 that violation of the provisions of the

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Rules

by the principal employer or by the contractor attracts

Penal Provisions of Sections 23 & 25, but does not have

the effect of rendering the contract labour, employees of

the principal employer. It was also submitted by the

learned advocate for the Party No. 1 that there was never

any discrimination against the workmen and the case of

the workmen was not similar to the cases referred by the

union and the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

12. The first contention raised by the learned

advocate for the union is that the workmen were workmen

of the management and management made smoke screen

arrangement to show them as contract workers. However,

there is no force at all in the said submission. In fairness

to the workmen, such submission is to be mentioned and

rejected out rightly, in view of the schedule of reference

made by the Central Government. In the schedule of

reference itself, it has been clearly mentioned that the

workmen were contract labours. The schedule of reference

has never been challenged by the union or workmen to be

not correct. Even in the statement of claim and in the

rejoinder not a whisper has been made that the schedule

of reference is not correct or that the workmen have been

wrongly referred as contract labour.

Documents, Exts. M-I to M-IV filed by the Party No. 1

and the documents, W-2 to W-4 and W-15 show that the

workmen were contract labours engaged by the contractor,

Shri S. K. Khatod, who was given contact legally, after

floating tenders by the Party No. 1 to execute certain

works.

As already mentioned above, all the three witnesses

examined by the union have univocally admitted that all

the workmen were engaged by the contractor and when

the contract of the contactor was over, the contractor

stopped the engagement of the workmen in WCL.

From the schedule of reference and the oral and

documentary evidence on record, it is crystal clear that

the workmen were contract labours engaged by the

contractor and they were never the workers of Party No. 1

and Party No. 1 had never engaged or employed them

directly and it is not true to say that the Party No. 1 created

a smoke screen to show them as contract labour.

13. The next submission made by the learned

advocate for the union is that the contractor engaged by

the Party No. 1 did not obtain any license from the

competent authority as labour contractor and to engage

contract labours as required under the contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act and though there was

prohibition for engagement of contract labours by the

Government as per the notification, W-5 and the

Implementation Instruction No. 35 dated 17.07.1984 issued

by the JBCCI basing on the Provisions of NCWA-III, W-6,

in jobs of permanent and perennial nature, the workmen

were engaged in jobs of permanent and perennial nature

and as there was violation of the provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, the workmen are

entitled for regularization.

The learned advocate for the union placed reliance

on the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC-322 (Supra) in

support of such contention.

14. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the said decision

have held that :

“Contract Labour (Abolition and Regularization) Act

(37 of 1970) S.10 – Regularization of service- Sweeper

working in car in International and National Airports

– Are entitled to be regularized in view of notification

dated 09.12.1976- Since car parking is part of Airport

building.”

However, with respect, I am of the view that the said

decision has no clear application to the present case in

hand, as the facts and circumstances of the case referred

in the decision and the present case are quite different

from each other.

15. In the case in hand, it is the specific case of the

Party No. 1 that the works which were given to the

contractor for execution were not of permanent or perennial

in nature and the contractor never engaged more than 19

contract labours on any day and as such, there was no

need for the contractor to obtain any license and there

was never any violation of the Provisions of the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the Party No. 1 that there is no provision in Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act stating that in case

of violation of the provisions of the said Act, the workmen

are entitled for regularization and in absence of such

provision, the claim of the workmen is liable to be rejected.

16. On perusal of the documents filed by the parties

and the oral evidence on record, it is found that the

contractor had never engaged more than nineteen contract

labours on any day. According to Section 1 of the Contract

Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, obtaining of license

by a contractor is necessary in case of engagement of

twenty or more workmen on any day. There is no legal

evidence on record to show that the contractor engaged

twenty or more contract workmen on any day.

It is also found from the evidence on record including

Ext. M-V and W-5 and W-6 that the works which were

1528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

given to the contractor by Party No. 1 on contract were

not permanent or perennial nature of work or the said works

were prohibited nature of work.

Hence, it can be held that there was no violation of

the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation &

Abolition) Act.

17. Moreover, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in a number of decisions including the decisions

reported in 1992 I SCC- 695 (Dena Nath Vs National

Fertilizers Ltd.), that violation of Sections 7 and 12 by the

Principal employer or by the contractor attracts Penal

Provision of Sections 23 and 25, but does not have the

effect of rendering the contract labour, employees of the

Principal employer.

18. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention

about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the decisions reported in

1985-II LLJ-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food Corporation

of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India), 2001 LAB IC

3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.

National Union Water Front Workers and others) and 1994

II CLR 402 (R.K. Panda & Others Vs. Steel Authority of

India and Others).

In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling food grain at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do ……….”. ‘The expression’ employed has at

least two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957 – I – LLJ – 477). Now where a

contractor employs a workman to do the work which

he contracted with a third person to accomplish on

the definition as it stands, the workman of the

contractor would not without something more

become the workman of that third person. Therefore,

when the workmen employed by the contractor were

certainly not the workmen of the corporation and no

claim to that effect has been made by the union.”

19. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC – 3656

(supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those

factors, provide no ground for absorption of contract

labour on issuing notification under Section 10(1)

by the appropriate Government, is not alluded to

either in Section 10 or at any other place in the Act

and the consequence of violation of Sections 7 and

12 of the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections

23 and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High

Courts or the Supreme Court to read in some

unspecified remedy in Section 10 or substitute for

penal consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25

a different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1529

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ - 2-8-2000

(Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ - 23-12-1999

(Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

20. In the decision reported in 1994 II CLR 402

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :

With the industrial growth, the relation between the

employer and the employees also has taken a new

turn. At one time the establishment being the

employer all persons working therein were the

employees of such employer. But slowly the

employer including Central and State Governments

started entrusting many of the jobs to contractors.

Contractors in their turn employed a worker, who

has no direct relationship with the establishment in

which they were employed. Many contractors

exploited the labourers engaged by them in various

manners including the payment of low wages.

Hence, the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 was enacted to regulate the

employment of contract labour in certain

establishment and to provide for its abolition in

certain circumstances and for matters connected

therewith.

The “Contract Labour” has been defined in Section

2 (1) (b) to mean a workman, who has been employed

as contract labour in or in connection with the work

of an establishment when he is hired in or in

connection with such work by or through a

contractor, with or without the knowledge of the

principal employer. Section 2 (1) (c) defines

“Contractor” to mean a person who undertakes to

produce a given result for the establishment, other

than a mere supply of goods or articles of

manufacture to such establishment, through contract

labour or who supplies contract labour for any work

of the establishment and includes a sub-contractor.

“Principal employer” has been defined to mean (i) in

relation to any office or department of the

Government or a local authority, the head of that

office or department or such other officer as the

government or the local authority, as the case may

be, may specify in this behalf and (ii) in a factory,

the owner or occupier of the factory. In view of

section 10, of the appropriate Government may after

consultation with the Central Board or, as the case

may be, a state Board, prohibit, by notification in

the Official Gazette, employment of contract labour

“in any process, operation or other work in any

establishment,” Sub-section (2) of Section 10

requires that before issuing any such notification,

in relation to an establishments, the appropriate

Government shall have regard to the conditions of

work and benefits provided for the contract labour

in that establishment and other relevant factors. One

of the relevant factors, which is to be taken into

consideration is whether the work performed by the

contract labourers is of perennial nature. Section 12

enjoins that no contractor to whom this Act is

applicable shall undertake or execute any work

through contract labour except under and in

accordance with a license issued in that behalf by

the licensing authority. The license so issued may

1530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contain conditions in respect of hours of work,

fixation of wages and other essential amenities in

respect of contract labour as the appropriate

Government may deem fit to impose in accordance

with rules. Section 20 provides that if any amenity

required to be provided under Section 16, Section 17,

Section 18, or Section 19 for the benefit of the

contract labour employed in an establishment, is

not provided by the contractor within the time

prescribed by the contractor within the time

prescribed therefore, such amenity shall be provided

by the principal employer within such time as may

be prescribed and all expensed incurred by the

principal employer in providing the amenity may be

recovered by the principal employer from the

contractor “either by deduction from any amount

payable to the contractor under any contract or as a

debt payable by the contractor”. Section 21 says

that a contractor shall be responsible for the payment

of wages to each worker employed by him as

contract labour but at the same time in order to

protect the interest of such contract labour, it

requires every principal employer to nominate a

representative duly authorized by him to be present

at the time of disbursement of wages by the

contractor. It shall be the duty of the contractor to

ensure the disbursement of wages in the presence

of the authorized representative of the principal

employer. Because of sub-section (4) of Section 21,

if the contractor fails to make payment of wages

within the prescribed period, then the principal

employer shall be liable to make payment of wages

in full to the contact labour employed by the

contractor and recover the amount so paid from the

contractor. Any contravention of the provisions

aforesaid has been made penal for which

punishment can be imposed.

From the provisions referred to above, it is apparent

that the framers of the Act have allowed and

recognized contract labour and they have never

purported to abolish it in its entirety. The primary

object appears to be that there should not be any

exploitation of the contract labourers by the

contractor or the establishment. For achieving that

object, statutory restrictions and responsibilities

have been imposed on the contractor as well as on

the principal employer. Of course if any expenses

are incurred for providing any amenity to the

contract labourers or towards the payment of wages

by the principle employer he is entitled to deduct

the same from the bill of the contractor. The Act

also conceives that all appropriate government may

after consultation with the central board or the state

board, as the case may be, prohibit by notification

in official gazette, employment of contract labour in

any process, operation or other work in any

establishment, taking all facts and circumstances of

employment of contract labour in such process,

operation or the work into consideration.

Of late a trained amongst the contract labourers is

discernible that after having work for some years,

they make a claim that they should be absorbed by

the principal employer and be treated as employees

of the principal employer especially when the

principal employer is the central government or the

state government or an authority which can be held

to be state within the meaning of Article 12 of the

constitution, although no right flows from the

provisions of the act for the contract labourers to be

absorbed or to become the employees of the principal

employer. This court in the case of Gammon India

limited V. Union of India (1974) I SCC 596, pointed

out the object and scope of the act as follows:-

“The Act was passed to prevail the exploitation

of contract labour and also to introduce better

condition of work. The Act provides for regulation

and abolition of contract labour. The underline

policy of the Act is to abolish contract labour,

wherever possible and practicable and where it

cannot be abolished to altogether, the policy of the

Act is that the working conditions of the contract

labour should be so regulated as to ensure payment

of wages and provisions of essential amenities. This

is why the Act provides for regulated conditions of

work and contemplates progressive abolition to the

extent contemplated by Section 10 of the Act.”

In the case of B.H.E.L. Workers’ Association V.

Union of India, 1985 I CLR SC 165 = (1985) 1 SCC 630

it was pointed out that Parliament has not abolished

the contract labour as such but has provided for its

abolition by the Central Government in appropriate

cases under section 10 of the Act. It is not for the

court to enquire into the question and to decide

whether the employment of contract labour in any

process, operation or other work in any

establishment should be abolished or not. That has

to be decided by the government after considering

the relevant aspects as required by Section 10 of the

Act. Again in the case of Mathura Refinery Mazdoor

Sangh V. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 1991 I CLR

684, this court refused to direct the Indian Oil

Corporation Ltd., to absorb the contract labourers

in its employment saying that, the contract labourers

have not been found to have direct connection with

the refinery. In other words, there was no

relationship of employer and employee between the

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the contract labourers

concerned. Again in Dena Nath V. National Fertilizers

Ltd., 1992 I CLR 1, this court pointed out that the

aforesaid Act has two purposes to serve (i) to

regulate the conditions of service of the worker

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1531

employed by the contractor who is engaged by a

principal employer and (ii) to provide for the abolition

of contract labour altogether, in certain notified

processes, operation or other works in any

establishment by the appropriate government, under

Section 10 of the Act. It was further stated that

neither the Act nor the Rules framed by the central

government or by any appropriate government

provide that upon abolition of contract labour, the

labourers would be directly absorbed by the

principal employer.

It is true that with passage of time and purely with a

view to safeguard the interests of workers, many

principal employers while renewing the contracts

have been insisting that the contractor or the new

contractor retains the old employees. Infact such a

condition is incorporated in the contract itself.

However, such a clause in the contract which is

benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the

continuance of the source of livelihood of the

contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right

to regularization in the employment of the principal

employer. Whether the contract labourers have

become the employees of the principal employer in

course of time and on whether the engagement and

employment of labourers through a contractor is a

mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been

urged in this case, is a question of fact is to be

established by the contract labourers on the basis

of the requisite material. It is not possible for High

Court or this court, while exercising writ jurisdiction

or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such

questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It

need not to be pointed out that in all such cases, the

labourers are initially employed and engaged by the

contractors. As such at what point of time a direct

link is established between the contract labourers

and the principal employer, eliminating the contractor

from the scene, is a matter which has to be

established on material produced before the court.

Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial

Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the

Competent Forum to adjudicate such disputes on

the basis of the oral and documentary evidence

produced before them.”

21. The next contention raised by the learned

advocate for the union is that Party No. 1 has regularized

the services of other workers, whose cases were similar to

the case of the workmen and the Party No. 1 being a state

cannot discriminate between two sets of employees. On

perusal of the materials on record including documents,

W-7 to 14, it is found that there is no similarity between

the case of the workmen and other workers to whom Party

No. 1 agreed to employ. In this case, the union never

raised the case of the workmen before the management.

The union directly raised the dispute before the

Conciliation Officer in 1999. Hence, on this ground also,

workmen are not entitled for regularization.

22. The last contention raised by the learned

advocate for the union is that the discontinuance of the

workmen can be termed as retrenchment and as the

provisions of Sections 25-B, 25-F and 25-G are not complied,

the discontinuance of the workmen is illegal.

As it is already held that the workmen are contract

labours, their case cannot be held to be a case of

retrenchment from services by the Party No. 1. Hence,

there is no force in the contention raised by the learned

advocate for the union.

23. As the facts and circumstances of the case in

hand as mentioned above are quite different from the facts

and circumstances of the cases as referred in the decisions

cited by the learned advocate for the union, with respect,

I am of the view that the decisions have no clear application

to the present case in hand.

24. In view of the materials on record and the

discussions made above, it is found that the workmen are

not entitled for regularization or any other relief. Hence, it

is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of Ballarpur Colliery

of WCL, PO. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur in not

regularizing S/Sh. Laxman Durge & 21 other contract labour

(list enclosed) is legal and justified. The workmen are not

entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

List of Workmen

No. L-22012/191/2000-IR(C-II)

(1)

y{e.k nwxsZ

(12)

'ks[k cCcw

(2)

paædkUr rsyax

(13)

jes'k eMdk

(3)

nsojkt fu"kkn jkt

(14)

nsfonkl MEckjs

(4)

ckiwjko cko.ks

(15)

eXx: ok?kkMs

(5)

larks"k ok?kkMs

(16)

eukst yks[akMs

(6)

lqnke gtkjs

(17)

ewusUnj Hkwe;k

(7)

jkepaæ cko.ks

(18)

feyu fgjkyky

(8)

jes'k cko.ks

(19)

fØik jkte

(9)

fr# ok?kkMs

(20)

jes'k jkeVsds

(10)

lqjs'k eMdk

(21)

nsoÕ;k csUd;k

(11)

vuqi jkeVsds

(22)

osUdV jkeUuk

1532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 547-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 44@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@29@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2014

S.O. 547.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/

2007) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Saoner Sub Area of

WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/29/2007-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/44/2007

Date: 16.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Saoner Sub Area of WCL,

Taluka Saoner, Nagpur.

V/s.

Party No. 2 :

Shri Ghanshyam P. Lonkar,

R/o. Manegaon, Po : Bhansali Tekli,

Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated the 16th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman, Shri G. P. Lonkar,

for adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/29/2007-IR

(CM-II) dated 19.07.2007, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of WCL in

dismissing the services of Shri G.P. Lonkar w.e.f.

17.05.2001 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

is the workman entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman,

Shri Ghanshyam Pandhariji Lonkar, (“the workman” in

short) filed the statement of claim and the management of

WCL, (“party no.1” in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he is a workman within the

meaning of section 2 (s) of the Act and he came to be

appointed as a general mazdoor in the year 1982 with party

no.1 and he was made permanent in the post of “Trammer”

category-III and he worked as a Trammer category-III up

to 1989 and then, he was promoted to the post of clerk

grade-III and from the date of his such promotion, he

worked continuously as a clerk with clean and unblemished

service record and no memo or charge sheet was issued

against him till the year 1992 and while he was working as

clerk grade-III, he suffered from mental ailment and after

his recovery from the mental ailment, he was reinstated in

service and he resumed his duties w.e.f. 31.12.1994 and

worked till 11.04.1999 and he suffered from mental ailment

again from 12.04.1999 and as such, he could not able to

attend his duties from 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999 and during

the said period, he was admitted in the mental hospital,

Nagpur and party no.1 submitted charge sheet

dated14.05.1999 ( wrongly mentioned as dated 12.04.1999

in the statement of claim by the workman) against him, in

which, charges of absenteeism was levelled against him

and he submitted his reply to the charge sheet stating the

reason of his remaining absent from duties from 12.04.1999

to 24.07.1999, but despite of the same, party no.1

constituted the enquiry committee and conducted the

enquiry and he submitted the prescription and medical

certificates regarding his medical treatment, but the same

were not considered and party no.1 issued the order of his

dismissal from services on 17.05.2001. It is also pleaded

by the workman that after his discharge from the mental

hospital, Nagpur, he was allowed by party no.1 to resume

his duty w.e.f. 01.04.1999 and he continued to work till

17.05.2001, the date of his dismissal from services and his

absence from duty was for the bonafide reason of mental

ailment, which does not come within the meaning of

misconduct and as such, the charge sheet issued against

him was illegal, baseless and against the principles of

natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside and

though he made representation to consider his case

sympathetically, by taking by taking into consideration

his past record and loyal service, no heed was paid to the

same by party no.1 and the punishment of dismissal from

services imposed against him is highly disproportionate

and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1533

3. In the written statement, it is pleaded by party

no.1 inter-alia that the workman was a habitual absentee

from duties, without any intimation to the concerned

authority and he never used to take prior approval for

leave from concerned authority and he remained absent

from duties from 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999, without any

information to the concerned authority and therefore, it

was constrained to issue the charge sheet dated 14.05.1999

against the workman and no charge sheet was submitted

against him on 12.04.1999 as claimed by him. It is further

pleaded by party no.1 that the workman became irregular

in his duty from the year 1991 and remained absent without

intimation and therefore, vide letter dated 09.07.1999, he

was given last opportunity to work as clerk grade-III, but

inspite of the same, the workman was irregular in his duty,

so vide letter dated 11.10.1991, he was demoted as Trammer

cat. III and inspite of such demotion, the workman remained

absent from duty without giving any information and

because of such irresponsible act of the workman, its work

was affected and it faced many problems to manage the

work and therefore, after issuing charge sheet and

conducting of domestic enquiry, the workman was

dismissed from service vide letter dated 07.12.1991 and on

the basis of settlement arrived at before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (C), the workman was reinstated as Badli

time rated w.e.f. 26.12.1994 and he was regularized as General

Mazdoor cat-I w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the workman was

placed as clerk grade-III in initial basic w.e.f. 01.08.1996

after considering his case sympathetically and taking

undue advantage of its sympathetic attitude, the workman

again remained absent continuously from duty for the

period from 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999 without informing the

concerned authority and committed misconduct as per

the Standing Order, so charge sheet dated 14.05.1999 was

issued against him and the workman submitted his reply

to the charge sheet on 19.07.1999, after the time specified

in the charge sheet and as the reply of the workman was

not satisfactory, it was decided to conduct departmental

enquiry and by order dated 24.07.1999, Shri G.K. Kamble,

was appointed as the enquiry officer to conduct the

enquiry and the enquiry officer after issuing notice to the

workman fixed the enquiry on 30.07.1999 and the workman

appeared in the enquiry and participated in the enquiry

and on 20.08.1999, the workman presented fitness

certificate of company’s dispensary dated 08.07.1999 to

16.07.1999 and fitness certificate given by a private doctor

and those certificates were not for mental ailment and the

same were also not issued by the Mental Hospital, Nagpur

and the workman on 20.08.1999 accepted the charges

levelled against him and all the opportunities as per the

principles of natural justice were given to the workman to

defend himself in the enquiry and the enquiry was

completed on 20.08.1999 and the workman during the

period of absence i.e. 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999 did not

submit any leave application and in the enquiry also, the

workman did not produce any relevant document to show

that he was suffering from mental ailment and taking into

consideration the past record of the workman and the

report of the enquiry officer, the competent authority had

no other choice than to dismiss the workman and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman

from service, after holding of a departmental enquiry, the

question of the fairness or otherwise of the departmental

enquiry was taken as a preliminary issue for consideration

and by order dated 25.09.2013, the enquiry held against

the workman was held to be legal, proper and in accordance

with the principles of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that initially the workman

was appointed as a general mazdoor in the year 1982 and

he was made permanent as a trammer and then he was

promoted as a clerk grade III and in the year 1992, while he

was working as a clerk grade III, he suffered from mental

illness and after his recovery from mental ailments, he was

reinstated in service and he resumed his duties w.e.f.

31.12.1994 and worked till 11.04.1999 and the workman again

suffered from mental ailment on 12.04.1999 and as such he

could not able to attend his duties from 12.04.1999 to

24.07.1999 and during the said period, he was admitted in

the mental hospital, Nagpur and the party No. 1 submitted

a charge sheet against the workman for absenteeism for

the said period and even though the workman submitted

his reply stating the reason for remaining absent from duty,

the party No. 1 conducted the enquiry against the

workman and the workman submitted the prescription and

the medical certificates regarding his medical treatment,

but the same were not considered by the Enquiry Officer

and as the Enquiry Officer did not consider the documents

produced by the workman, it can be said that his findings

are not based on the evidence on record and therefore

perverse. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the workman that the absence of the workman was not

case of without sufficient cause and his absence from

duty was for the bonafide reason of mental ailment, which

does not come within the meaning of misconduct and the

punishment of dismissal from services imposed against

the workman is highly disproportionate and the same is

liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled for his

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back-

wages.

6. Before delving into the merit of the matter, I think

it proper to mention the principles as settled by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in catena of decisions regarding the power

and jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the matter of interference

with the findings and punishment imposed in departmental

proceedings. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court

that :

“The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with

the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot be

1534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal

cannot interfere with the findings of the Inquiry

officer or competent authority where they are not

arbitrary or utterly perverse. The power to impose

penalty on a delinquent officer is conferred on the

competent authority either by an Act of legislature

or rules made under the proviso to Art. 309 of the

Constitution. If there has been an enquiry consistent

with the rules and in accordance with principles of

natural justice what punishment would meet the ends

of justice is a matter exclusively within the

jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the penalty

can lawfully be imposed and is imposed on the

proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no power to

substitute its own discretion for that of the authority.

The adequacy of penalty unless it is malafide is

certainly not a matter of the Tribunal to concern

itself with. The Tribunal also cannot interfere with

the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry officer

or the competent authority is based on evidence

even if some of it is found to be irrelevant or

extraneous to the matter.”

So, keeping in the principles as mentioned above,

now, the case in hand is to be considered.

7. As already mentioned above, the case of the

workman is that the prescriptions and medical certificates

produced by him were not considered by the Enquiry

Officer and as he suffered from mental ailment and was

admitted in Mental hospital, Nagpur for his treatment, he

could not able to attend his duties from 12.04.1999 to

24.07.1999. On perusal of the enquiry report submitted by

the Enquiry Officer, it is found that the Enquiry Officer

had taken into consideration the documents produced by

the workman in his defence.

8. On perusal of the documents on record, it is found

that in the show cause to the charge sheet, the workman

has mentioned that on 12.04.1999, he was ill and on

14.04.1999 his daughter became ill and she was treated in

the hospital till 20.04.1999 and on 28.04.1999, his wife

became ill and she was admitted in the hospital and then

he remained busy in the marriage ceremony of his sister

and on 06.06.1999, his son expired and for that he could

not able to attend his duties from 12.04.1999.

So far the medical certificates and other documents

filed by the workman are concerned, on perusal of the

same, it is found that the claim of the workman that he was

mentally ill from 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999 and was under

medical treatment at mental hospital, Nagpur is not at all

true. Ext. W-Iii is a medical certificate relating to the period

from 25.09.1999 to 16.10.1999 and the same does not relate

to the relevant period. The other documents also do not

relate to the period in question. The workman has filed the

medical certificate issued by the private doctor,

Dr. Ravindra of Saoner dated 03.07.1999. On perusal of the

said certificate, it is found that the same was a certificate

about the workman suffering from “Fissure” and “Fistula”

from 11.04.1999 to 03.07.1999 and not for any mental ailment

as claimed by the workman. The workman has not filed a

single document to show that he was suffering from mental

ailment from 12.04.1999 and he was admitted in Mental

Hospital, Nagpur and for that he was unable to attend

duties from 12.04.1999 to 24.07.1999. Hence, there is no

force in the contention raised by the learned advocate for

the workman that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are

not based on the evidence on record of the enquiry and

the same are perverse.

9. So, far the proportionality of the punishment is

concerned, is to be mentioned that grave misconducts of

habitual absenteeism and unauthorized absence from duty

have been proved against the workman in a properly

conducted departmental enquiry. The punishment of

dismissal of the workman therefore cannot be said to be

shockingly disproportionate, so as to call for interference.

So, there is no scope for interference with the punishment

imposed against the workman. Hence, it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of WCL in dismissing

the services of Shri G.P. Lonkar w.e.f. 17.05.2001 is legal

and justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 548-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@57@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2014

S.O. 548.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Western Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/57/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1535

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/2013

Date: 16.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Director (Personnel),

Western Coalfields Limited,

Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur: 440001

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The President,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh (INTUC), 604,

Giripeth, Nagpur : 440010

AWARD

(Dated : 16th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Western Coalfields Limited and the union,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/57/2013-IR (CM-II)

dated 30.05.2013, with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Western

Coalfields Limited, HQ, Nagpur in transferring Shri

S.B. Lade, Telecom Mechanic, Grade ‘D’ from

Ballarpur Area to Umrer Area and from Unrer Area to

Nagpur H.Q. at a grade lower on accepting their

request for transfer to Nagpur H.Q. or Unrer Area, is

just, fair or legal? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The notice sent to the union (petitioner) by RPAD

was served personally on the President and service of

notice on him was held to be sufficient.

The management of WCL appeared through their

advocate, Smt. Pushpalata Ranjan.

Inspite of adjourning the case thrice for filing of

statement of claim by the petitioner, the petitioner neither

appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So, on

16.12.2013, the reference was closed, holding that the

petitioner was not interested to proceed with the reference

and the reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 549-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2013)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@44@2013&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2014

S.O. 549.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 30/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Durgapur Rayatwari

Colliery and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/44/2013-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/30/2013

Date: 16.12.2013

Party No. 1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery,

Chadrapur Area of WCL,

Post : Rayatwari,

Teh. & Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

Versus

1536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Party No. 2 :

The General Secretary,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress,

Dr. Ambedkar Ward, Ballarpur,

Post: Ballarpur,

Distt. Chandrapur (MS)

AWARD

(Dated : 16th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Durgapur Rayatwari Colliery and the union,

Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Congress for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/44/2013-IR (CM-II) dated 29.05.2013,

with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Durgapur

Rayatwari Colliery of Chandrapur Area, Western

Coalfields Limited in denying employment to Shri

Janardanrao the dependent son of Shri Y.

Chandrayya, who has already put in 37 years service,

which is contrary to the provisions of para 9.4.4 of

NCWA is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman entitled to?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement, by registered post with acknowledge

due.

The notice sent to the union (petitioner) by RPAD

was served personally on the General Secretary and service

of notice on him was held to be sufficient.

The management of WCL appeared through their

advocates, Shri B.N. Prasad and Shri S.T. Sahasrabudhe.

Inspite of adjourning the case thrice for filing of

statement of claim by the petitioner, the petitioner neither

appeared nor filed any statement of claim. So, on

16.12.2013, the reference was closed, holding that the

petitioner was not interested to proceed with the reference

and the reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must

also produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails

to appear or file written statement or produce evidence,

the dispute referred by the Government cannot be

answered in favour of the said party and the party would

not be entitled to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of

the settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that

the petitioner has neither appeared nor filed any statement

of claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence,

it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and

against the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 16 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 550-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 141@2003)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 16&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@197@2002&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2014

S.O. 550.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 141/

2013) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Hindustan Lalpeth

Open Cast Sub Area of WCL and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 16/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/197/2002-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/141/2003

Date: 20.09.2013

Party No.1 :

The Sub Area Manager,

Hindusthan Lalpeth Open Caste

Sub Area of WCL, Post:- Lalpeth,

Distt.- Chandrapur (MS).

Party No.2 :

Shri Chandrakant Khandre,

General Secretary,

Koyala Shramik Sabha (HMS),

Br. Chandrapur area,

C/o. C.G. Khadre, Near Mahakali

Mandir, Po & Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 20th September, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1537

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman Shri Sheikh Ejaj

Ahmad Sheikh Siraj for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/197/2002-IR (CM-II) dated 09.05.2003, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management in relation

to Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast of Western

Coalfields Ltd., in dismissing Sh. Sheikh Ejaj Ahmad

Sheikh Siraj, Driver, Hindustan Lalpeth Open Cast

Vide order no. WCL/CHA/PO/HLOC/ PER/1840 dated

04.07.1998 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and

written statement and accordingly, the Union, “Koyala

Sharmik Sabha(HMS)”, (“the union” in short) filed the

statement of claim, on behalf of the workman, Shri Sheikh

Ejaj Ahmad Sheikh Siraj, (‘the workman” in short), and the

management of WCL, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their

written statement.

In the statement of claim it was pleaded on the behalf

of the workman that the enquiry proceedings initiated

against the workman was illegal and the dismissal of the

workman from services was also not legal and the workman

is entitled for reinstatement in service with full back wages

and all consequential benefits alongwith continuity in

service.

3. The party no.1 filed the written statement denying

the allegations made in the statement of claim and pleading

inter-alia that the domestic enquiry had been held against

the workman in accordance with the principles of natural

justice and there was no illegality in conducting the

departmental enquiry and the workman is not entitled for

any relief.

4. It is to be mentioned here that as this is case of

dismissal of the workman after holding a departmental

enquiry, a preliminary issue regarding the fairness or other

wise of the departmental enquiry was framed for

consideration and parties were allowed to plead evidence

on the preliminary issue. Accordingly, the workman

examined himself as a witness and thereafter closed the

evidence from his side. The case was posted to 20.09.2013

for adducing evidence from the side of the management

on the validity of the departmental enquiry and

management filed the affidavit of witness, Shri Ramesh

Hanumantrao Dingalwar.

The workman appeared in person alongwith his

advocate on 20.09.2013 and filed an application alongwith

an affidavit to close the case as withdrawn on the ground

that he will take up the matter with the party no.1 for

amicable negotiation and settlement. Copy of the

application was served on the advocate for the party no.1,

who made endorsement on the application itself of “No

Objection”.

4. As the workman doesn’t want to proceed with

the reference, the reference is liable to be dismissed without

granting of any relief to him. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is dismissed as not pressed by the

workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief. No

leave is also granted to the workman to raise the dispute

again or to revive the present reference. The applications

and affidavit filed by the workman are made part of the

award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 551-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,elh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 83@2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@171@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 551.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/

2012) 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, At/Po : Jagruti Vihar and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/171/2012-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, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 83/2012

Date of Passing Award – 17th December, 2013

1538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Between:

The Chairman and Managing Director,

Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

At./Po. Jagruti Vihar, Burla,

Sambalpur, Orissa-756 020

...1st Party-Management

(And)

The Divisional Secretary,

Indian National Mines Official & Supervisory Staff

Association (INMOSSA), MCL Zone, At. Central

Colony, Sector – 16, Block-06, Po. Balanda, Dist. Angul,

Talcher, Orissa – 759 116

...2^nd Party-Union.

Appearances :

None

...For the 1^st Party-Management

Shri S. Choudhury

...For the 2^nd Party-Union

Dy. General Secretary

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 Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, At./Po. Jagruti Vihar 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 vide its letter No. L-22012/171/

2012 – IR(CM-II), dated 11.09.2012 in respect of the

following matter :

“Whether INMOSSA Association can raise

industrial dispute in respect of their association

members who are drawing more than Rs. 10,000/-

PM as Supervisory staff? Whether 17 point charter

of demands submitted by the Association dated

16.08.2010 is legal and justified on the disputes

which are deemed to be industrial disputes as per

the provisions of I.D. Act and do not fall under the

ambit of the present IR system in the decision making

process of MCL, is legal and justified? What relief

the concerned association is entitled to?”

2. The 2nd Party-Union filed its statement of claim

enclosing therewith a 17 point charter of demands

submitted to the 1^st Party-Management and stated that the

charter of demands was placed before the Management

on 16.8.2010. On some of the demands discussions were

held with the Management and on some of the demands

no talks were held. The Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar has also discussed on the demands

with the company-Management and requested the

Management to fulfill them. But the demands have not

been fulfilled till date. Hence a request has been made to

pass a written award on these demands. The minutes of

the meeting held between the representatives of the 2^nd

Party-Union and the Management in the office of the

Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar on 17.9.2010 has also been filed.

3. Despite sending notice to the 1^st Party-

Management none appeared on its behalf and failed to file

any written statement to the statement of claim. Hence the

case was set exparte against the 1^st Party-Management

vide order dated 11.6.2013.

4. On being given the opportunity to adduce

evidence in support of its claim the 2^nd Party-Union

declined to give any evidence on the pretext that the

witnesses are not ready to give evidence in the case due

to pressure tactics adopted by the Management.

5. The Union representative urged to pass award in

the case on the basis of documents available on record.

6. There are two points involved in this case on

which decision is to be given. First is that whether

INMOSSA Association can raise an industrial dispute in

respect of their association members who are drawing more

than Rs. 10,000/- per month as supervisory staff.

7. Before taking up the second point of dispute it

will be appropriate to take up the first point. The Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 provides for adjudication and

settlement of an industrial dispute which 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. Apparently the present

dispute relates to a dispute between the association

members of INMOSSA and the Management of Mahandi

Coal Fields Limited. The association members are the

workmen of the MCL. The definition of workman has been

provided under clause (s) of Section 2 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The definition of workman under the

above clause excludes any such person who is employed

in a supervisory capacity and draws wages exceeding

Rs. 10,000/- per mensum.

8. In view of the above provision the members of

INMOSSA who are drawing wages of more than Rs. 10,000

per month as supervisory staff cannot raise any dispute

through INMOSSA Association or any other union under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because they cannot be

categorized as workmen. This part of the dispute as raised

is decided against the 2^nd Party-Union.

9. The second part of the dispute raises an issue as

to whether 17 point charter of demands submitted by the

Association dated 16.8.2010 which are deemed to be

industrial disputes as per the provisions of I.D. Act and

do not fall under the ambit of the present I.R. system in the

decision making process of MCL is legal and justified.

10. The minutes of the meeting held between the

representatives of the Management and the 2^nd Party-

Union at the office of the Deputy Chief Labour

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1539

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 17.9.2010 deals

with each of the demands raised by the 2^nd Party Union

and the stand taken by the Management and also the

views of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) on

them. The stand taken by the Management is that since

INMOSSA is not covered under their industrial relation

system, structured meetings with this Association cannot

be held. The Unions which are covered under their

industrial relation system are only represented in various

committees and joint forums. INMOSSA being non-

covered Union under I.R. System it cannot represent in

such committees and no accommodation can be provided

to it. The statutory requirements are being complied with

and all safety measures are being taken by providing safety

equipments of D.G.M.S. certification. The detailed version

is given in the minutes of the meeting.

11. The demands raised by the 2^nd Party-Union in

their charter of demands may be a cause of industrial

dispute and can be said to be legal and justified, but they

cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal as the association

members of IMMOSSA are not covered under the definition

of workmen. Therefore the present dispute cannot be said

to be a dispute between the employers and the workmen

and as such does not constitute an industrial dispute

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The demands

raised under the 17 point of charter of demands whether

can be deemed to be an industrial dispute or fall under the

ambit of the present I.R. system in the decision making

process of M.C.L. cannot be decided either way for want

of any pleadings of the parties. Therefore the second point

of dispute is left undecided.

12. Under the above circumstances the INMOSSA

Association is not entitled to any relief from this Tribunal.

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 552-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 301@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@278@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 552.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 301/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/278/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/301/2003

Date: 6.2.2013

Party No. 1(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajani, Nagpur,

Nagpur-440015

Party No. 1(b) :

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha

Road, Churchgate,

Mumbai-400020

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,

Hind Nagar Ward No. 2,

Near Boudha Vihar,

Post : Wardha,

Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 6thFebruary, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Food Corporation of India and their

workman, Shri Kuresh S. Bhramhavanshi, for adjudication,

as per letter No. L-22012/278/2003-IR (CM-II) dated

08.12.2003, with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating

the services of Shri Kuresh S. Bhramhavanshi,

Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Kuresh S.

Bhramhavanshi (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Food

Corporation of India (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written

statement.

1540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was in the employment of

Party No. 1 from 20.07.1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a

Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month’s notice nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice

nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as

required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home

guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract

the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision

of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor

for a period for two years, but the contract was made only

on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1

changed the contractor on papers only and the

engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace

the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from

his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by

the contractors, but actually he was working under the

direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the

contractor had no role to play in the same and the work

performed by him was being assigned to him by Party

No. 1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and

Party No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor

as alleged and the engagement and change of contractors

by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a

camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract

between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and

not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from

services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act

and the Central Government decided to abolish the

appointment of contract labour as contemplated under

section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990

with directions to abolish the contract labour system in

the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give

employment to contract labours engaged by the

management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of

the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all

places and management of FCI implemented the notification

only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security

Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola,

Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour

system was continued by the management, with an

intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour

laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary

was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and

his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.

Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was

supervising his work through their officers and he had no

relation with the so called contractors engaged by the

Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such

as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view

of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full

back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their

employment and the workman has not impleded the

contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman

was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI

Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in

absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed

and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly

till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the

contractor came to an end, the services of the workman

were terminated by the contractor and the original period

of contract given to the contractor for providing Security

services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per

the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the

workman was not employed by them, there was no

question of following the procedure of termination by them

and they were not the employer of the workman and the

services of the workman were never utilized by them as

employer from 20.07.1993 to14.03. 1999 , without any break

in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of

work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged

by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of

master and servant between them and the workman at any

point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted

by the Central Government, so the allegations made by

the workman against them are not true and there was no

question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act

and the work does not constantly exist and the work of

providing security guards was given to other Government

Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and

therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief

from them and the work of security is not perennial in

nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with

food grains, then only, services of the security guards are

required and in pursuance of the notification issued by

the Central Government abolishing contract labour system,

they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as

security guards.

The further case of party no. 1 is that for the relief as

claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1541

the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.

1389/99 and the Hon’ble High Court rejected the said WP

and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision

of the Hon ‘ble Court operates as res-judicata and they

floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was

awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every

two years was not on papers only and they had no say in

the appointment of security guards by the security

contractor and they had no control over the appointment

and service conditions of the workman, who was an

employee of the security agency and he was never their

employee and the security contractor was the employer of

the workman.

The further case of party no. 1 is that the appropriate

government decided to abolish the employment of the

contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the

Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970

and the interpretation of the notification issued on

01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they

were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the

year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the

year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the

contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the

workman were terminated by the security contractor and

they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the

contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and

when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,

they paid the amount as per the directions given by the

ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered

from the contract’s bill and they only used to check the

attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether

the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite

number of security guards, as per their requirement and

they did not have the power to terminate any employee

appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any

article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc to the

workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

4. Both parties have led oral evidence in support of

their respective claims, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

The workman in support of his claim has examined

himself as a witness. In his evidence, which is on affidavit,

the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted

that he was engaged by the contractor and the contractor

left him to the FCI and FCI had not given any advertisement

for the said post and he does not know the name of the

contractor and no appointment order was given to him,

either by the contractor or the FCI and he has not filed any

document to show that salary was paid to him by FCI and

he cannot say for how many years he served in FCI and

no termination order was issued by FCI and Mr. Bokade

terminated him orally and initially, he was getting Rs. 700

as salary, but he cannot say the break-up of his salary,

such as ‘basic, DA and other allowances and he has not

filed any document to show that he served with FCI from

1993 to 1999. The workman has admitted that he was

appointed through Singh Securities Services.

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade, the witness examined on

behalf of the party no. 1 has also reiterated the facts

mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-in-

chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this

witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had

obtained any license from the competent authority for

engagement of contract labours in FCI. The witness has

admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI

and he was engaged for watch and ward of go-downs and

the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch

on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI

go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply

contract labourers had the required license for the same,

but copy of such license was not filed and the process of

engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office

of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details

of the process of engagement of knowledge about the

detail of the process of engagement of contractors and

during the general election to the Parliament, FCI had

submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the

list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness

has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others

were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go-

downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 that the FCI was

maintaining the attendance register of the workmen. The

witness has further stated that payment of wages to the

workman was being done through the contractor as per

the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was

not making any deduction from the said wages towards

PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register

or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt.

Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of

labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was

submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the

workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

engaged by the management of FCI on 20.07.1993 at

Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked

continuously without any interruption till 14th March,1999

and his services were terminated orally by the party no.1,

without following the due procedure of law and the

workman had completed more than 240 days of work in

each year and before termination of the services of the

workman, neither one month’s notice nor one month’s

wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was

given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of

the Act and after termination of the services of the

1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman, fresh hands were engaged by party no.1 to

extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the

provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of

security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination

of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that the party no.l had shown the workman

as contract labour, but the so called contract was made

only on papers and the workman was actually working

under the direct control and supervision of the party no.1

and he was never a contract labour and such action of the

party no.l was sham and only a camouflage to deny the

legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract

between the management and the contractor was bogus

and not genuine and the Central Government by

notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment

of contract labour and directed to give employment to

contract labours engaged by the management and

therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish

the contract labour system and to give employment to the

workman.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that party no.1 has admitted the claims made

by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim

that the workman was a contract labour, by producing

cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never

appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the

contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned

contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such

objection in the written statement, the workman did not

implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference

is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged

by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor

came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman

were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was

no question of party no.1 complying with the due

procedure of termination and there was no relationship of

master and servant between the party no.1 and the

workman and the party no.1 was exempted by the Central

Government from the ban imposed for engagement of

contract labourers, so contract was given to the security

contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and

due to the notification of the Government for abolition of

contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel

were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no

control over the workman and the security contractor was

submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards

and the security contractor was paying the wages to the

workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had

approached the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in

W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference

and the Hon’ble High Court while depositing of the said

petition have held that the termination of the workman by

the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was

legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question

again and the decision of the Hon ‘ble High Court operates

as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by

the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the present

reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the

decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.

1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78

others through the union, “Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena

Saptahit Jaibhim” filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before

the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were

employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the

Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they

have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since

the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon’ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :

“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench

in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.

National Union water front workers and others

[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the

petitioners cannot be granted since the petition

involves disputed question of facts as also other

facts which are required to be adjudicated by

appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer

to absorb them cannot be granted.

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the

question of granting other prayer does not arise. In

case, the petitioners approach the appropriate

authority, the appropriate authority shall take

decision in the matter within a period of one year.

The applicants are free to approach the appropriate

authority for redressal of their grievances.”

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon’ble

High Court as mentioned above that the Hon’ble High

Court did not consider the claim made by the workman

and others on merit and granted them the liberty to

approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1543

the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of

res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1.

9. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman

that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party

no. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the

statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman

that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India

Depot, Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor.

In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has

mentioned that, “In the year 1993, the workman was

engaged by the Food Corporation of India through

contractor, for the period of 2 years, but the contract was

made on paper.” The case of the workman is that after

every two years, the party no. 1 on papers showed the

change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from

services and he worked continuously without any break

till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of

perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.

The workman has also claimed that as the Central

Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish

the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give

employment to contract labours engaged by the

management and party no. 1 implemented such direction

at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and

regularized and absorbed the services of the Security

Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not

implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive

him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

From the evidence on record and the own admission

of the workman in the cross-examination including the

specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor

and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed

through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the

workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman

has not produced any evidence to show that he was

directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

10. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention

about the principles enunciated by the Hon ‘ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II LW-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs M/s Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

others).

In the decision reported m 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do .........”. ‘The expression’ employed has at least

two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ-477). Now where a contractor

employs a workman to do the work which he

contracted with a third person to accomplish on the

definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor

would not without something more become the

workman of that third person. Therefore, when the

workmen employed by the contractor were certainly

not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to

that effect has been made by the union.”

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon ‘ble Apex Court have held that :

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,

provide no ground for absorption of contract labour

on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the

appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in

Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the

1544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of

the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23

and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts

or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified

remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal

consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a

different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -

2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -

23-12-1999 (Bom), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori ‘much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made thereunder.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

12. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW

dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows

that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in

sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings

owned or occupied by the establishments of Food

Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted

by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract

labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is

also found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply

of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not

only on papers as claimed. by the workman. The workman

has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or

reliable evidence. The engagement of labour contractor

by Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade

compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to

deprive the workman of the benefits thereunder. The

workman has not been able to produce any document to

show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages

as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party

No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman

in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor

did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on

record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour

with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be

held that there was no relationship of master and servant

between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there

was no question of termination of the services by the

Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections

25-F or 25-H of the Act.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1545

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was

engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had

engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.

The said contractor has not been added as a party in this

reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the

reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 553-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,elh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 553.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar (Ref. No.

01/2011) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

MCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(C-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, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 1/2011

Date of Passing Order – 22nd November, 2013

Between :

The C.M.D., MCL, Burla.

The Director (P), MCL, Burla.

The C.V.O., MCL, Burla.

The General Manager, Lingaraj Area,

At./Po. Deulbera Colliery, P.S. Talcher,

Dist. Angul, (Orissa),

The General Manager, Hingula Area,

At. Balram Township, Po. N.S. Nagar,

Bharatpur Colony, Dist. Angul,

(Orissa)-759 148

...1st Party-Managements

(And)

Their workman Shri B. Mahabhoi, Sr. P.A.

Represented through Jt. General Secretary,

TCMEU (AITUC), At. Qr. No. A/121,

P.O. NS Nagar, Bharatpur Colony,

Dist. Angul (Orissa) Pin – 759 148

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

None

…

For the 1st Party-

Managements.

Shri B. Mahabhoi

…

For Himself the 2nd

Party-Workman.

AWARD

The dismissed employee Shri B. Mahabhoi has filed

this petition before this Tribunal/Labour Court under

section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against

the C.M.D. of MCL, Burla and four others for setting aside

the dismissal order passed by the General Manager,

Lingaraj Area on 1.3.2009 and his reinstatement in service

with full back wages.

2. The allegations of the workman in short are that

he was working as Senior P.A. to the General Manager,

Hingula Area. While he was working in Kalinga Area now

known as Hingula Area he was asked to issue the

requisition slips for drawing petrol from the petrol pump,

namely M/s. D. Sahoo & A. Sahoo, Talcher to the drivers

of Headquarter vehicles coming on tour to Talcher with

Headquarter officers as per the direction of the General

Manager/Chief General Manager. At the time of issuing

such slips Shri Mahabhoi was mentioning on the back

side of the slips the vehicle number, the authority of the

vehicle, the quantity required and was taking signatures

of the concerned drivers therein to produce before the

pump for giving petrol. Thereafter the drivers used to take

the petrol from the pump by submitting these original foils

and duplicate foils at their own. The original foil was

supposed to be submitted along with the credit memos for

billing and payment and the duplicate foil was supposed

to be retained by the petrol pump for record. The drivers

submit the slips and sign on the credit memos as prepared

by the owner after issue. The petrol pump owner produces

1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the credit memos mentioning therein the name of the

vehicle to whom petrol was issued, quantity of petrol

issued and the amount so due and takes the signature of

the driver on the same bill. Then he submits the bill to the

Area Personnel Manager, Kalinga Area for processing the

bill, who sends the same to the A.F.M. for passing and

paying the amount. From the stage of passing and to the

stage of payment Shri Mahabhoi never takes any part. In

the month of June, 2003 the A.F.M. through A.P.M. wanted

to know the names and authority of those vehicles from

Shri Mahabhoi as to his signatures on slips for which

claim have been made from March, 2003 to August 2003

by the petrol pump owner. At that time Shri Mahabhoi

could know some irregularities on those bills which have

been produced on his false signatures. He reported the

matter to the Chief General Manager, who intimated to the

CVO, MCL, Burla. The CVO conducted a preliminary

enquiry and a clarification was sought from Shri Mahabhoi,

who clarified the position. In the meantime Shri Mahabhoi

was transferred to Lingaraj Area on 8.3.2004.

3. In the month of Sept. 2004, the General Manager

of Lingaraj Area issued a charge-sheet to Shri Mahabhoi

who sent a reply to him on 22.9.2004. Thereafter the General

Manager, Lingaraj Area appointed an enquiry committee

nominating Shri A.K. Sahay, Deputy C.E. (Excv.)/Area

Training Officer as enquiry officer. Shri Mahabhoi

participated in the enquiry proceedings with a co-worker.

During the enquiry proceeding Shri Mahabhoi requested

the Enquiry Officer and the General Manager (LA) to

supply him all the 132 numbers of the disputed original

folios to tally with the duplicate foils on the basis of which

payment was made to the petrol pump owner. Shri

Mahabhoi also requested to call for the petrol pump owner

and hand writing expert as witnesses in the enquiry

proceedings through the Management representative. But

the enquiry officer failed to call them. Shri Mahabhoi also

wanted to seek the opinion of the Government hand writing

expert to which the General Manager agreed vide his letter

No. 297, dated 05.07.2006, but they could not produce the

same till the end of the enquiry proceedings. Shri Mahabhoi

had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa

who directed the Management vide its order dated 2.6.2006

to supply all the documents. The General Manager,

Lingaraj Area although assured to supply all the required

documents and to obtain the second opinion from the

Government organization, yet the Management

Representative or the Enquiry Officer failed to supply the

same. During the 54^th Enquiry Sitting held on 16.6.2008

Shri Mahabhoi requested the Enquiry Officer to examine

the Management representative, but the Enquiry Officer

did not permit the management representative for his

examination, but closed the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer

denied all sufficient opportunities to Shri Mahabhoi to

defend the case and thus he was denied natural justice.

Shri Mahabhoi during the enquiry proceedings also

brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer about erasing

of the triplicate-foils into hand written duplicate-foils and

the fact that petrol was issued before one month of issue

of requisition slips/foils and also after two months. The

Enquiry Officer had not taken all these matters into

consideration which were pointed out to him by Shri

Mahabhoi and written his findings in a biased manner

without applying his mind and mentioning the specific

reasons thereof. The Enquiry Officer did not supply the

typed copy of his findings and the copy supplied to him

was hand-written which was not legible. The Management

in disregard of the order of the Hon’ble High Court of

Orissa signed the termination order on 1.3.2009 being

Sunday which was antedated to make the said order

infructuous. For all these reasons the workman has prayed

to set aside the dismissal order and to reinstate him in his

post with back wages.

4. The 1^st party-Management No. 1 to 5 appeared

before this Tribunal/Labour Court and moved a petition

for engagement of Advocate. Objection on behalf of the

workman was filed and upon hearing both the parties the

petition of the 1^st Party-Management was rejected vide

order dated 14.10.2011. Thereafter the 1^st Party-

Management No. 1 to 5 preferred to remain absent in the

proceedings of the case and did not file any written

statement. Hence the case was set exparte against them.

5. The workman Shri Bholeswar Mahabhoi has filed

his affidavit in evidence along with certain annexures.

6. After having gone through the sworn affidavit

of Shri Bholeswar Mahabhoi and perusing the documents

filed on record it comes out that the allegations raised by

the 2^nd Party-workman in his claim statement are true. The

documents which were the basis of the charge-sheet were

not supplied to the 2^nd Party-workman during the enquiry

proceedings even after repeated demands by him. The

hand writing expert who examined the disputed documents

was also not examined. Hence his report without being

proved cannot be made basis of any conclusion. The petrol

pump owner was also not examined in evidence and it

could not be made clear as to how the 2^nd Party-workman

was involved in the charges levelled against him. Repeated

requests were made to call for the hand writing expert and

the petrol pump owner to be produced in evidence, but

the request was not heeded to. Therefore it is apparent

that the dismissal order of the disputant workman was

passed without affording him sufficient opportunity to

defend his case and thus the principles of natural justice

were violated by the enquiry officer in conducting the

enquiry. Moreover, the appellate authority has remitted

the case back to the disciplinary authority for denovo

enquiry into the charges framed against Shri B. Mahabhoi

vide order dated 1.10.2011. Copy of the appellate order

has been filed as Annexure-9 to his affidavit. In this view

of the matter the dismissal order passed against the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1547

2nd Party-workman has becomes infructuous and non-

existent. Consequently this case has been filed at a

premature stage and no orders need to be passed in the

matter.

7. The case is disposed of accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 554-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,iQ lh vkbZ ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 262@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@164@2003&vkbZvkj (lh,e-II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 554.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 262/

2003) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Food Corporation of

India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/164/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/262/2003

Date: 6.2.2013

Party No. 1(a) :

The District Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Ajani, Nagpur,

Nagpur-440015

Party No. 1(b) :

The Senior Regional Manager,

Food Corporation of India,

Mistry Bhawan, Dinshaw Wacha

Road, Churchgate,

Mumbai-400020

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Secretary,

Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena,

Hind Nagar Ward No. 2,

Near Boudha Vihar,

Post : Wardha,

Distt. Wardha (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated : 6thFebruary, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Food Corporation of India and their

workman, Shri Rajesh Yadaorao Warkhade, for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/164/2003-IR (CM-

II) dated 08.12.2003, with the following schedule :

“Whether the action of the management of Food

Corporation of India, Nagpur (M.S.) in terminating

the services of Shri Rajesh Yadaorao Warkhade,

Security Guard w.e.f. 14.03.1999 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Rajesh

Yadaorao Warkhade (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Food

Corporation of India (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he was in the employment of

Party No. 1 from 20.07.1993 and he was initially engaged

through a contractor at Wardha Depot of Party No. 1, as a

Security Guard and he was in continuous service without

any interruption till 14th March, 1999, when his services

were terminated orally by Party No. 1, without following

the due procedure of law and he had completed more than

240 days of work in each year and the termination of his

services on 14.03.1999 was not in good faith, but in

colourable exercise of the rights and powers by the Party

No. 1 and while terminating his services, neither one

month’s notice nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice

nor retrenchment compensation was given to him as

required under section 25-F of the Act and after his illegal

termination, fresh hands from the department of home

guard and police were engaged by Party No. 1 to extract

the duties of Security guards, in violation of the provision

of section 25-H of the Act and the work which he was

performing is constantly in existence and the same is of a

perennial nature and as his termination is illegal and

unlawful, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

The further case of the workman is that in 1993, he

was engaged by the Party No. 1 through the contractor

for a period for two years, but the contract was made only

on papers and after every two years, the Party No. 1

changed the contractor on papers only and the

engagement of the so-called contractor did not replace

1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Security Guards and he was also not disturbed from

his services and he was merely shown to be engaged by

the contractors, but actually he was working under the

direct control and supervision of the Party No. 1 and the

contractor had no role to play in the same and the work

performed by him was being assigned to him by Party No.

1 and he was a regular employee of Party No. 1 and Party

No. 1 was his real employer and not the contractor as

alleged and the engagement and change of contractors

by Party No. 1 from time to time was sham and only a

camouflage to deny his legitimate claim and the contract

between Party No. 1 and the contractor was bogus and

not genuine and therefore, his oral termination from

services was against the mandatory provisions of the Act

and the Central Government decided to abolish the

appointment of contract labour as contemplated under

section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and

Abolition) Act, 1970 and issued notification on 01.11.1990

with directions to abolish the contract labour system in

the establishment of the Party No. 1 and to give

employment to contract labours engaged by the

management and therefore, it was the mandatory duty of

the Party No. 1 to abolish the contract labour system in all

places and management of FCI implemented the notification

only at Nagpur and Manmad and absorbed the Security

Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad, but at Akola,

Amravati, Wardha and Gondia districts, the contract labour

system was continued by the management, with an

intention to deprive him from the benefits under the labour

laws.

It is further pleaded by the workman that his salary

was paid by the Party No. 1 and not by the contractor and

his daily attendance was also marked by the Asstt.

Manager of FCI, Wardha Depot and the Party No. 1 was

supervising his work through their officers and he had no

relation with the so called contractors engaged by the

Party No. 1 and Party No. 1 also supplied the articles, such

as, torch, lathi, whistle and uniform etc to him and in view

of the long spell of work being carried out by him, he is

entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and full

back wages.

3. The Party No. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter alia that the workman was never in their

employment and the workman has not impleded the

contractor, who appointed him, as a Party and the workman

was engaged by the contractor as a Security Guard at FCI

Depot and the said contractor is a necessary party and in

absence of the contractor, the proceeding cannot proceed

and the workman was not in their service uninterruptedly

till 14th March, 1999 and since the contract of the

contractor came to an end, the services of the workman

were terminated by the contractor and the original period

of contract given to the contractor for providing Security

services was up to 1998 and the same was extended as per

the terms and conditions till March, 1999 and as the

workman was not employed by them, there was no question

of following the procedure of termination by them and

they were not the employer of the workman and the

services of the workman were never utilized by them as

employer from 14.10.1993 to14.03. 1999 , without any break

in service and the workman did not complete 240 days of

work in a year as alleged and as the workman was engaged

by the Security Contractor, there was no relationship of

master and servant between them and the workman at any

point of time and under section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regularisation and Abolition) Act, they were exempted

by the Central Government, so the allegations made by

the workman against them are not true and there was no

question of violation of the provisions of 25 (H) of the Act

and the work does not constantly exist and the work of

providing security guards was given to other Government

Agencies like Police Personnel and Home guards and

therefore, the workman has no right to claim any relief

from them and the work of security is not perennial in

nature and as and when their go-downs are filled with

food grains, then only, services of the security guards are

required and in pursuance of the notification issued by

the Central Government abolishing contract labour system,

they appointed Home guards and Police personnel as

security guards.

The further case of party no. 1 is that for the relief as

claimed, by the workman had filed a writ petition before

the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench bearing W.P. No.

1389/99 and the Hon’ble High Court rejected the said WP

and denied the relief prayed for and therefore, this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction to decide the reference and the decision

of the Hon’ble Court operates as res-judicata and they

floated tenders for the contract and lowest bidder was

awarded the contract and the change of contractor in every

two years was not on papers only and they had no say in

the appointment of security guards by the security

contractor and they had no control over the appointment

and service conditions of the workman, who was an

employee of the security agency and he was never their

employee and the security contractor was the employer of

the workman.

The further case of party no. 1 is that the appropriate

government decided to abolish the employment of the

contract labour as contemplated under section 10 of the

Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) Act, 1970

and the interpretation of the notification issued on

01.11.1990 put by the workman is not correct and they

were exempted from the operation of the Act of 1970 in the

year 1989 and the said exemption was withdrawn in the

year 1999 and therefore, the security contact given to the

contractor was terminated and hence, the services of the

workman were terminated by the security contractor and

they did not pay the salary to the workman and it was the

contractor, who was paying the same to the workman and

when the contractor failed to pay the salary to the workman,

they paid the amount as per the directions given by the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1549

ALC from time to time and the said amount was recovered

from the contract’s bill and they only used to check the

attendance of the security guards to find out as to whether

the contractor had made arrangement of the requisite

number of security guards, as per their requirement and

they did not have the power to terminate any employee

appointed by the contractor and they did not provide any

article, such as torch, Lathi, whistle and uniform etc to the

workman and as such, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

4. It appears from record that in support of his case,

though the workman filed his evidence on affidavit, he did

not appear for his cross-examination. As the evidence of

the workman has not been tested by way of cross-

examination, the same cannot be considered.

5. Shri Suresh N. Bokade, the witness examined on

behalf of the party no. 1 has also reiterated the facts

mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-in-

chief, which is on affidavit. In his cross-examination, this

witness has stated that he has no knowledge if FCI had

obtained any license from the competent authority for

engagement of contract labours in FCI. The witness has

admitted that the workman was working from 1993 in FCI

and he was engaged for watch and ward of go-downs and

the workman and 12 other workmen were keeping watch

on the incoming and outgoing vehicles to and from FCI

go-downs and the contractor engaged by FCI to supply

contract labourers had the required license for the same,

but copy of such license was not filed and the process of

engagement of contractors was done by the Regional Office

of FCI and he has no personal knowledge about the details

of the process of engagement of knowledge about the

detail of the process of engagement of contractors and

during the general election to the Parliament, FCI had

submitted the names of the workman and 12 others in the

list of employees submitted to the collector. This witness

has denied the suggestions that the workman and 12 others

were appointed by the FCI for watch and ward of the go-

downs of FCI at Wardha in 1993 that the FCI was

maintaining the attendance register of the workmen. The

witness has further stated that payment of wages to the

workman was being done through the contractor as per

the minimum wages fixed by the Government and FCI was

not making any deduction from the said wages towards

PF and ESI and FCI was not maintaining any duty register

or salary register for the workman and the concerned Asstt.

Manager and Assistants were verifying the supply of

labourers by the Contractor and the contractor was

submitting monthly bills for supply of labours and the

workman was on duty from 1993 to 1999 in FCI.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

engaged by the management of FCI on 14.10.1993 at

Wardha depot as a security guard and he worked

continuously without any interruption till 14th March,1999

and his services were terminated orally by the party no.1,

without following the due procedure of law and the

workman had completed more than 240 days of work in

each year and before termination of the services of the

workman, neither one month’s notice nor one month’s

wage in lieu of notice nor retrenchment compensation was

given to the workman, as required under section 25-F of

the Act and after termination of the services of the

workman, fresh hands were engaged by party no.1 to

extract the duties of security guard, in violation of the

provision of section 25-H of the Act and the work of

security guard is perennial in nature, hence the termination

of the workman is void and illegal.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that the party no.l had shown the workman

as contract labour, but the so called contract was made

only on papers and the workman was actually working

under the direct control and supervision of the party no.1

and he was never a contract labour and such action of the

party no.l was sham and only a camouflage to deny the

legitimate claim of the workman and the so called contract

between the management and the contractor was bogus

and not genuine and the Central Government by

notification dated 01.11.1990 abolished the employment

of contract labour and directed to give employment to

contract labours engaged by the management and

therefore, the management of FCI was bound to abolish

the contract labour system and to give employment to the

workman.

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman that party no.1 has admitted the claims made

by the workman and has not been able to prove their claim

that the workman was a contract labour, by producing

cogent evidence in support of the same and as such, the

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was never

appointed by party no.1 and he has engaged by the

contractor as a security guard and as such, the concerned

contractor is a necessary party and inspite of raising such

objection in the written statement, the workman did not

implead the contractor as a party and for that the reference

is not maintainable. It was further submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged

by the contractor and as the contract of the contractor

came to an end in March, 1999, the services of the workman

were terminated by the contractor and as such, there was

no question of party no.1 complying with the due

procedure of termination and there was no relationship of

master and servant between the party no.1 and the

workman and the party no.1 was exempted by the Central

Government from the ban imposed for engagement of

contract labourers, so contract was given to the security

1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contractor, as per rules, for supply of security guards and

due to the notification of the Government for abolition of

contract labour system, Home guards and Police personnel

were appointed as security guards and party no.1 has no

control over the workman and the security contractor was

submitting bills for payment for supply of security guards

and the security contractor was paying the wages to the

workman. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the workman and some others had

approached the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in

W.P. 1389 of 1999 for the reliefs sought in this reference

and the Hon’ble High Court while depositing of the said

petition have held that the termination of the workman by

the contractor was a valid one and the action of FCI was

legal and as such, the workman cannot agitate the question

again and the decision of the Hon’ble High Court operates

as res-judicata between the parties and the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

8. First of all, I will take up the submission made by

the learned advocate for the party no.1 that the present

reference is hit by the principles of res-judicata, due to the

decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Nagpur Bench in W.P.

1389/99.

It is not disputed that the workman alongwith 78

others through the union, “Rashtriya Mazdoor Sena

Saptahit Jaibhim” filed Writ Petition no. 1389/99 before

the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur

Bench, Nagpur, for their regularisation and the Hon’ble

High Court did not grant such relief. On perusal of the

order passed by the Hon’ble High Court on 29.07.2002 in

the said writ petition, it is found that the workman and

others claimed regularisation on the ground that they were

employed by the contractor for doing regular work of the

Food Corporation of India and in view of the same, they

have became workmen of Food Corporation of India, since

the work on which they were employed is of perennial

nature. However, it is found from the judgment that the

Hon’ble High Court did not consider the main relief and

passed the following order :

“In view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench

in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs.

National Union water front workers and others

[reported in 2001 (7) SCC1], the relief sought by the

petitioners cannot be granted since the petition

involves disputed question of facts as also other

facts which are required to be adjudicated by

appropriate authority. Accordingly, the main prayer

to absorb them cannot be granted.

In view of the rejection of the main prayer, the

question of granting other prayer does not arise. In

case, the petitioners approach the appropriate

authority, the appropriate authority shall take

decision in the matter within a period of one year.

The applicants are free to approach the appropriate

authority for redressal of their grievances.”

So, it is clear from the orders passed by the Hon ‘ble

High Court as mentioned above that the Hon’ble High

Court did not consider the claim made by the workman

and others on merit and granted them the liberty to

approach the appropriate authority for redress. Hence,

the reference cannot be said to be hit by the principles of

res-judicata. So, there is no force in the contention raised

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1.

9. In this reference, it is never the case of the workman

that he was directly appointed or engaged by the party

no. 1 as a security guard. In the very beginning of the

statement of claim, it has been mentioned by the workman

that he was initially engaged at Food Corporation of India

Depot, Wardha as a security guard, through a contractor.

In paragraph 4 of the statement of claim, the workman has

mentioned that, “In the year 1993, the workman was

engaged by the Food Corporation of India through

contractor, for the period of 2 years, but the contract was

made on paper.” The case of the workman is that after

every two years, the party no. 1 on papers showed the

change of contractors, but he was not disturbed from

services and he worked continuously without any break

till 14.03.1999 and as he worked as a security guard of

perennial nature, he is entitled for reinstatement in service.

The workman has also claimed that as the Central

Government issued notification on 01.11.1990 to abolish

the contract labour system in FCI and directed to give

employment to contract labours engaged by the

management and party no. 1 implemented such direction

at Nagpur and Manmad only and gave employment and

regularized and absorbed the services of the Security

Guards working at Nagpur and Manmad and did not

implement the same at Wardha and other places to deprive

him from the benefits under the Labour Laws.

From the evidence on record and the own admission

of the workman in the cross-examination including the

specific admission that he was engaged by the contractor

and the contractor left him to FCI and he was appointed

through Singh Securities Services, it is clear that the

workman was engaged by the contractor. The workman

has not produced any evidence to show that he was

directly engaged by the Party No. 1.

10. At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention

about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court

regarding contract labours, in the two decisions reported

in 1985-II LW-4 (S.C.) (The workman of the Food

Corporation of India Vs M/s. Food Corporation of India)

and 2001 LAB IC 3656 (S.C.) (Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

others).

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1551

In the decision reported in 1985-II LLOJ-4 (supra)

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that :

“Briefly stated, when corporation engaged a

contractor for handling foodgrain at Siliguri Depot,

the corporation had nothing to do with the manner

of handling work done by the contractor, the labour

force employed by him, payments made by him etc.

In such a fact situation, there was no privity of

contract of employer and workmen between the

corporation and the workmen. “Workmen” has been

defined (omitting the words not necessary) in the

Industrial Disputes Act to mean (any person

including an apprentice) employed in any industry

to do .........”. ‘The expression’ employed has at least

two known connotations, but as used in the

definition, the context would indicate that it is used

in the sense of a relationship brought about by

express or implied contract of service in which the

employee renders service for which he is engaged

by the employer and the latter agrees to pay him in

cash or kind as agreed between them or statutorily

prescribed. It discloses a relationship of command

and obedience. The essential condition of a person

being a workman within the terms of the definition is

that he should be employed to do the work in that

industry and that there should be, in other words,

an employment of his by the employer and that there

should be a relationship between the employer and

employee or master and servant unless a person is

thus employed there can be no question of his being

a “workman” within the definition of the term as

contained in the Act.

Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. Vs. State of

Saurashtra (1957-I-LLJ- 477). Now where a contractor

employs a workman to do the work which he

contracted with a third person to accomplish on the

definition as it stands, the workman of the contractor

would not without something more become the

workman of that third person. Therefore, when the

workmen employed by the contractor were certainly

not the workmen of the corporation and no claim to

that effect has been made by the union.”

11. In the decision reported in 2001 LAB IC - 3656

(supra) the Hon ‘ble Apex Court have held that :

“The principle that a beneficial legislation needs to

be constructed liberally in favour of the class for

whose benefit it is intended, does not extend to

reading in the provisions of the Act what the

legislature has not provided whether expressly or

by necessary implication, or substituting remedy or

benefits for that provided by the legislature. The

intendment of the CLRA Act is to regulate the

conditions of service of the contract labour and to

authorize in Section 10(1) prohibition of contract

labour system by the appropriate Government on

consideration of factors enumerated in sub-section

(2) of Section 10 of the Act among other relevant

factors. But, the presence of some or all those factors,

provide no ground for absorption of contract labour

on issuing notification under Section 10(1) by the

appropriate Government, is not alluded to either in

Section 10 or at any other place in the Act and the

consequence of violation of Sections 7 and 12 of

the CLRA Act is explicitly provided in Sections 23

and 25 of the CLRA Act, it is not for the High Courts

or the Supreme Court to read in some unspecified

remedy in Section 10 or substitute for penal

consequences specified in Sections 23 and 25 a

different sequel be it absorption of contract labour

in the establishment of principal employer or a lesser

or a harsher punishment. Such an interpretation of

the provisions of the statute will be far beyond the

principle of ironing out the creases and the scope of

interpretative legislation and as such clearly

impermissible.

Thus on issuance of prohibition notification under

S. 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by any contract in regard to

conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will

have to consider the question whether the contractor

has been interposed either on the ground of having

undertaken to produce any given result for the

establishment or for supply of contract labour for

work of the establishment under a genuine contract

or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of

various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is

found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the

so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be

directed to regularize the services of the contract

labour in the concerned establishment. If the

contract is found to be genuine and the principal

employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall

give preference to the erstwhile contract labour. It

otherwise found suitable, and, if necessary, by

relaxing the condition as to maximum age

appropriately taking into consideration the age of

the workers at the time of their initial employment by

the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to

academic qualifications other than technical

qualifications.

Air India’s case 1997 AIR SCW430 Overruled

prospectively. M.A.T. Nos. 1704 and 1705 of 1999,

D/ - 12-8-1999 (Cal): C.O. No. 6545(W) if 1996, D/ -

9-5-1997(Cal): W.A. Nos. 345-354 of 1997m D/ -

17-4-1998 (Kant): W.P. No. 4050 of 1999, D/ -

2-8-2000 (Bom) and W.P. No. 2616 of 1999, D/ -

23-12-1999 (Born), 1998 Lab IC 2571 (Cal), Reversed.

1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

It cannot be said that by virtue of engagement of

contract labour by the contractor in any work of or

in connection with the work of an establishment,

the relationship of master and servant is created

between the principal employer and the contract

labour. Even a combined reading of the definition of

the terms “Contract labour”, “Establishment” and

“Workman” does not show that the legal

relationship between the person employed in any

industry and the owner of the industry is created

irrespective of the fact as to who has brought about

such relationship. The word “Workman” is defined

in wide terms. It is a generic term of which contract

labour is a species. It is true that combined reading

of the terms “Establishment” and “Workman” shows

that a workman engaged in any establishment would

have direct relationship with the principal employer

as a servant of master. But what is true of a workman

could not be correct of contract labour. When the

provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between

the principal employer and the contract labour nor

can such relationship be implied from the provisions

of the action issuing notification under Section 10(1)

of the CLRA Act. A fortiori ‘much less can such a

relationship be found to exist from the rules and the

forms made there under.”

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

12. In this case, the letter No. U-23013/11/89/LW

dated 28.05.92, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour shows

that the prohibition of employment of contract labour in

sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings

owned or occupied by the establishments of Food

Corporation of India and some other departments was lifted

by the Central Government. So, the engagement of contract

labour by the Party No. 1 cannot be said to be illegal. It is

also found from the materials on record that the

appointment of labour contractor by Party No. 1 for supply

of Security Guards was genuine and the same was not

only on papers as claimed. by the workman. The workman

has failed to prove such claim by adducing cogent or

reliable evidence. The engagement of labor contractor by

Party No. 1 was not a mere ruse or camouflage to evade

compliance of the various beneficial legislations, so as to

deprive the workman of the benefits there under. The

workman has not been able to produce any document to

show that at any point of time, Party No. 1 paid his wages

as their employee. It is clear from the evidence that Party

No. 1 paid wages of the last three months to the workman

in presence of the Labour Commissioner, as the contractor

did not pay the same. As it is clear from the evidence on

record that the workman was engaged as a contract labour

with Party No. 1, by the contractor and as such, it can be

held that there was no relationship of master and servant

between the Party No. 1 and the workman. Hence, there

was no question of termination of the services by the

Party No. 1 or compliance of the provisions of Sections

25-F or 25-H of the Act.

13. It is the own case of the workman that he was

engaged by the contractor. So the contractor, who had

engaged the workman, is a necessary party in the reference.

The said contractor has not been added as a party in this

reference. Due to non-joinder of necessary party, the

reference is bad in law.

In view of the materials on record and the discussions

made above, the reference cannot be answered in favour

of the workman. Hence, it is ordered :

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative. The

workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 555-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,elh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@312@2007&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 555.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 01/2008) 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 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/312/2007-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, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 1/2008

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1553

Date of Passing Award – 19th November, 2013

Between:

The General Manager, Talcher Area,

M/s. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

Po. Dera Colliery, Dist. Angul, Orissa.

...1st Party-Management.

(And)

Their workman Shri Ajit Kumar Deb,

S/o. Late Suresh Chandra Samant,

At. Samant Quarter, Po. Talcher Town,

Dist. Angul, Orissa.

...2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances :

Shri P.K. Mahapatra,

…

For the 1st Party-

Senior Manager.

Management.

Shri Ajit Kumar Deb.

…

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 M/s. Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited 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 vide their Letter No. L-22012/312/2007 – IR(CM-

II) dated 03.01.2008 in respect of the following matter :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

MCL in terminating the services of Sri A.K. Deb

w.e.f. 23.02.2007 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief is the workman entitled?”

2. The 2^nd Party-workman filed his statement of claim

and alleged that he was appointed on 23.10.1990 as Loader

by the General Manager, Talcher, Unit-I, Dera Colliery in

the district of Angul. He had put in ten years service.

Since he had been suffering from illness with effect from

16.1.2004, his wife sent a letter to the grievance cell, Chief

General Manager, Talcher Area MCL, Talcher requesting

him to transfer her husband from Dera Underground Mines

to Hingula Open Cast Mines on health ground. He filed a

petition dated 26.12.2005 before the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar regarding his illegal

termination. He also attended the joint discussion held

on 2.8.2006. In the said meeting/first discussion it was

agreed that the 2^nd Party-workman will continue his job

without any absence. Before the discussion held as above,

he was charge-sheeted by the Project Officer, Talcher

Colliery on 17.3.2005 for absenting himself habitually from

duty without sufficient cause to which he submitted an

explanation dated 28.3.2005 along with medical certificate,

but the General Manager, Talcher without heeding to the

minutes of the discussion removed him from service with

effect from 22.2.2007. There was no fault on his part, as he

was suffering from illness and for that he had submitted

medical certificate. Therefore he may be engaged as a

security guard at Talcher Colliery as he had served as

security guard from 7.9.2001 to 8.3.2003 at Talcher Colliery.

3. The 1^st Party-Management in its written statement

has alleged that the 2^nd Party-workman Shri Ajit Kumar

Deb had joined at Talcher Colliery on 23.10.1990 as Piece

Rated Loader in Group-V-A in P.R. Category. He was a

habitual absentee and during his tenure of service he had

been issued with 14 warning/caution letters, but he never

improved his attendance. In the year 2000 he worked for

51 days, in the year 2001 he worked for 131 days, in the

year 2003 he worked for 85 days and in the year 2004 he

worked for 35 days only. He remained absent from 10.3.2003

to 26.6.2003 in an unauthorized manner, but taking a lenient

view he was allowed to join duty on 23.7.2003. On the

request of the disputant he was converted to General

Category Mazdoor-I with effect from 9.3.2004 from Piece

Rated Category in order to enable him to perform light job

in comparison to Piece Rated Loader’s job, even though

there was no improvement in his attendance and

performance. He was issued with charge-sheet on

17/18.3.2005 for unauthorized absence from duty with

effect from 6.1.2005 to 18.3.2005 and for habitual absence

from duty without sufficient cause etc. His reply to the

charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory and hence an

enquiry was initiated against him. Notices were issued to

him to attend the enquiry. Enquiry Officer conducted the

enquiry in seven sittings from 13.5.2005 to 18.8.2006.

During the enquiry, for the first six sittings the disputant

did not attend the enquiry nor informed the reasons for

his absence inspite of receipt of notices. However on

18.8.2006 he appeared before the enquiry officer and

admitted the charges levelled against him. He further

submitted written submissions to the enquiry officer

admitting the charges of habitual and unauthorized

absenteeism from duty. The enquiry officer on conclusion

of enquiry submitted his findings to the Disciplinary

Authority in which all the charges were found established

beyond any reasonable doubt. A copy of the enquiry

proceedings and findings were made available to the

disputant seeking his explanation. Explanation submitted

by the disputant was examined, but was not found to have

any substance or merit. Therefore the disciplinary

authority decided to remove him from service with effect

from 23.2.2007 and order to that effect was issued. The

disputant workman did not avail the opportunity of filing

appeal. The enquiry conducted against him was fair,

impartial and independent and due natural justice was

provided to him to defend the charges levelled against

him. Considering the gravity of the misconduct the

punishment of removal from service awarded by the

disciplinary authority is just, proper and appropriate. The

disputant had produced fake certificate from the residence

1554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the Government Medical practitioner which is an attempt

to cover up his absence period. Hence the disputant is

not entitled to any relief.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues

were framed.

ISSUES

1. Whether the action of the Management of

M/s. MCL in terminating the services of Shri

A.K. Deb with effect from 23.02.2007 is legal

and justified?

2. If not, to what relief the 2^nd Party-workman is

entitled?

5. The 2^nd Party-workman Shri A.K. Deb has

examined himself as W.W.-1 and Shri Tikan Bhutia as W.W.-

2 and has also relied upon eight documents marked as

Ext.-1 to 8.

6. The 1^st Party-Management has not adduced any

oral evidence. The photostat copies of documents filed

by it have also not been proved and exhibited.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. It is an undisputed fact that the 2^nd Party-workman

was removed from service after a departmental enquiry

conducted on the charges of unauthorized habitual

absence from duty. The 2^nd Party-workman has himself

admitted in his cross examination that he had worked for

131 days in the year 2001, 85 days in the year 2003, 35 days

in the year 2004 and nil day in the year 2005. He has not

whispered a single word about the fairness and propriety

of the enquiry. He was afforded proper and sufficient

opportunity to defend himself. As such it cannot be said

that the enquiry was not fair and impartial and the

principles of natural justice were violated during the course

of enquiry. The Enquiring Officer found the charges

levelled against the 2^nd Party-workman as fully proved

beyond any reasonable doubt. He was supplied a copy of

the enquiry proceedings and findings of the enquiry report

and his explanation was called which was found not

satisfactory. Consequently he was removed from service

by the disciplinary authority. The 2^nd Party-workman has

alleged that he has filed the appeal against the enquiry

report. But nothing has been brought on record to prove

that he had filed any appeal against the order of removal

and his appeal was allowed. Unauthorized absence from

duty frequently in a habitual manner is a grave misconduct.

The 2^nd Party-workman has not shown any satisfactory

explanation or reason for his unauthorized, frequent and

long absence from duty. So the punishment of removal

from service awarded to him cannot be said to be illegal

and unjustified. In such circumstances the action of the

Management of MCL in terminating the services of Shri

Ajit Kumar Deb with effect from 23.2.2007 is legal and

justified. This issue is decided against the 2^nd party-

workman and in favour of the 1^st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

8. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issue No. 1, the 2^nd Party-workman is not entitled to any

relief.

9. The reference is answered accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 556-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tokgj uoksn;

fo|ky; ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

273@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@221@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 556.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 273/

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 Jawahar

Navodaya Vidyalaya, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-42012/221/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present :

Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 273/2005

Registered on 12.8.2005

Sh. Madan Lal S/o Palkh Ram,

Village Malehjri, PO Danghar,

Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur (HP)

Bilaspur

...Petitioner

Versus

The Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Birthi,

Tehsil Ghumarwin, Distt. Bilaspur (HP)

...Respondent

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1555

Appearances :

For the workman

…

Sh. R. P. Rana, Adv.

For the Management

…

Sh. J. S. Sathi, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 4.12.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

221/2001-IR(CM-II) Dated 6.8.2002, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

“Whether the action of the management of Jawahar

Navodava Vidyalaya, Berthi Bilaspur (HP) in

terminating the services of Sh. Madan Lal, S/o Sh.

Palkh Ram, Ex-Mess Helper is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and filed statement of claim pleading that he was engaged

by the management in August 1995 on daily wage basis as

Mess Helper with respondent No. 2. That his services

were terminated on 12.1.1999. That he completed more than

240 days of service in each calendar year and also

completed more than 240 days of service in 12 calendar

months prior to the date of his termination. That his

services were terminated orally and in violation of Section

25F and 25N of the Act. That the. management employed

Sh. Chottu Ram after his termination and thus violated

Section 25H of the Act. That the persons junior to him

were also retained in service and thus there is violation of

Section 25G of the Act. Thus he is entitled to reinstatement

with all the consequential benefits.

Respondent filed written statement and pleaded that

the petitioner was never engaged against regular post and

was engaged only in the Mess to assist regular cook and

that too for the period the school remained open. He was

paid out of consolidated fund. That his services were

dispensed with on 20.7.1998 as the strength of the students

decreased as well as the regular Mess Helpers joined the

Mess. That the petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.135

of 1989 before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh

challenging his termination but the same was dismlssed.

He also approached the Central Administrative Tribunal

by filing OA No.597/HP of 1999 which was also dismissed

with the observation that the claimant being not a civil

servant is not entitled to any relief. That his services were

rightly dispensed with.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit stating his case as stated

in the claim petition.

On the other hand management examined Prem Lata

who filed the affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the

written statement.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman continuously worked with the respondents

from August 1995 to 11.1.1999 and in every calendar year

he completed more than 240 days of service and his services

have been arbitrarily terminated without complying with

the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. It is further

submitted that after the termination of the services of the

workman, the management engaged Sh. Chottu Ram and

thus violated the provisions of Section 25H of the Act. It

was also argued that the management retained persons

who were junior to the workman in violation of Section

25G of the Act and in the circumstances the termination of

the workman is illegal and was liable to be reinstated with

full back wages.

It may be added that it is the case of the workman

himself that he was engaged on daily wage basis and he

worked as such till his services were dispensed with on

20.7.1998. Thus the status of the workman was as “daily

wage worker” and the engagement of such a work comes

to an end when it is discontinued. It is nowhere the case

of the workman that he was engaged against a regular

post or he was selected by following any procedure. Thus

he cannot claim that the management has violated any

provision of the Act and is liable to be reinstated and in

this respect reliance may be placed on Secretary, State of

Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi and Ors. And it was

observed in para, 34 of the Judgment—

“Thus it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality

in public employment is a basic feature of our

Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of

our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled

from passing an order upholding a violation of Article

14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to

comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with

Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent

with the scheme for public employment this court

while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold

that relevant rules and after a proper competition

among qualified persons the same would not confer

any right on the appointee. If it is a contractual

appointment the appointment comes to an end at

the end of contract, if it were an engagement or

appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the

same would come to an end when it is discontinued.

Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to

be made permanent on the expiry of his term of

appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely

because a temporary employee or a casual wage

worker is continued for a time beyond the terms of

his appointment, he would not be entitled to be

absorbed in regular service or made permanent,

merely on the strength of such continuance, it the

original appointment was not made by following a

due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant

regular recruitment at the instance of temporary

employee whose period employment has come to

1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

an end or of ad hoc employees who by the very

nature of their appointment, do not acquire any right.

High Courts acting under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, should not ordinarily issue

directions for absorption, regularization, or

permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself

was made regularly and in terms of the constitutional

scheme. Merely because, an employee had

continued under cover of an order of court, which

we have described ‘as litigious employment in the

earlier part of the judgment, he would not be entitled

to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in

the service. In fact, in such cases, the High Court

may not be justified in issuing interim directions,

since, after all, if ultimately the employee

approaching. it is found entitled to relief, it may be

possible for it to mould the relief in such a manner

that ultimately no prejudice will be caused to him,

whereas an interim direction to continue his

employment would hold up the regular procedure

for selection or impose on the state the burden of

paying an employee who is really not required. The

courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not

interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of

its affairs by the state or its instrumentalities or lend

themselves the instruments to facilitate the

bypassing of the constitutional and statutory

mandates.”

Again in Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak Vs. Jagat

Singh and Another, it was observed in Para 4 of the

judgment as follows—

It may be noticed that the definition of retrenchment

in Section 2(oo) of the Act is applicable to the

provisions contained in Chapter VA containing

Sections 25F and 25H of the Act. The termination of

daily wager is not retrenchment failing within Section

2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Therefore, the workman who is

a daily wager cannot be reinstated as it does not

amount to retrenchment within the meaning of

Sections 25F and 25G of the Act.

It is the specific case of the management that the

services of the, workman were dispensed with when not

required by it and since he was a daily wage worker, his

services came to an end when discontinued.

In the result it is held that termination of the services

of the workman is legal and workman is not entitled to any

relief. The reference is accordingly answered against the

workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 557-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 557.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/11/

2010) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 17.01.2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

Sri G.V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer.

Monday, the 16th day of December, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 11 OF 2010

Between :

Mamidi Rajaiah, Ex.Badli Filler,

E.C.No.1234482, S/o.Sailoo, Age 32 years,

C/o.B.Amarender Rao, Advocate,

Raghupathi Nagar, (Ganga Nagar),

PO.Godavarikhani-505 209,

Dist.Karimnagar (A.P)

...Petitioner

And

(1) The Superintendent of Mines,

S.C.Co.Ltd., GDK.No.9 Incline,

PO.Godavarikhani-505 209, Dist.Karimnagar (A.P)

(2) The General Manager,

S.C.Co.Ltd., Ramagundam Area-II,

PO.Godavarikhani-505 209, Dist.Karimnagar (A.P)

(3) The Chairman & Managing Director,

S.C.Company Ltd., P.O. Kothagudem,

District: Khammam (A.P.)

...Respondents

This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before

me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Amarender

Rao Advocate, for the petitioner and Sri D. Krishnamurthy

Advocate, for the respondent, and the matter having stood

over before me for consideration till this date, the Court

passed the following :

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1557

AWARD

1. The petitioner who worked as Badli Filler in the

Singareni Colleries Company Limited seeks his

reinstatement by setting aside the dismissal order dated

22.02.2001.

The allegations in the petition are as follows:

2. According to him, he had put in (199) musters in

the year 1995, (169) musters in the year 1996, (104) musters

in the year 1997, (65) musters in the year 1998, (33) musters

in the year 1999, (33) musters in the year 1999 and (90)

musters in the year 2000. The reason for the poor

attendance during the year 1999 is his ill-health and he

improved his attendance in the year 2000. Though the

petitioner contended that the departmental enquiry was

not conducted fairly and properly, memo was filed under

Sec.11-A of I.D. Act stating that the validity of the

departmental enquiry is not in dispute.

4. R-1 filed counter which was adopted by R-2 and

R-3. The main points raised in the counter are regarding

the lack of jurisdiction of this Tribunal since the

respondents management is a Central Government and

that there was a poor attendance of the petitioner from

1997 to 2000 (104) musters in the year 1997, (65) musters in

the year 1998, (33) musters in the year 1999, (33) musters

in the year 1999 and (90) musters in the year 2000, and that

therefore charges were framed under Sec. 25(25) of

standing orders of the company.

“Habitual late attendance or habitual absent from

duty without sufficient cause & put in only (33)

musters during the year 1999”

5. The petitioner received charge sheet on 05.03.2000

and failed to submit explanation and therefore respondent

conducted enquiry on 07.07.2000 with due notice to the

petitioner that petitioner attended the enquiry on 07.07.2000

and admitted the charges, that the petitioner though given

an opportunity did not produce any evidence on his behalf,

that the petitioner was issued show cause notice on

23.11.2000 along with the copies of the enquiry

proceedings but the petitioner is not available in his

address, therefore the Singareni company notice was

published in Vaartha Telugu News daily dated 17.01.2001

but the petitioner failed to approach the respondent

company, therefore punishment of dismissal was imposed

with effect from 23.02.2001 as per order dated 22.02.2001,

that habitual absenteeism adversely impacts the

performance of the company which is engaged in all the

minor activities and therefore petition may be dismissed.

6. At the time of enquiry both parties filed written

arguments. Advocate for petitioner cited the following

three decisions in support of his case.

2009-IV-LLJ-672 (SC), IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA, between Chairman-cum-

Managing Director, Coal India Limited And

Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others.

II.

AIR 1988 (SC), IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA, between Scooter India Ltd. and Labour

Court, Lucknow and others.

III.

1997(III)LLJ (Supp) page 1141 between U.

Chinnappa And Cotton Corporation of India

and others.

7. For the consideration of respective contentions

of the parties the following points required to be determined :

“Whether this Tribunal has got jurisdiction?”

“Whether the punishment of dismissal of the

petitioner is justified and proportionate?”

8. POINT No. 1

As per the Judgment of High Court reported in 1997

(III) LLJ (Supp.) 11 between U. Chinnappa And Cotton

Corporation of India. This Court has got jurisdiction to

entertain the dispute raised by the petitioner.

This point is accordingly answered in favour of the

petitioner.

9. POINT No. 2

The petitioner did not give any reply to the charges

levelled against him but he has now came up with the plea

due to his illness he could not attend his duties regularly.

He is relying on his performance during the years 1995,

1996 and 1997 and also during the period of 4 months in

the year 1994. On the aspects of removal from service for

the misconduct of absenteeism without leave, a decision

of the Supreme Court reported in 2009-IV-LLJ-672 (SC), IN

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, between Chairman

cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited And Mukul

Kumar Choudhuri and others cited on behalf of the

petitioner is relevant. In this case the workman received

show cause notice together with copy of enquiry report

and said that he wanted to resign from the company due

to personal problems and the management was

unsympathetic in not accepting his resignation. The facts

are different in that case. But the observation of the

Supreme Court that the punishment of dismissal is unduly

harsh can be applied to the present case. Another decision

reported in AIR 1988 (SC),page 303 IN THE SUPREME

COURT OF INDIA, between Scooter India Ltd and Labour

Court, Lucknow and others. In this case also termination

of the employee was set aside even though enquiry was

held to be fair and lawful. Under the circumstances the

dismissal of the petitioner on the ground of absenteeism

has to be held as unjustified and disproportionate.

10. In the result, the order of dismissal dt. 22.02.2001

is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate

the petitioner into service as “Afresh Badli Filler” and he

shall be subjected to medical test for the post. The

petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, continuity of

service and any other attendant benefits.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Presiding Officer

1558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman

For Management

-Nil-

Exhibits

For workman :

Ex.W-1

Dt. 21-08-1994

Office order (Appointment

order as Badli Filler) x.copy.

Ex.W-2

Dt. 12-12-1996

Office order converting the

petitioner fro Tunnel Mazdoor

to Badli Filler, x.copy.

Ex.W-3

Dt. 22-02-2001

Office order (Dismissal order),

x.copy.

Ex.W-4

Dt. 07-12-2006

Demand letter with Ack.,

For Management :

Ex.M-1

Dt. 05-03-2000

Charge sheet, office copy.

Ex.M-2

Dt. 02-07-2000

Enquiry notice, office copy.

Ex.M-3

Dt. 07-07-2000

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-4

Dt. 31-08-2000

Enquiry report

Ex.M-5

Dt. 23-11-2000

Show cause notice, office copy

Ex.M-6

Dt. 26-12-2000

Undelivered postal returned

cover.

Ex.M-7

Dt. 17-01-2001

Vaartha daily news paper

Telugu.

Ex.M-8

Dt. 22-02-2001

Dismissal order, office copy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 558-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1@2007) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 558.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Indus.

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/1/2007)

as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 17.01.2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

Sri G.V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 1 OF 2007

Monday, the 2nd day of December, 2013

Between :

(1)

Routhu Bhagya Lakshmi, W/o. Latchanna @

Latchaiah, 30 years, Occ: Household.

(2)

Routhu Manasa, D/o. Latchanna, Age 14 years,

Occ: Student,

(3)

Routhu Padmasree, D/o. Latchanna, Age 12 years,

Occ: Student Petitioners 2 & 3 being minors, rep.

by their natural mother and guardian Petitioner

No.1.

All are R/o. T2-164, C/o. Goli Venkati,

Shanthighani, Bellampalli, Dist.Adilabad

...Petitioners

- And-

(1)

The General Manager,

S.C.Co.Ltd., Ramagundam-I, Godavarikhani.

(2)

The General Manager,

S.C.Co.Ltd., Ramagundam-II, Godavarikhani

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioners and of Sri D.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the

following :

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 praying this court to declare the

dismissal order dt.1-2-2000 passed by R-1 in dismissing

the deceased workman Routhu Latchanna @ Lakshmaiah

as illegal, null and void; and consequently declare that

the said Latchanna was deemed to be in service by the

time of his death i.e., 11-5-2005, directing the respondents

to appoint the petitioner No.1 on compassionate grounds,

to pay all attendant benefits, back wages and other benefits

of Routhu Latchanna to the petitioners may be granted.

2. The petitioner No.1 is the only widow and the

petitioners 2 & 3 are the minor daughters of Routhu

Latchanna @ Lakshmaiah, who worked as Coal Filler under

the respondents. The said Latchanna died of sun-stroke

on 11-5-2005. He was appointed as badli filler in the year 1993

and his services were regularized by order dt.29-12-1995

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1559

as coal filler. He worked as Coal Filler till the date of his

illegal removal by the respondents on 1-2-2000. Charge

sheet dt.16-2-1999 was issued alleging that he was present

only for 64 days during the year 1998, with the following

charge :

CHARGE :

“Habitual Late Attendance or habitual absence from

duty without sufficient cause” amounts to

misconduct as per S.O.No.25 (25) of SCCLtd.,

The said Latchanna submitted his explanation to

the said charge sheet but the same was not considered.

The enquiry was conducted in an eye wash manner and

the enquiry officer submitted his report. Basing on the

enquiry report, R-1 dismissed Latchanna from the services

of the company vide proc., dt.1-2-2000. The dismissal order

is not sustainable; it is too harsh and disproportionate.

He was misguided by the subordinate officers of the

respondents to receive certain amounts from the company.

The petitioners came to know about the letter dt.5-7-2005

reinstating the said Latchanna as fresh Coal Filler and by

that time, he expired. The petitioners do not have any

other source of income and they are living in dire poverty.

The petitioner No.1 has completed SSC and is eligible for

being appointed in any suitable post. If suitable

compassionate appointment is not given to the petitioner

No.1 to feed her children, they will be subjected to

starvation and other hardships. Therefore, they pray to

allow the petition as prayed for.

3. The respondent No.1 filed his counter denying

all the allegations in the petition putting the petitioners to

strict proof of all those allegations. The 2^nd respondent

filed memo adopting the counter filed by R-1.

4. The brief averments of counter of R-1 are that the

respondents’ company is a Government Company

incorporated under the provisions of Company’s Act, 1956

for carrying out the business of winning and selling the

coal and since the coal mining industry is a central subject,

the appropriate Government for this respondent/

management is Central Government. As per Sec.7(A)(1)

of I.D., Act, the appropriate Government may by

notification in the official gazette constitute one or more

Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of Industrial

Disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the

2^nd or 3^rd schedule and for performing such other functions

as may be assigned to them under this Act. The Central

Government established an Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000 for

adjudication of Industrial Disputes and the petitioners

ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the

redressal of grievances if any. But the petitioners

conveniently avoided to file the petition before the

Tribunal established by the Central Government for the

reasons best known to them and the petition is not

maintainable under law and the same may be dismissed on

this ground alone.

5. As per the service records of the husband of the

petitioner No.1 Sri Routhu Latchanna, the name of

Bhagyalaxmi was recorded as wife and the name of Padma

was recorded as daughter. He was appointed in the

respondents company on 4-3-1993 as Badli Filler and later

he was confirmed as coal filler on 1-9-1995. At the time of

dismissal, he worked at GDK.No.11-A Incline. He remained

absent on number of days without sufficient cause during

the year 1998 and put-in only 64 days actual attendance.

Hence, he was issued charge sheet dt.16-2-1999 and he

submitted explanation dt.19-2-1999, which was found not

satisfactory. He attended the enquiry on 17-8-1999. He

was given full and fair opportunities to defend himself in

the enquiry. He pleaded guilty of misconduct and did not

produce any witnesses or documents in support of his

illness. He admitted the charges leveled against him and

they are proved during the enquiry. He had put in only 64

musters during the year 1998 and put in only 55 musters

during the year 1999. Therefore, the respondents company

was constrained to dismiss him from service vide order dt.

1-2-2000 w.e.f., 2-2-2000.

6. In view of the persistent request of the recognized

union, it was offered to examine the cases of dismissed

workman during the period from 1-1-2000 to 30-6-2004 by

a High Power Committee, in terms of previous MOS dt.

21-2-2000. The husband of the petitioner No.1 was also

called for interview along with others. He attended the

interview and was selected for reappointment as Badli Filler

for a period of one year on trial basis, subject to medical

fitness. Accordingly, he was issued letter dated 5/6-7-

2005 informing his reappointment as badli filler on trial

basis for one year. He was advised to report to the General

Manager, Bellampalli on 30-9-2005, failing which he will

loose the opportunity for reappointment in the company.

He neither reported at the concerned authorities nor

informed the reasons for not reporting. The respondents

are not aware of the death of the husband of the petitioner

No.1. As admitted by the petitioners, he died on 11-5-2005

i.e., before receiving the above letter for reappointment.

7. As per the JBCCI guidelines and company rules,

dependent employment on compassionate grounds will

be provided to the dependents of the workman who died

while in service of the company. In this case, the husband

of the petitioner No.1 died on 11-5-2005 i.e., 5 years after

his dismissal from the company on 2-2-2000. The claim of

the petitioners for appointment on compassionate grounds

and for payment of back wages and attendant benefits is

contrary to law and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the

respondents pray to dismiss the petition, with costs.

8. Ex.W-1 is marked on behalf of the petitioners and

Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-12 are marked on behalf of the respondents.

9. Heard both sides. Perused the material papers on

record.

10. Now the points for consideration are:-

(1)

Whether the present petition is

maintainable before this Tribunal?

1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(2)

To what extent the alleged misconduct on

the part of the deceased workman Routhu

Latchanna was made out in the domestic

enquiry and whether the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed by the

respondents is justified?”

(3)

Whether the petitioners who are LRs., of

the deceased workman are entitled to any

relief?

11. The counsel for the petitioners filed Memo U/

Sec.11-A of ID Act before this court on 29-7-2013 stating

that the petitioners are not disputing the validity of

domestic enquiry and prayed this court to decide the matter

U/Sec.11-A of ID Act on the gravity of offence.

12. Point No.1 :

It is the case of the respondents that the respondents

company incorporated under the provisions of Company’s

act 1956 for carrying out the business of selling the coal.

Since the coal mining industry is a Central subject, the

appropriate Government for this respondents/ management

is Central Government. The Central Government

established an industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at

Hyderabad on 29-12-2000 for adjudication of Industrial

disputes and the petitioner ought to have approached the

said tribunal for redressal of grievances if any. As such,

the ID is liable to be dismissed in limini.

13. In a case reported in 1998(5) ALD-16 (D.B)

between U.Chinnappa Vrs., Cotton Corporation of India

and others, the Division Bench of Hon’ble A.P., High Court

held that the Presidential assent given under Article 254(2)

makes the State law prevail over the provisions of the

Central law to the extent of repugnancy. That Section 2-

A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not confined

to workmen employed in Industrial undertakings of the

State Government and it applies also to workmen engaged

in the Central Government undertakings.

14. In the light of the above cited case law, Section

2-A(2) of I.D Act, 1947 applies both to the workmen

employed in State Government undertakings and Central

Government undertakings. It is for the workman to

approach either to the Industrial Tribunals having Central

jurisdiction or State jurisdiction. Therefore, I hold that

this I.D., petition is maintainable before this Court.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the

petitioners.

15. Point Nos. 2 & 3 :

Now, it is to be seen to what extent the alleged

misconduct on the part of the deceased workman Routhu

Latchanna was made out in the domestic enquiry and

whether the punishment of dismissal from service is

justified.

The petitioner was dismissed by the 1^st respondent

by order dt.1-2-2000 marked as Ex.M-11. Admittedly, the

respondents’ company itself reviewed the above dismissal

order and sent order of reinstatement dt.5/6-7-2005 marked

as Ex.M-12. Therefore, the order of dismissal was no longer

in existence. The petitioner died on 11-5-2005. Their

Lordships of the Hon’ble High Court in its Judgment

reported in 1995 (2) ALT-683 held that after the death of

workman, his legal heirs/legal representatives can validly

institute Industrial Dispute questioning the validity of

termination of such workman and claim the reliefs for the

benefit of the estate of the deceased, even-though they

are not workman. What the deceased workman himself

would have been awarded by the Labour Court except the

relief of reinstatement had he survived, should be

considered to be a part of his estate. Therefore, the

Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioners is competent

and maintainable. In this case, admittedly the dismissal

order was reviewed by the respondents/ management itself

and they sent order of reinstatement to the workman. As

per the above judgment of the Hon’ble High Court, the

petitioners are entitled to the benefits, as if the workman

died while in service including the compassionate

appointment to the petitioner No.1. However, the

petitioners are not entitled to any back wages.

16. In the result, the respondents’ company is

hereby directed to grant all the benefits to the petitioners

as if the workman died while in service including

compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.1.

However, the petitioners are not entitled to any back wages.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman

For Management

-Nil-

Exihibits

For workman :

Ex.W-1

Dt. 30-05-2005

Death Certificate

For Management :

Ex.M-1

Dt. 16-02-1999

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt. 18-02-1999

Enquiry call letter

Ex.M-3

Dt. 19-02-1999

Explanation to the charge

sheet

Ex.M-4

Dt. 28-06-1999

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-5

Dt. 18-02-1999

Undelivered

postal

returned cover with ack.

Ex.M-6

Dt. 04-08-1999

Paper publication in Telugu

Vaartha Newspaper

Ex.M-7

Dt. 17-08-1999

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-8

Dt. —

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-9

Dt. 06-10-1999

Show cause notice

Ex.M-10 Dt. 11-11-1999

Reply to show cause notice

Ex.M-11 Dt. 01-02-2000

Dismissal order copy

Ex.M-12 Dt. 5/6-7-2005

Re-appointment letter

issued to the petitioner,

x-copy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1561

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 559-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] xksnkojh[kkuh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&01&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 559.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani (IT/ID/

19/2010) as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 17.01.2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-CUM-VI ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

Present :

Sri G.V. Krishnaiah, Chairman-cum-

Presiding Officer.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 19 OF 2010

Tuesday, the 10th Day of December, 2013

Between :

Somishetti Shankar, S/o.Erraiah,

Aged about 45 years,

Occ: Ex-Coal Filler, R/o. Singapoor,

Mancherial Mandal, Dist.Adilabad

...Petitioner

- And-

(1)

The Superintendent of Mines, RK VI Incline,

Ramakrishnapur, Dist.Adilabad.

(2)

The General Manager,

S.C.Co.Ltd., Sreerampur, Post: Srirampur

(Then RKP closed), Dist.Adilabad.

(3)

The Managing Director, S.C.Company Ltd.,

Kothagudem, District: Khammam.

...Respondents

This case coming before me for final hearing in the

presence of Sri S.Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the

petitioner and of Sri D. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the

Respondents; and having been heard and having stood

over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the

following :

AWARD

This petition is filed U/Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 praying this court to direct the

respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with

continuity of service and other attendant benefits with

full back wages by setting aside dismissal order vide Proc.,

No. P/RKP/16/ 99/407, dt.16-02-1999.

2. The averments of the petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as an employee on 10-01-1977

and the petitioner discharged his duties to the fullest

satisfaction of superiors till removal from service and his

services are governed by various standing orders of the

company.

3. The petitioner was dismissed from service foisting

a charge of absenteeism for the year 1998. He submitted

application to the respondent to reconsider for his

appointment and the respondent issued a letter to attend

interview. The petitioner attended the interview but there

was no response. The petitioner was not served with

charge memo and charge sheet. He was not supplied

dismissal order, but it was affixed on the notice board. He

preferred an appeal and review, but there was no response.

After working for more than 21 years, the respondent

dismissed the petitioner from service which is arbitrary

and illegal. The petitioner finally issued demand letter

dt.2-2-2010 to the respondents 1 & 2, but there is no

response. The petitioner and his children became paupers

in the society for lack of food, cloths and shelter.

Therefore, he prays to allow the petition as prayed for.

4. The respondent No.1 filed his counter denying

all the allegations in the petition putting the petitioner to

strict proof of all those allegations. The respondents 2 &

3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by R-1.

5. The brief averments of counter of R-1 are that the

respondents’ company is a Government Company

incorporated under the provisions of Company’s Act, 1956

for carrying out the business of mining and selling the

coal and since the coal mining industry is a central subject,

the appropriate Government for this respondent/

management is Central Government. As per Sec.7(A)(1)

of I.D., Act, the appropriate Government may by

notification in the official gazette constitutes one or more

Industrial Tribunals for the adjudication of Industrial

Disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the

2^nd or 3^rd schedule and for performing such other functions

as may be assigned to them under this Act. And that the

Central Government established an Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court at Hyderabad from 29-12-2000 for

adjudication of Industrial Disputes and the petitioner

1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ought to have approached the said Tribunal for the

redressal of grievances if any. But he conveniently

avoided to file his petition before the Tribunal established

by the Central Government for the reasons best known to

him and the petition is not maintainable under law and the

same may be dismissed on this ground alone. The present

dispute is barred by limitation as per Sec.2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Amendment Act, 2010 which came into

force w.e.f., 15-9-2010. The petitioner was dismissed from

service in the year 1999, after expiry of about 11 years, he

raised this dispute, which is not maintainable under law

and may be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

6. The petitioner was appointed as Badli Filler on

31-08-1978. Being an underground employee, the

petitioner is expected to put in minimum 190 musters in a

calendar year. But, the following attendance particulars

indicate that he was not regular to his duties and in no

year he had put in 190 musters during the period from

1994-1998.

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters

1994

126

1995

1996

1997

122

1998 upto September

During the period from January, 1996 to December,

1996 the petitioner has put in only 68 musters. As the

above act amounted to misconduct under Companies

Standing Orders Clause No.25.25 he was charge sheeted

vide charge sheet dt. 23-10-1998. The relevant clause of

standing orders reads as under:-

“Clause 25.25 – Habitual late attendance or habitual

absence from duty without sufficient cause”.

7. The petitioner received the charge sheet and

submitted his explanation vide letter dt.29-10-1998. The

respondents’ company issued enquiry notice dt.

11-11-1998 advising the petitioner to attend the enquiry

on 23-11-1998. The petitioner attended the enquiry

proceedings on 23-11-1998 and pleaded guilty to the

charges. He fully participated in the enquiry proceedings.

The enquiry was conducted duly following the principles

of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted his

findings holding the petitioner guilty of the misconduct

under the company’s standing orders. He was issued

show cause notice dt.12-12-1998 to make his representation

if any against the findings of the enquiry. Having received

the said notice, he submitted reply. Finding the reply

unsatisfactory, the respondents’ company dismissed the

petitioner from service vide office order dt. 16-2-1999.

The contention of the petitioner that he applied for

reappointment and the same was not considered by the

respondents’ company is false, hence denied. The

petitioner received charge sheet dt.23-10-1998 and

submitted his explanation dt. 29-10-1998. He attended the

enquiry proceedings on 23-11-1998 and admitted the

charges. The enquiry officer submitted his findings report

dt.3-12-1998 holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct

under company’s standing orders. The petitioner

submitted reply on the enquiry findings. All the

contentions raised by the petitioner are false, hence

denied. Therefore, the respondents pray to dismiss the

petition with costs.

8. Ex.W-1 & Ex.W-2 are marked on behalf of the

petitioner and Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-10 are marked behalf of the

respondents.

Heard both sides. Perused the material papers

on record.

10. Both sides have also filed written arguments.

11. Now the points for consideration are :

(1)

Whether the present petition is

maintainable before this Tribunal?

(2)

To what extent the alleged misconduct on

the part of the petitioner was made out in

the domestic enquiry and whether the

punishment of dismissal of the petitioner

is justified?”

12. In this case, the counsel for the petitioner filed

Memo stating that the petitioner is not disputing the

validity of domestic enquiry and prayed this court to decide

the matter on the material available on record, U/Sec.11-A

of ID Act, on 21-11-2011, which was recorded. Therefore

there is no necessity to decide the validity of domestic

enquiry conducted by the respondents.

13. POINT No.1 :

It is the case of the respondents that the respondents

company was incorporated under the provisions of

Companies Act 1956 for carrying out the business of selling

the coal. Since the coal mining industry is a Central subject,

the appropriate Government for this respondents/

management is Central Government. The Central

Government established an industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court at Hyderabad on 29-12-2000 for adjudication

of Industrial disputes and the petitioner ought to have

approached the said tribunal for redressal of grievances if

any. As such, the ID is liable to be dismissed in limini.

14. In a case reported in 1998(5) ALD-16 (D.B)

between U.Chinnappa Vrs., Cotton Corporation of India

and others, the Division Bench of Hon’ble A.P., High Court

held that the Presidential assent given under Article 254(2)

makes the State law prevail over the provisions of the

Central law to the extent of repugnancy. That Section 2-

A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not confined

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1563

to workmen employed in Industrial undertakings of the

State Government and it applies also to workmen engaged

in the Central Government undertakings.

15. In the light of the above cited case law, Section

2-A(2) of I.D Act, 1947 applies both to the workmen

employed in State Government undertakings and Central

Government undertakings. It is for the workman to

approach either the Industrial Tribunals having Central

jurisdiction or State jurisdiction. Therefore, I hold that

this I.D., petition is maintainable before this Court.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the

petitioner.

16. The petitioner has conceded the validity of

domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents. During

the period from January 1996 to December 1996, the

petitioner had put in only 38 musters. The charge sheet is

marked as Ex.M-1. Explanation submitted by the petitioner

is marked as Ex.M-3, wherein it is stated that due to ill-

health he is absenting to duties since 4 years. The enquiry

proceedings are marked as Ex.M-6. During the enquiry,

the petitioner put-forth the same defence and deposed

that due to his ill-health and family problems, he absented

to his duties. The petitioner has not produced any

documentary evidence to substantiate his ill-health, but

the said defence of the petitioner was not contradicted by

the respondents.

17. The attendance particulars of the petitioner

during the previous 5 years period as mentioned in the

counter are as under :

Sl.No.

Year

No. of musters

1994

126

1995

1996

1997

122

1998 upto September

The above attendance particulars of the petitioner

show that during the years 1994 and 1997, he had put in

more than 120 musters per year. Thus, after the charge

sheeted year of 1996, he improved his attendance during

the year 1997 and 1998 also.

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that the major punishment of dismissal from service

imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate.

The absence of the petitioner was due to the ill-health of

the petitioner but not otherwise. As such, the respondents

ought not have dismissed the petitioner from service.

Hence, the major punishment of dismissal is liable to be

modified to a lesser punishment.

19.

In this case, the petitioner had put in less

musters during the years 1995 to 1998. Charge sheet was

issued with reference to the absenteeism for the year 1996.

Admittedly during the years 1997 and 1998, the petitioner

improved his attendance and put in 122 muster and 79

musters respectively. Further, having been appointed

during the year 1978, he put in good attendance till the

year 1993. He worked in the respondents company for

nearly (20) years. Hence, the petitioner can be given one

more chance to mend himself. In these circumstances, I

am of the considered opinion, that dismissal of the

petitioner from service is not proportionate to the charge

proved against him. Therefore, I hold that dismissal of the

petitioner from service is not justified.

20. In the light of above foregoing discussion, I

hold that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved

and the punishment of dismissing the petitioner from

service is not justified and not proportionate to the charge

proved against him. Therefore, I hold that the punishment

of dismissal needs modification to that of reinstatement

as “Afresh Badli Filler” and the petitioner shall be

subjected to medical fitness test for the post. The point is

answered accordingly.

21. In the result, the order of dismissal dt.16-02-

1999 is set aside and the respondents are directed to

reinstate the petitioner into service as “Afresh Badli Filler”

and he shall be subjected to medical test for the post. The

petitioner is not entitled to any back wages, continuity of

service and any other attendant benefits.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For workman

For Management

-Nil-

Exhibits

For workman :

Ex.W-1

Dt. 16-02-1999

Dismissal order

Ex.W-2

Dt. 10-11-1998

Petitioner’s

daughter’s

marriage advance claim

returned letter.

For Management :

Ex.M-1

Dt. 23-10-1998

Charge sheet

Ex.M-2

Dt. 29-10-1998

Ack., to the charge sheet

Ex.M-3

Dt. 29-10-1998

Reply to charge sheet.

Ex.M-4

Dt. 11-11-1998

Enquiry notice

Ex.M-5

Dt. 23-11-1998

Enquiry proceedings

Ex.M-6

Dt. 03-12-1998

Enquiry report.

Ex.M-7

Dt. 21-12-1998

Show cause notice

Ex.M-8

Dt. 05-01-1999

Ack., to show cause notice

Ex.M-9

Dt. 16-01-1999

Representation of petitioner

Ex.M-10 Dt. 16-02-1999

Dismissal order.

1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 560-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 75@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@140@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 560.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. 75/2011)

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.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/140/2011-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 31st day of October, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 75/2011

Between :

Sri Satyanarayana,

Vice Chairman,

SC Employees Union (CITD),

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504231.

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri – 504 231

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

NIL

For the Respondent :

Legal Representative

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-22012/140/2011-IR(CM-II) dated 12.10.2011

referred the following dispute between the management

of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company 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.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Division, in not paying salary/wages to illegal

suspension period from 31.8.2000 to 20.9.2000 in

respect of Shri Ch. Venkaiah, SFC, KK-1, Mandamarri

Area is legal and justified? To what relief the

workman concerned is entitled to?”

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 since long time. Inspite of fair opportunity

claim statement was not filed by the Petitioner union. In

the circumstances, taking that Petitioner is not interested

in the proceedings, petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 561-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj chch,ech ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 2] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 218@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&23012@2@2011&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 561.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 218/2011 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 BBMB, Sector-19,

Madhya Marg, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-23012/2/2011-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1565

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 218/2011

Registered on 22.9.2011

The General Secretary,

BBMB Karamchari Sangh,

H.O. – 4DD, Nangal Township, Ropar

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman, BBMB,

Sector 19, Madhya Marg,

Chandigarh

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Ex parte

For the Management

Sh. S.K. Goyal Law Officer

AWARD

Passed on- 6.12.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/

2/2011-IR(CM-II) Dated 01.09.2011, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

“Whether the action of the management of BBMB

(I) in not restoration of policy of service on compassionate

grounds to BBMB employees, (II) in not granting of BCA

on Basic Pay+DP and without ceiling (III) in not filling up

of the vacant posts and regularization the services of daily

rated workers (IV) in not restoring the benefit of granting

leave encashment instated of LTC to BBMB employees

(V) in not granting of advance promotional increment(s)

on completion of 23 years service is just fair and legal? To

what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to?”

On receipt of the reference, notice was issued to the

worker-Union. Sh. R.K. Singh Parmar appeared on its

behalf but on 25.9.2013 he made a statement that he was

not representing the workmen. Consequently, notice was

again issued to the worker-Union through registered cover

for 29.11.2013 but none appeared on behalf of worker

Union and was proceeded ex parte vide separate order

dated 29.11.2013.

Since the workmen-Union neither filed any statement

of claim nor led any evidence to claim the reliefs as find

mentioned in the reference, and therefore it cannot be said

that the worker-union is entitled to the reliefs claimed for.

Hence, the reference is answered against the worker-Union.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 562-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 562.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad (CGIT/

LCID/19/2008) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SCCL and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 17.01.2014.

[No. L-22013/1/2014-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 22nd day of July, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C. No. 19/2008

Between :

Sri Jupaka Rajesh,

S/o Gattaiah,

C/o Smt. A. Sarojana,

Advocate, Flat No. G7,

Opp. Badruka Jr. College for Girls,

Kachiguda, Hyderabad

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Area, Mandmarri,

Adilabad district.

The Colliery Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

KK-1 Incline, Mandamarri area,

Mandamarri,

Adilabad District

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. A. Sarojana &

K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. M.V. Hanumantha Rao,

Advocate

1566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is a petition filed by the Petitioner Sri Jupaka

Rajesh, under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the

management of M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 19/2008 and

notices were issued to the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition against his

dismissal from service vide order No. MMR/PER/D/072/

4865 dated 3.10.2004 by the Respondent without following

the procedure, seeking for reinstatement with all

consequential benefits. Respondents have filed counter

statement as well as documents in support of their

contentions.

3. When the matter came up for consideration on

the point of validity of domestic enquiry Learned Counsel

for the Petitioner filed memo to refer the matter to Lok

Adalat and the matter has been referred to Lok Adalath for

amicable settlement.

4. While things stood so, Petitioner has filed memo

seeking for permission to withdraw his case pleading that

the management was kind enough to offer employment to

him subject to withdrawal of the present dispute and that

he be permitted to withdraw his case. In the given

circumstances, the matter has been called to the regular

file from Lok Adalath.

5. Notice given to Respondents. Heard both

parties. Petitioner is permitted to withdraw his case.

6. In the result, the case is dismissed as withdrawn.

Award is passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 563-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@1996) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@270@1995&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 563.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/1996)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of NCL and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/270/1995-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/46/96

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Secretary,

Coalfields Labour Union (CITU),

Northern Coalfield Ltd.,

Amlohari Pariyojana,

Distt. Sidhi (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Northern Coalfields,

Amlohari Pariyojana,

Distt. Sidhi (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-2-96 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-22012(270)/95-IR(C-II) . The dispute under reference

relates to :

“ Whether the action of the General Manager,

Amlohri Project, NCL Sidhi (MP) in imposing

punishment of demotion on Shri Ram Lallu Gupta

from UDC to LDC is proper and legal? If not, to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled for?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issiued

to the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim

at Page 8/1 to 8/5. Case of Ist party workman is that he is

MA in sociology. He was appointed as Lower Division

Clerk (Typist) at Jayant Project, Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli on 10-3-83 and was transferred to Amlohari

Project in September 1985. He was promoted as UDC on

7-5-86. That he was active Trade Union Activists. He was

taking up cases of the labours. He was involved in number

of movements for betterment/upliftment and social/

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1567

financial gains of workers/employees working in the

project. To expose management personnel, he had

organized Dharna, protest rallies and mass movements

and also sat on Dharna on 28-2-93. It caused shivering

among the management personnel who feared exposure

of their misdeeds. Workman submits that the management

had taken pre-calculated steps and he is trapped. He was

deliberately transferred to Mining Wing on 1-3-93.

However he joined said assignment on 5-3-93. He was

allotted work. On 6-3-93 one chargesheet was served on

him. He submitted reply to the chargesheet. Fringy enquiry

was formally conducted to harm him. He was not shown

Enquiry Report. On enquiry, he was reverted as LDC on

31-3-93. The dispute was raised before ALC.

3. The workman has contented that he was not

allowed to be represented by Defence Assistant. The

principles of natural justice were not followed. The charges

framed against him were fabricated. The charges were of

fringy nature. His transfer to mining wing was calculated.

One more chargesheet was issued to him. Both the

enquiries were conducted against him. The enquiries are

vitiated as he was not given proper opportunity for his

defence. on such grounds, workman submits that order

of dismissal of service be set-aside. He may be reinstated

with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 9/1 to

9/6. Case of IInd party is that on 20-2-93 around 10.30

AM, workman misbehaved and abused on security

department as security inspector particularly. He was

drunken. He also shouted slogans abusing Mr. Chandra

and S.Kumar by their names. The reply submitted by

workman to the chargesheet was not satisfactory, enquiry

was conducted against him. Shri N. K. Agrawal was Enquiry

Officer, B. Kumar was Management Representative. The

enquiry was fixed on 10-3-93, 17-3-93, 22-3-93, 24-3-93.

The workman insisted that Jani Mahendra Singh as a

Defence Assistant. He was not employee from different

unit. His request was not accepted. Enquiry was conducted

following principles of natural justice. Enquiry Officer

submitted his report that charges against delinquent

employee are proved. Considering the report submitted

by Enquiry Officer and documents of Enquiry

Proceedings, punishment was imposed.

5. IInd party further submits that Ist party workman

had committed another misconduct of serious nature on

21-3-97 bringing outsiders to the project area blocking

main road to the mine. The employees and negligence

could not go to the project for their duties. Chargesheet

was issued to workman on 20-3-95 for said misconduct.

Said enquiry was also conducted and punishment of

dismissal was imposed. As the workman is dismissed from

service, the punishment of reduction in rank has become

infructuous. IInd party further submits that if enquiry is

found vitiated, management be permitted to prove

misconduct.

6. Ist party workman filed rejoinder at Page 11/1 to

11/6 reiterating its contentions in Statement of Claim. That

he was not given proper opportunity for his defence,

enquiry is vitiated. Charges against him are fabricated.

The punishment of reversion be set aside.

7. Management also filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to

10/6 reiterating its contention in Written statement denying

all material contentions of workman about victimization of

his Union activities.

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

In Negative

General Manager, Amlohri

Project, NCL Sidhi (MP) in

imposing punishment of

demotion on Shri Ram Lallu

Gupta from UDC to LDC is

proper and legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order

REASONS

9. Before dealing with Point No.1, it must take note

that enquiry conducted against workman is found illegal

as per order dated 22-6-2010 by my predecessor.

Management was allowed to prove misconduct in Court.

The documents of enquiry Proceedings are produced by

both sides. The workman produced Exhibit W-1, W-1(a),

(b), W-2. Documents produced by management are Exhibit

M-1 to M-10. Copy of chargesheet Exhibit M-1 shows

charges against Ist party workman are as per clause 26.4,

26.16, 26.18, 26.22 of standing orders. The copy of standing

order is also produced for my perusal. Clause 26.4 deals

with Gambling, drunkenness, fighting or riotous disorderly

behaviour either at his place of work or at the colliery.

Clause 26.16 deals with making false allegations against

superior or an officer of the company without justification.

Clause 26.18 deals with assault, attempt to assault,

threatening to assault or abuse a co-worker. Clause 26.22

deals with deliberate act which is subversive of discipline

or which may be detrimental to the interest of the company.

10. The management in order to prove above

charges filed affidavit of evidence of Subhash Chandra

Rai. Said witness in his affidavit of evidence has stated on

20-2-93, around 10.30 AM, delinquent workman had

entered in office and abused using indecent language to

the security officer, security staff, General Manager. He

had come in front of security office while abusing. That

hunger strike was organized at Main gate of office of

General Manager. The workman was alleging on

loudspeaker. However the witness has not stated

particulars of abuses. In his cross-examination, witness

1568

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

states that Ist party workman was not intoxicated. When

workman entered in office, he was at the gate. When he

entered the office, Suresh Kumar was in the office. In next

question, he says that his vision is not clear due to

glaucoma. He denied that he was deposing against

workman as he was promoted out of turn. Form evidence

in cross-examination of witness Subhash Chandra Rai, it

is clear that workman was not intoxicated.

11. However management’s witness Suresh Kumar

in his affidavit of evidence has stated that on 20-2-93 at

10.30 AM, Ramlallu Gupta entered the security office. He

was abusing that all security staff were thief. He was not

able to properly walk, workman was intoxicated. At the

time of said incident, scating was organized in front of the

office of General Manager. That workman was loudly

abusing that Security Officer and General Manager were

thief and Security Officer was scoundrel of General

Manager Ishwar Chandra. In his cross-examination, the

witness says that he was along security officer. He was

on duty for 24 hours. His attendance was maintained. He

did not report incident to police neither the workman was

referred for medical examination to Colliery Medical Officer.

That he did not report incident to the police. That he had

submitted application Exhibit M-1(a) . the cross-

examination of witness is silent about incident narrated

by witness that the workman had abused. However the

evidence of this witness that workman was intoxicated

cannot be believed as the workman was not referred to

Medical Examination to any Doctor, incident was not

reported to police. However in his evidence about incident

of abuses was not challenged in cross-examination. such

part of evidence finds further corroboration with Document

Exhibit M-1(a) produced on record.

12. The evidence of 3rd witness Shri S.N. Pandey

also on the point that the Ist party workman was abusing

Security Staff saying that the power did not belong to

anybody. Suresh Kumar, General Manager Ishwar Chandra

and Security Officer were thief. Said abuses were also

repeated on mike by the delinquent. In his cross-

examination, above witness says he was Security

Inspector. His duty was to protect property and employee

of the company. The incident would have occurred. The

FIR used to be submitted by the Security Officer. He denies

that on 20-2-93, he was not on duty. That the Ist party

workman was Secretary of the Union. Said Union is

recognized by Central Govt. but it was not recognized by

NCL. FIR was not submitted him about the incident. He

denies suggestion of giving false evidence. Witness MW-

4 Bachan Singh corroborated evidence that workman was

abusing General Manager Security Officer that they were

thief. However Bachan Singh has not been cross-examined.

13. The evidence of workman on affidavit is by way

of denial and false implication of Union activities. The Ist

party workman says that he has no enmity with Shri S.N.

Pandey, Subhash, Suresh Kumar. That he was dismissed

from service from 14-4-95. He was residing in quarter but

not paying rent. That witnesses Suresh Kumar and S.N.

Pandey are not his friends. It is denied that FIR was

submitted by the General Manager about threat given on

telephone to his family members.

14. The evidence discussed above is not sufficient

to prove that the Ist party workman was intoxicated. Thus

charge under Clause 26.4 cannot be proved. Abusing

superior officer and security staff that they were thief is

corroborated by all witnesses. The evidence is sufficient

to prove charge under clause 26.16. the evidence of all

witnesses of management is not disclosing that the loss

was caused to the colliery. However the evidence shows

that the workman has abused security staff and General

Manager. Thus the evidence make out charge under clause

26.18, charge under clause 26.4, 26.12 cannot be made out

from the evidence discussed above. The Enquiry Officer

did not considered the evidence. Therefore the finding of

Enquiry Officer that charge under clause 26.4, 26.12 proved

against workman cannot be upheld. Workman has been

reverted in view of the findings submitted by the Enquiry

Officer. The charges against workman are proved.

Therefore action of the management of IInd party cannot

be said legal. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No.1 in partly Negative.

15. Point No. 2 : In view of my finding on Point

No.1, charge under Clause 26.4, 26.12 against workman

are not proved from evidence on record. However charge

under clause 26.18 abusing and saying security officers

and Manager as thief is covered under clause 26.16, 26.18

of standing orders. Question arises whether the order of

punishment of reversion from UDC to LDC is proper and

justified? The charges proved are only of abusing Security

Staff and General Manager. No loss is caused to the

property of the colliery, incident was not reported to police.

Considering the evidence on record, the punishment of

reversion appears disproportionate. Standing orders

provides punishment under Clause 27.1(a) –warning,

reprimand, censure, (b) fine, (c) suspension without wages

for a period not exceeding 10 days, (d) stoppage of

increment without cumulative effect, (e) stoppage

increment with cumulative effect, (f) demotion to a lower

stage or a lower grade, (g) removal/discharge from service

and (h) dismissal from service. Considering the proved

misconduct under clause 26.16, 26.18 of the standing

orders, punishment of censure under Clause 27.1(a) would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No. 2.

16. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

Action of the IInd party management imposing

punishment of reversion is not proper.

(2)

For proved charges under Clause 26.16, 26.18

of standing orders, said act of Ist party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1569

workman is censured. The order of reversion

of Ist party workman is set aside.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 564-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkmFk bZLVuZ

dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 80@1997) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@52@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 564.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 80/1997)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/52/1996-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/80/97

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Maksood Alam,

Ex.SDL Operator, Lusai Camp,

Qr. No. 2, Post Kotma,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Workman

Versus

General Manager,

South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.,

Sohagpur Area,

Post Dhanpuri,

Distt. Shahdol (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated 10-3-97 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-22012/

52/96- IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Bangwar Project of SECL Sohagpur Area in

dismissing Shri Maksood Alam, SDL Operator, T.No.

239, Bangwar Project w.e.f. 13-4-95 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 2/1 to 2/6. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was working as SDL Operator Bungwar Project, Sohagpur

Area. Earlier he was working at Hirad Mines, Jamuna Kotma

Area. He was transferred to Bangwar Project alleging

certain misconduct. He was working at Bungwar Project

just a day before alleged incident i.e. from 26-5-94. He was

allotted work of operating SDL Machine on 25-5-94. The

workman submits that the maintenance of machines was

not done regularly. The SDL machines was not in running

condition. SDL machine given to him was heavy machine

used for excavating purpose. The cable of said machine

was connected to electrical fuse circuit. The said machine

is required to be operated with 3^rd degree of care. The

headlight, backlight, dump switch, driver switch were not

functioning. Cable of machine instead of being connected

through circuit breaker was attached directly to main

switch. It was dangerous to life to operate the machine.

That there was no head cable covering the seat of driver.

The head cover was missing. The workman further submits

that when workman said dangerous machine was handed

over to him on 26-5-94 (night shift), workman pointed out

the security aspect to the concerned Manager that it was

dangerous for his safety. He has also approached Manager

to replace said machine. Workman asked his safety while

on duty. He was forced to leave duty. He was paid ½ day

salary of the day. He had represented safety aspects to

Director of Mine(Safety). He received reply on 29-6-94

assuring enquiry in the matter.

3. Ist party workman further submits that he was

not allowed duty on the day he complained about

inadequate safety measures in night shift of 24-5-94.

Chargesheet was issued to him on next day alleging willful

insubordination of reasonable orders of superiors, willful

neglect of work, willful and subversive Act, abatement of

any Act of misconduct. Workman contents that he had

submitted reply denying the charges. He was falsely

implicated in chargesheet. There was no reason for it to

instigate other workman, no loss of production was passed.

Enquiry was not properly conducted. Services were

terminated on biased report of Enquiry Officer. On such

ground, workman prays for his reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 4/1 to

4/8. Claim of Ist party workman is totally denied. IInd party

did not dispute that the workman was working in Bungwar

Project as SDL Operator. He was transferred from J & K

Area on 24-5-94. That operation of SDL machine is

1570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

important for production of coal. The SDL machines are

working round the clock in 3 shifts. Unless all parts of

SDL machines are kept in good condition, there cannot be

loading of coal. That IInd party claims to be fully

conscious of safety measures to keep machines in good

condition. Enquiry was properly conducted. The

management’s witness were cross-examined by co-worker

of Ist party. Principles of natural justice were followed. It

is alleged that after joining duty, workman instigated other

SDL operators not to go out the mine on pretext of SDL

machines were not in operative conditions. That after

receiving findings of Enquiry Officer, the charges were

proved. Workman was dismissed from service considering

gravity of misconduct. The chargesheet was issued on

27-5-94. It is alleged that workman was in habit of

disrupting work and create problems. The contentions of

workman that SDL machines were not in working condition

is afterthought. That workman had provocated co-workers

to stop working on the SDL machine used in the mine.

Loss of production was caused. IInd party has reiterated

that the SDL machines were in good condition and

workman had provocated other SDL operators not to go

down. Loss of production was about 60-70 times. On such

grounds, IInd party submits that workman is not entitled

to reliefs claimed.

5. Workman file rejoinder at Page 5/1 to 5/5 reiterating

his contentions in Statement of Claim. That when he

pointed out SDL machines were not in working condition

and is concerned for safety, he was falsely implicated, the

enquiry was not properly conducted. He was not given

full opportunity for his defence.

6. IInd party filed reply to rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/

3 contending that the enquiry was properly conducted.

Workman had instigated other SDL operators not to go

down in mine for work.

7. Parties adduced evidence. Preliminary issue is

decided by my predecessor as per order dated 31-5-2010,

the enquiry is found proper and legal.

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 misconduct alleged

Affirmative

against workman are proved from

evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii)

Whether punishment of dismissal

Affirmative

imposed on workman Maksood

Alam is proper and legal?

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman is

Workman is

entitled to?”

not entitled

to any relief.

REASONS

9. As stated above, the enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal and proper. The question remains

for decision whether the charges against workman are

proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. Whether

punishment of dismissal imposed against him is legal and

proper. As per document Exhibit W-1, charges against Ist

party workman are of disobeying reasonable order of the

superiors without justified reasons, deliberately avoiding

the work, committing any act of indiscipline. The record of

enquiry shows that management’s witnesses were cross-

examined by the co-worker. The record of Enquiry

proceedings at Page 9/4 is copy of the chargesheet. Exhibit

M-6 is copy of standing orders covering the misconduct.

Statement of management’s witness Sharad Dixit is

recorded in enquiry at Page-8 of the Enquiry proceedings.

Management’s Witness Sharad Dixit stated that on

26-5-94, 3rd shift, Maksood Alam instigated all SDL

Operator not to go for work. All the SDL Operators were

called together. After his heavy persuasion, SDL operators

had come for work, the work was started after 2 hours. The

cross-examination of said management’s witness by co-

worker shows that the management’s witness was asked

date, time of the alleged incident and other details for how

much time the work was not stated. Sharad Dixit

Management’s witness stated that he had submitted

complaint. The entire cross-examination of Management

Witness Sharad Dixit doesnot show that the SDL machine

was not in operative condition. The workman has pressed

for safety concern. The cross-examination of

management’s witness Rajendra Shukla also doesnot show

any question asked to him, SDL machines were not in

working condition. The contentions of Ist party workman

in that regard appears afterthought. The statement of

workman was recorded at Page 15. Workman had claimed

that he was absent in night shift of 24-5-94. The evidence

of management’s witnesses is consistent that Ist party

workman had instigated other SDL machine operator not

to resume work. The evidence is consistent that the SDL

machines work could not be started for about 2 hours.

The workman was transferred just a day before because

of the instigation of other SDL operators, the work in

night shift could not be started for about 2 hours. The

misconduct alleged against workman is proved from

evidence of the management’s witnesses therefore I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10. Point No.2

Enquiry against workman is found proper and legal.

In view of my finding on Point No.1, the charges against

Ist party workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

Proceedings. Notes of arguments are submitted on behalf

of workman contending that workman was transferred a

day before the SDL machine was not in working condition.

Workman was immediately suspended after issuing

chargesheet but evidence is manipulated about attendance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1571

of workman. I do not find substance in those argument.

The misconduct alleged against workman is proved. Thus

the question arises is whether the punishment of dismissal

of workman is proper. The evidence shows that 8 other

operators on SDL machines had not reaching work at

instigation of workman. Certainly the production of coal

was affected. The evidence of management’s witness

shows that the production loss was about 60-70 tons.

Misconduct of Ist party workman proved from evidence

doesnot deserves any leniency. No interference is called

for in the order of dismissal. For above reasons. I record

my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1)

Action of the Sub Area Manager, Bangwar

Project of SECL Sohagpur Area in

dismissing Shri Maksood Alam, SDL

Operator, T.No. 239, Bangwar Project w.e.f.

13-4-95 is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 565-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ dksyiQhYMl

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 110@1993)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@51@1993&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 565.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 110/

1993) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of WCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/51/1993-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/110/93

Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

M.P.k.M.P. (HMS),

PO Junnardeo,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Manager,

Rakhikol Colliery of WCL,

Kanhan Area,

PO Rakhikol,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated 7-6-93 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-22012/

51/93-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Rakhikol

Colliery of W.C.Ltd., Kanhan Area, PO Rakhikol,

Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in dismissing Shri S.K.Balam,

S/o S.K.Chhindami, casual employee from services

w.e.f. 1-8-89 is justified? If not to what relief the

worker is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Union filed Statement of claim at Page 4/1.

Union submits that Ist party workman Balam was working

as permanent General Mazdoor for 6 years. The work is of

permanent nature. He was appointed at Ghodawari colliery

in 1984. Workman was transferred to Damoh colliery on

22-12-84, again he was transferred to Rakhikol colliery.

Workman was injured while on duty at 33/34 Rakhikol

collieiry underground mine in 1986. Workman was under

treatment in company’s hospital for long period. He was

not cured of his broken shoulder. Workman has become

weak. Workman has given application for his transfer to

other place. Workman though attended duty gradually

became weak. He was receiving treatment. The ratio of his

absence was increasing more and more. He had submitted

medical certificates.

3. That chargesheet was issued to workman on

23-4-89. Workman had attended enquiry proceedings on

13-6-89. However the management remained absent. He

claims that he had received knowledge about the decision

for dismissal from service. Workman claims that his

services re terminated without notice is illegal. That

termination of his services without giving him opportunity

is illegal. On such grounds, workman prays for his

reinstatement with consequential benefits.

4. IInd party management filed Written Statement

at Page 6/1 to 6/3. IInd party management totally denied

claim of workman. It is concluded that Ist party workman

was casual employee. He was discriminated as General

1572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Mazdoor. He never put in 190/240 days attendance in

service of Rakhikol Colliery. He was in habit of absent in

duties. Inspite of warnings issued to him, Ist party workman

failed to improve himself. Chargesheet was issued to him

on 23-4-89. Allegations were of habitual absence without

leave etc. the workman was not punctual in attending

duties. The charges were explained to him. The Enquiry

was conducted by Enquiry officer J.D. Jingal. That Ist

party workman worked for 84.34 days in 1987, 32 days in

1988, 9 days in 1989. It is denied that the workman was

working 305 days in the preceding calendar year. That

enquiry was conducted. Opportunity for defence was not

given to him.

5. IInd party denies contention of workman that

chargesheet was not served on him or no opportunity

was given to the party in the enquiry for his defence

reiterating that enquiry was conducted giving full

opportunity for defence to workman. The misconduct was

proved, IInd party submits that workman is not entitled to

relief claimed by him.

6. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 reiterating

his contentions in Statement of Claim. He submits that

the contentions of management are incorrect. He received

treatment for the minor injuries. That dismissal of workman

is wrong, no enquiry was conducted against him. He was

orally terminated from service.

7. My predecessor vide order dated 9-5-2012 held

enquiry conducted against workman as legal and proper.

8. Considering pleadings and findings on

preliminary issue, 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 charges of misconduct

In Affirmative

alleged against workman are proved

from evidence in Enquiry proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment awarded

In Affirmative

against workman is proper and legal?

(iii) If not, what relief the workman is

Relief prayed

entitled to?”

by workman

is rejected.

REASONS

9. As discussed above, the enquiry conducted

against workman is found legal. Other issues needs to be

decided - Whether the charges of misconduct alleged

against workman are proved from evidence in Enquiry

proceedings, whether the punishment awarded against

workman is proper and legal. Workman has not adduced

evidence on other issues. The record of Enquiry

Proceeding is produced. Page 17/3 shows that workman

had admitted his mistake and beg to be excused. He has

given reasons for his defence that he was residing at Datla

West. He was not residing at Rakhikol Quarter. He was

required to walk from Datla to Rakhikol and facing hardship.

It was reason for his absence from duty. He was also

suffering from cough, bronchitis, these were the causes

of his absence from duty. The management’s witness

Kishorilal has narrated working days of Ist party workman

as 84.34 days in 1987, 32 days in 1988, 9 days in 1989. In

his cross-examination, management’s witness says that

any medical certificate was not submitted by workman

requesting leave. Statement of workman was also recorded.

He has admitted his absence from duties. He has further

stated that because of his illness and he was required to

attend his mother, were the reasons for absence from duty.

The misconduct alleged against workman of unauthorized

absence is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

10. Point No. 2

In view of my finding in Point No.1 that alleged

misconduct of unauthorized absence from duty is proved,

management’s witness has stated working days of

workman were 84.34 days in 1987, 32 days in 1988, 9 days

in 1989. Considering the working days of the workman, it

is clear that his absence from duty was without application,

without explanation, without satisfactory reasons appears

to be of serious nature. Therefore punishment of dismissal

does not call for interference. For above reasons, I record

my finding in Point No.2 in Affirmative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under :

(1) Action of the management of Rakhikol

Colliery of W.C. Ltd., Kanhan Area, PO

Rakhikol, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in

dismissing Shri S.K. Balam S/o S.K.

Chhindami, casual employee from services

w.e.f. 1-8-89 is proper.

(2) Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 566-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ulh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 139@1997) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@145@1996&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 566.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/

1997) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1573

dispute between the management of NCL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/145/1996-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/139/97

Shri R.B.PATLE, Presiding Officer

The Vice President,

Coalfields Labour Union (CITU),

Qr. No. B-177, Amlohari Project,

PO Amlohri, Distt. Sidhi

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Northern Coalfields Ltd.,

Amlohari Project,

Distt. Sidhi (MP)

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 3rd day of December 2013)

1. As per letter dated 20-5-97 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-22012/

145/96-IR(C-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Amlohari

Project of NCL in dismissing Shri Ram Lalloo Gupta

LDC from services w.e.f. 15-4-95 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled and

from which date?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 5/1 to 5/5. The case of workman is that he is MA in

sociology. He was appointed as Lower Division Clerk

(Typist) at Jayant Project, Northern Coalfields Limited,

Singrauli on 10-3-83 and was transferred to Amlohari

Project in September 1985. He was promoted as UDC on

7-5-86. That he was active Trade Union Activists. He was

involved in number of movements for betterment/

upliftment and social/financial gains of workers/employees

working in the project. To expose management personnel,

he had organized Dharna, protest rallies and mass

movements and also sat on Dharna on 28-2-93. It caused

shivering among the management personnel who feared

exposure of their misdeeds. Workman submits that the

management had taken pre-calculated steps and he is

trapped. He was deliberately transferred to Mining Wing

on 1-3-93. However he joined said assignment on 5-3-93.

He was allotted work on 6-3-93. On same day, one

chargesheet was served on him. He submitted reply to the

chargesheet. That formal enquiry was conducted to harm

him. He was not shown Enquiry Report. On the basis of

fringy enquiry, he was reverted as LDC on 31-3-93. Another

chargesheet was served on him on 20-3-95. He submitted

his reply on 31-3-95. The enquiry was pre-determined to

implicate him. That he was not given reasonable

opportunity, exparte enquiry was conducted. Enquiry

Report was not furnished to him vide order dated

14-3-95, he was dismissed from service. The appeal

preferred by him was also dismissed on 4-5-95. The dispute

was referred on failure of conciliation proceeding. The

workman submits that enquiry conducted against him

was not legal, principles of natural justice were not

followed, he was not given opportunity for his defence.

the charges are not proved. On such ground, he prays for

setting aside order of his dismissal.

3. IInd party management filed Written Statement

at Page 6/1 to 6/10. The contentions of IInd party are that

workman is habitual offender. He always tries to break law.

Workman spread indiscipline amongst working class. He

threatened and abused officers of the company. Workman

tries to spread industrial unrest without reason. All the

time management showing leniency to him with hope to

the workman would improve himself. Workman several

times created obstacles, tried to initiate illegal strike. That

on 28-2-93, he misbehaved and abused all Security

Department and Security Inspector. He had shouted the

slogans against Shri Chandra and S. Kumar. The

explanation called from workman was found not

satisfactory, enquiry was conducted against him. Enquiry

Officer submitted his report on 21-3-93 holding that charges

against workman are proved. Workman was reverted from

post of UDC to LDC. The Central leadership of the Union

had taken up said matter.

4. Next it is submitted that there was no improved

in conduct of the workman. On 27-3-95, he committed major

misconduct bringing outsiders to the project area and

blocking the main road to the mine due to which employees

and executives of the project could not go for their duties

which has adversely affected the coal production.

Chargesheet was issued to workman on 20-3-95 for said

misconduct. Enquiry was conducted following principles

of natural justice. Workman further insisted for Defence

Assistant D.N. Sharma from Jayant Project could not be

allowed. The Enquiry Officer recorded evidence and

submitted his findings that charges were proved.

Considering the proved charges and documents,

punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on

14-4-95. The appeal preferred by workman was dismissed.

IInd party submits that punishment is properly imposed

does not call for interference. IInd party prays for rejection

of claim.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/6

reiterating his contentions in Statement of claim.

1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Management filed rejoinder at Page 8/1 to 8/6 reiterating

its contention in Written Statement filed earlier.

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 Amlohari

Project of NCL in dismissing

Shri Ram Lalloo Gupta LDC

from services w.e.f. 15-4-95 is

legal and justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?

order.

REASONS

7. Before dealing with Point No.1, I am to state that

enquiry conducted against workman was found vitiated

as per order dated 22-6-2010 by my predecessor. IInd party

was permitted to prove misconduct in Court.

8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri Shiv Kumar Sahu. Said witness says that he was

working as Driver on 27-3-95. When he was driving bus

carrying employees if Ist shift to the mine, security jeep

was seen by him. Hawaldar Shri D.K.Singh told him to

drive near Durga Pandal. To be specific said witness has

state that while he was driving bus behind the jeep, several

persons with lathis stopped the bus. The bus was stopped

the obstructions were kept at the wheels of the bus. Those

persons were threatening to damage the bus, beat driver.

The persons involved in obstruction to the bus were

arrested by police. Those persons were taken in bus to

police station. Shri Shiv Kumar is not cross-examined.

9. Other witness Shri R.K.Tiwari in his affidavit of

evidence has stated that in night of 26-3-95, the roads

going to the colliery were obstructed. He had given its

information to Security Officer Mr. Yadav. The information

was also given on written to the Dy.General Manager.

Those persons has stopped the bus near Coal Yard. The

crowd of people had kept articles at the wheels. They

were threatening to break glass of bus, to beat the drivers.

That Ramlallu Gupta was leading the mob of all those

persons. In his cross-examination, witness says that

distance between Coal Yard and Mine is 2 ½ Kms. There is

other approach road passing to the mine from Nursery

side. On 27-3-95, he reached too the Coal Yard. The bus

was stopped at Coal Yard. That miners entered the mine

with permission of the Manager. That he has not produced

documents about loss suffered by the mine. That if

employee in Ist shift fails to attend, the employees in IInd

shift are given overtime. In cross-examination of this

witness, inspite of the fact that the buses were obstructed

and given threats for damage, beating the driver, the

workman was leading the mob is absolutely not challenged.

Any question is not put to the witness on abovepoints.

Therefore the evidence of this witness about workman

leading mob blocking the roads for approaching the mine

cannot be disbelieved. Rather I find no reason to

disbelieve evidence of this witness on the above point.

Loss suffered by the mine is not disclosed from the

evidence of the witness. Its note can be taken.

10. The evidence of management’s witness Shri

B.L.Tripathi is also on the point that on 27-3-95 around

3 AM, Ramlallu Gupta Ist party workman was present

along with villagers blocking the road near Nursery, its

information was given to the higher officers. That Ramlallu

Gupta obstructed the road, when the road was opened

the traffic could be started. That Ramlallu Gupta had not

allowed the bus to proceed in colliery area. The buses

were stopped with the employees. The cross-examination

of this witness also, the incident of blocking road to the

buses is not challenged. Above witness in his cross-

examination says if any incident occurs, he received

instruction from his superior. The crowd blocked the road.

The request of security guard was not considered by them.

He claims ignorance as to what happened on 27-3-95

3 AM to 2 PM. The evidence of this witness is not clear on

the point of loss suffered to the mine.

11. The evidence of Punnu Singh Kokariya, Ashvini

Kumar, and evidence of workman himself is by way of

denial of the incident. Both the witnesses of the workman

did not claim that they were present at the place of incident

in the night of 27-3-95. The evidence of management’s

witness is silent about the Ist party workman was

intoxicated. Both the witnesses of the management says

that Ist party workman is not drinking liquor they are

pressing for his Union activities. However the evidence

of the witnesses of the workman is about his appreciation

of Union activities and supporting the cause of workers.

It cannot be the reason for discarding both the witnesses

of the management. The charges against workman are

disclosed in Exhibit M-1 produced by management. The

charges are under Clause 26.15, 26.18, 26.22, 26.23, 26.27,

26.30 & 26.43. Clause 26.15 deals with violation of mines

Act or other act or rules, 26.18 deals with causing injuries

to the co-employees or other employees, threatening,

abusing etc. Clause 26.22 deals with intentionally

committing act causing loss to the company. Clause 26.23

also deals with causing loss to the company by damage.

Clause 26.27, 26.30, 26.43 deals with causing danger to life

of other person. Clause 26.30 deals with unauthorized

absence from duties and violation of any rules. The

evidence discussed above cannot establish charge under

Clause 26.18, 26.27, 26.30 & 26.43.

12. The evidence of management’s witnesses is

cogent that in the night of 27-3-95, the delinquent workman

was leading crowd, blocking road, not allowing the bus

carrying employee. Certainly it would stop production in

the Ist shift of the mine. Though the exact loss caused is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1575

not stated by the witnesses, the coal production in Ist

shift on 27-3-95 was affected. The evidence of the

witnesses of the workman that he is representing causes

of the employees is active member of the Union and office

bearer of several other Union. Genuine Union activities

are to be appreciated. However one cannot take law in

their hand. There are various ways of expressing for the

redressal of the employee. Ist party workman has not

produced any document what was the grievance he was

trying to resolve and agitations were held by him. The

violent act cannot be justified for redressal of demands of

the employees. The peaceful agitation can be followed

and other modes of peaceful agitations are available.

Blocking road resulting in causing loss to mine is certainly

misconduct covered under Clause 26.15, 26.22 & 26.23.

Enquiry Officer did not take care to appreciate the evidence

on record. Therefore the findings of Enquiry Officer that

the charges under clause 26.18, 26.27, 26.30 & 26.43 are

proved is incorrect. The evidence discussed above cannot

prove the charges under clause 26.18, 26.27, 26.30 & 26.43.

Therefore I record my finding on Point No.1 partly in

Negative.

13. Point No. 2 :

In view of my finding in Point No.1, charges under

Clause 26.15, 26.22, 26.23 proved against Ist party workman,

the propriety of punishment of dismissal needs to be

considered. The charges proved against workman relates

to blocking the road, approach roads of the colliery

consequently affecting the coal production. The evidence

of the witnesses is silent that the workman or the persons

in crowd led by him caused any damage to the property of

the colliery. Copy of standing orders is made available for

my perusal. It provides different punishment under clause

27. Standing orders provides punishment under Clause

27.1 (a)–warning, reprimand, censure, (b) fine, (c)

suspension without wages for a period not exceeding 10

days, (d) stoppage of increment without cumulative effect,

(e) stoppage increment with cumulative effect, (f) demotion

to a lower stage or a lower grade, (g) removal/discharge

from service & (h) dismissal from service. In my considered

view, the punishment of dismissal would be too harsh,

punishment of demotion to lower grade in time scale would

be appropriate considering the facts of the case. The order

of dismissal needs to be set aside. Question arises whether

workman should be allowed back wages. The evidence of

witnesses of the management as well as the evidence of

the workman does not show that workman was engaged

in gainful employment workman had denied that after his

dismissal, he was working with contractor. Considering

the proved misconduct, no doubt back wages cannot be

granted at the same time gravity of misconduct needs to

be considered while imposing punishment. The

punishment of dismissal appears not proper in the facts

and circumstances of case. Workman was not in gainful

employment. However misconduct under clause 26.15,

26.22, 26.23 are proved from evidence before Court.

Therefore allowing full back wages would be premium for

proved misconduct. In my considered view, allowing 25 %

back wages would be appropriate. Accordingly I record

my finding in Point No. 2.

14. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Amlohari

Project of NCL in dismissing Shri Ram Lalloo

Gupta LDC from services w.e.f. 15-4-95 is

illegal.

(2)

Order of dismissal of workman is set aside.

Ist party is reverted to LDC from date of

order of his dismissal i.e. 15-4-95. IInd party

is directed to reinstate workman as LDC with

continuity of service with 25 % back wages

on the post of LDC.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 567-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lkmFk bZLVuZ

dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 214@1994) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 17&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@313@1994&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 17th January , 2014

S.O. 567.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 214/

1994) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of SECL and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 17/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/313/1994-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/214/94

Presiding Officer : Shri R.B. PATLE

Secretary,

Indian Black Diamond Workers Federation,

Post Bisrampur Colliery,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Workman/Union

1576

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Versus

General Manager,

Bisrampur Area of SECL,

Post Bisrampur,

Distt. Surguja (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 12th day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated 17-11-94 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-

22012(313)/94-IR-C-II. The dispute under reference relates

to:

“Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager,

Bisrampur sub Area of SECL, Bisrampur Area in

dismissing S/Shri Manik Minj S/o Shri Shamual Minj,

security Guard, Kukeshwar Pandey S/o Jamuna

Pandey Guard of Bisrampur colliery form company

services w.e.f. 20-7-92 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief are these three workmen entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party employees No.1 to 3 filed statement

of claim at Page 3/1 to 3/16. The case of Ist party employees

is that employee No. 1, 2 were working as Security Guards

and No. 3 was employed as Senior Security Guard at

Bisrampur Sub Area of SECL. That IInd party is company

owned by Government. That services of Ist party

employees No. 1 to 3 were terminated without giving

opportunity of hearing, without conducting or furnishing

any documents. They were dismissed from 20-7-92. It is

further contended that chargesheet was served on them

on 17/22-4-93 the allegations were made that on 16-4-93

when they were deputed in main mansion of colliery in

night shift between 11 PM to 7 AM, the patrolling police

found that they were sleeping and Gun No. BBL-29414

were taken by police from spot. The matter was not reported

by Ist party employee to the management neither they

deposited Gun. The employees were informed that act on

their part constitutes misconduct as per Clause 26.5 and

26.31 of standing orders. Ist party employee submitted

reply to the chargesheet. The charges were denied by

them. Workman submits that the charges alleged against

them were false and concocted that enquiry was not

conducted properly. They were not given opportunity for

their defence. There was no evidence to prove the charges.

The enquiry was conducted in absence of Defence

Assistant Shri P.K. Jha. they were not given reasonable

opportunity for their defence. Enquiry Officer was biased

all the 3 employees have contented that the enquiry

conducted against them was not fair and proper, enquiry

is vitiated. The charges are not proved. Employees prayed

for their reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 5/1 to

5/6 denying relief prayed by Ist party employees. That

employees were working as Security Guard in different

grades at Bisrampur colliery of SECL. Chargesheet was

issued to them. Enquiry was conducted vide different

orders. The employees were terminated. The contentions

of Ist party employees that enquiry was not properly

conducted, the Enquiry Officer was biased, the enquiry

was conducted in absence of Defence Assistant are

denied. IInd party reiterated that enquiry was properly

conducted. After chargesheet was issued, the Enquiry

Officer was appointed and reasonable opportunity was

given to the employees for their defence. That charges

against Ist party employees are of serious nature, they

were found sleeping during duty hours and the gun was

taken from spot by State Police.

4. Management also filed rejoinder at Page 6/1 to

6/7 reiterating its contentions in Written Statement hat

enquiry was properly conducted.

5. As per order dated 17-4-2001, my predecessor

found enquiry conducted against workman proper and

legal.

6. Considering pleadings between parties and

finding on the legality of the enquiry, 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 misconduct alleged

In Affirmative

against Iist party employee No.1

to 3 are proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether the punishment of dismissal

In Affirmative

from service imposed against Ist

party No.1 to 3 is proper and legal?

(iii) If so, what relief the workman is

Workmen are

entitled to?”

not entitled to

any relief as

claimed by

them.

REASONS

7. My predecessor has found enquiry conducted

against workman is proper and legal, question remains for

decision is whether the misconduct alleged against

workman is proved from evidence in Enquiry Proceedings.

That whether punishment of dismissal imposed against

workmen is proper and legal. The documents of enquiry

are produced and collectively marked as Exhibit M-1. The

report was submitted to Dy. General Manager by Security

incharge on 16-4-93. That the Ist party employee No.1 to 3

were on duty in the night. The State Police found them

sleeping. That Gun No. BBL-29414 was taken by State

Police from delinquent employee. The chargesheet was

served on employee. They denied charges against them.

The Security Officer also submitted information to the Chief

Mining Engineer that the delinquent employees were found

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1577

sleeping on duty by Police and Gun No. BBL-29414 was

taken by police from the spot. The police had given

information to him and gun was returned back. The

statement of witnesses recorded at Page 7/13 to 7/16 finds

clear reference that the delinquent employee were found

sleeping and gun was taken by police. The above gun

was returned back to the Security Officer the statements

of delinquent employees were also recorded and

explanation given by them appears quite inconsistent how

gun from their custody was taken by police and returned

to the Security Officer. No doubt, the nicety of recording

evidence in judicial proceeding cannot be expected in

Departmental Enquiry. The burden of proof in Departmental

Enquiry is not similar as in criminal proceedings. The

findings of Enquiry Officer are supported by findings of

Security Officer that the police had found delinquents

sleeping and gun in their custody was taken by police.

Exercising powers of judicial review, it would not be proper

on my part to sit as Appellate Authority and re-appreciate

the evidence. The evidence in Departmental Enquiry is

adequate to prove misconduct alleged against workman.

Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

8. Point No. 2 :

In view of my finding in Point No.1, the misconduct

alleged against workman is proved and State police had

taken gun in their custody from the spot. At the time of

argument, learned counsel for IInd party Mr. Shashi

submits that gelatin and other explosives were stored at

the place the delinquent employees were kept on security

as Guard. They were negligent in their duties. Considering

gravity of misconduct proved against workman, the

punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said

shockingly disproportionate. The submissions of learned

counsel for Ist party employees that the delinquent

workmen was falsely implicated cannot be upheld

considering evidence in Enquiry Proceedings. For above

reasons, I record my finding on Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

9. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the Sub Area Manager, Bisrampur

sub Area of SECL, Bisrampur Area in

dismissing S/Shri Manik Minj S/o Shri

Shamual Minj, Security Guard, Kukeshwar

Pandey S/o Jamuna Pandey Guard of

Bisrampur colliery form company services

w.e.f. 20-7-92 is legal.

(2)

Ist party employees are not entitled to relief

prayed by them.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 568-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@82@1989&vkbZvkj (lh&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd January , 2014

S.O. 568.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2003)

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.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 23/01/2014.

[No. L-22012/82/1989-IR(C-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of December, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 39/2003

Between :

The Vice President,

Mining Technical Staff Association,

H.No. C-32, Near Sector-1 Dispensary,

P.O. Godavarikhani – 505209

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Area-1, Ramagundam Division,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

P.O. Godavarikhani-505209

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

Party in person

For the Respondent :

M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijaya

Laxmi Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

In pursuance of reference dated 12.3.2003 vide order

No. L-22012/82/89-IR(C-II) Government of India, Ministry

of Labour and Employment has required this forum to

decide the question under Sec.10(1)(d) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 with the following schedule:-

1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“ Whether the demand of the Mining Technical Staff

Association, Godavarikhani, for re-fixation/

protection of pay Sh. D. Krishna Murthy on his

promotion as Shot Firer during 1980 and also for

one increment is legal and justified? If yes, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving the reference this forum has

issued notice to both the Petitioner i.e., the Vice President,

Mining technical staff association and the Management

i.e., M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited. Both of

them appeared before this forum.

3. The Vice President, Mining Technical Staff

Association(who will hereinafter be referred to as

Petitioner) has filed their claim statement unfolding the

grievances of Sri D. Krishna Murthy (hereinafter be

referred as workman)

with the averments in brief as follows:-

The workman joined the service of the respondent

as casual worker on 29.9.76 and continued in that capacity

till he got promotion as coal filler in October, 1978. He

worked as coal filler from 1.1.1980 to 2.10.1980 and has

drawn the mine average salary. On 19.9.1980 he appeared

for examination of Shot Firer conducted by Government

of India and was successful and then he was promoted as

coal cutter Cat. V on 3.10.1980 with a starting basic pay of

Rs.19.50 ps per day instead of Rs. 22.35ps which was the

basic pay for the person who was acting as coal cutter,

though he was drawing mine average of Rs. 22.35ps basic

per day. Though he was promoted as coal cutter Cat.V his

services were utilized as Shot Firer on the vacancy of leave

from 3.10.1980 till 31.1.1981. He was promoted as Shot

firer Gr.D with effect from 1.2.1981. At that time he was

drawing basic pay of Rs. 531. He appeared for Mining

Sirdar examination on 2.9.1987 and became successful.

Then, he was promoted as Gr.C with effect from 1.1.1988.

At this point of time he was denied one service increment

on his promotion. Though his juniors who were promoted

much later to him were drawing more salary than that of

him. He raised grievances. Respondent considered his

grievance and then he was promoted from 1.10.1987 as

Mining Sirdar, instead of 1.1.1988 and he was given

promotional increment and was paid correct salary from

1.10.1987. He has been regularly promoted from time to

time and now he is working as Gr. B Mining Sirdar in the

respondent company. In the Wage Board-II from 1.1.1979

to 31.12.1982 of four years vide Agreement circular No.49/

3696/34.72 dt.17.9.1979 issued by General Manager,

Kothagudem, mentioned for coal fillers-time rated jobs

upto Cat.IV minimum basic only to be fixed and not

mentioned anything about Cat.V. Petitioner has

continuously worked on time rated categories such as

Coal Cutter, Timber man and Pump Operator and was paid

mine average wages. He has drawn, the following basic

pays on time rated categories from January, 1980 to

October, 1980 :—

Month

For Day

Total Wage

No. of Days

Basic/

Per Day

Worked Month

Muster

January, 80

23-90

35.16

February, 80

23-93

34-69

March, 80

23-17

34-15

April, 80

22-80

34-61

May, 80

22-61

33-70

June, 80

21-65

32-68

July, 80

23-33

34-98

August, 80

22-15

34-86

September, 80

20-99

32-95

October, 80

22-08

34-17

The total basic drawn by the Petitioner per day works

out Rs.227.21 for 10 months and his average basic comes

to Rs. 22.72 ps.. In case the basic is counted for three

months, it works out to Rs. 22.35ps per day. Whereas his

basic pay was fixed in Cat.V at Rs.19.50 ps which is quite

less than the amount which he was drawing prior to his

promotion to Cat.V. At the same time Petitioner’s colleague

Sri B. Satyanarayana, Mining Sirdar, GDK 2 incline who

was junior to the Petitioner was fixed with the basic of

Rs.19.34 ps. per day on his promotion from Coal Filler to

Timberman Cat. IV though the minimum basic fixed was

only Rs.17.75 ps. and Rs.19.34 ps is the basic which was

paid to the Petitioner on his promotion to Cat. V to Coal

Cutter. At present said Sri B. Satyanarayana, is drawing

an increment higher side than the Petitioner though he is

junior to the workman. Further workman was promoted

as Shot Firer in a Gr.D on a basic pay of Rs. 531 from

1.2.1981 though he passed his SF examination in September,

1980. Thereby he was denied one increment. Therefore

respondent is to be directed to refix the salary of the

workman taking into consideration of his basic pay as

Rs. 22.35 ps per day from 1980 and also corresponding

increments to the subsequent promotions and all other

benefits and also to order for subsequent increments along

with all benefits including difference of arrears.

4. The Management filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows :

As per the National Coal Wage Agreements, piece

rated workmen i.e., coal fillers who were engaged on time

rated jobs are being paid mine average wages. Workman

was a coal filler in piece rated wages upto 3.10.1980. Further,

he might have been paid mine average wages as and when

he worked on time rated categories. But he is not entitled

mine averages. As per the guidelines in vogue at any point

of time mine average basic is not a part in fixation of Basic

Pay when a coal filler was appointed/transferred to Coal

Cutter. At no point of time the mine average wage was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1579

taken for fitment benefits top the coal fillers who were

appointed/transferred to daily rated wages. Initially the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment,

refused to refer the present dispute for adjudication. Only

on the directions of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., given

at the instance of the Petitioner who filed WP No.10967/

1991 this reference has been made. On his passing shot

firer examination on 19.9.80 the workman was appropriately

promoted from coal filler to the post of coal cutter with

effect from 3.10.1980 and he was allowed a basic of

Rs. 19.50ps as per the rules in vogue. His claim that his

starting pay should be Rs. 22.30ps per day. He was drawing

mine average of Rs. 22.30ps is not correct. Prior to

implementation of National Coal Wage Agreement the coal

fillers who were appointed as coal cutters were being

given the minimum of Cat.V wages which is the appropriate

category under National Coal Wage Board Agreements

(NCWA). As per the work norms fixed under NCWA-I

norms which came into force from 1.1.1975, the work load of

fillers was fixed at 81 Cft and they were placed in Group VA.

Their basic pay was fixed at Rs. 13. When NCWA-II had

came into force from 1.1.1978, the work load of fillers in

A.P., was fixed at 81Cft, they were placed in Gr. VA and the

wage was fixed at Rs.18.50ps. The coal fillers appointed

as coal cutters were fixed with the minimum basic Personal

Assistant of Rs.19.50 ps. Thus, the coal cutters got the

benefit of Rs.1/- like wise the workman when he was

appointed as coal cutter category B was fixed in the scale

of Rs.1950-0.72-28.14 under NCWA-II. Hence, his pay

was correctly fixed in Cat.V. There was no anomaly in

fixation of pay of Petitioner workman as coal cutter. Same

procedure was followed for all other employees who were

promoted as coal cutters. His contention that his juniors

are drawing more salary with more basic both was

promoted much earlier to them is not correct. Circular No.

P.49/3696/3472 dt.17.9.1979 is not relevant to the case of

the Petitioner. Further, it was superseded by the circular

dt.15.7.80. The details of appointment and promotion of

the Petitioner and Sri B. Satyanarayana are as follows:

The above referred particulars reveal the dates of

appointment and promotions to various categories / grades

of the workman and Sri B. Satyanarayana are different. Sri

B Satyanarayana was in Cat.IV from 10.4.1981 to 8.3.87,

whereas workman was appointed as coal cutter on 3.10.80,

as such comparison of workman with Sri B. Satyanarayana

is not correct and contrary to JBCCI guidelines which are

applicable to all the employees working in coal industries

of the country. As per the circulars issued to rectify the

anomalies both employees must be placed in seniority

and covered in the same seniority list in NCWA-III period

for the purpose of rectification anomaly. In this case

Sri B. Satyanarayana was in Cat. IV, whereas the workman

was in technical and supervisory Gr.D. Thus, they were

not in same pay scale and they were also not covered in

the same seniority list of NCWA-III. Thus the workman

can not claim that Sri B. Sathyanarayana, Mining Sirdar,

Gdk. 2A Incline was drawing an increment higher side

than to him. These guidelines are framed keeping the

interests of all employees working in coal industry.

Respondent company never discriminated the workman.

After he became successful in the Sirdar examination

depending upon the availability of the vacancy under

satisfactory reported earned by him and considering

D. Krishnamurty (the Petitioner)

B. Satyanarayana, M.S., Gdk, 2A incli

NCWA

Date of Appointment/

Basic Pay Rs. Ps.

Date of Appointment/

Basic Pay Rs. Ps.

Period

Promotions

NCWA-I

29-9-76 as causal

Piece rated wages

23-3-77 as causal

Piece rated wages

worker

-Do-

1-3-77 as Coal Filler

-Do-

16-11-78 as Coal Filler

-Do-

NCWA-II

3-10-80 as Coal Cutter

19.5

10-4-81 as Timber Man

19.34

in Cat. V

in Cat. IV

-Do-

1-2-81 as Shot Firer

531

—

Gr. D

NCWA-III —

—

8-3-87 as Coal Cutter

54.22

Cat. V

-Do-

—

1-5-87 as Shot Firer

1494

Grade D

-Do-

1-10-87 as Shot Firer

1522

1-10-87 as Shot Firer

1582

Gr. C

in Grade C

1580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

seniority etc., the promotion was affected as it will be done

in the case of other employees. Petitioner’s claim is not

acceptable and is liable to be dismissed.

5. On behalf of the Petitioner WW1 was examined

and exhibits Ex.W1 to W4 were marked. On behalf of the

Management MW1 was examined and Ex.M1 to M16 were

marked.

6. Heard the arguments of either party.

7. The points raised for determination are:

Whether the claim of Sri D. Krishna Murthy,

the workman for re-fixation/protection of

pay, on his promotion as shot firer during

1980 and also for one increment? Is legal

and justified?

II.

To what relief the workman is entitled to?

8. Point No. I :

As can be seen from the contentions of the Petitioner

and the counter contentions of the respondent /

Management referred to above, it is very much clear that it

is an undisputed fact, that the workman has been drawing

the wage @Rs. 22.35 ps per day as on the date of his being

promoted/appointed/transferred as coal cutter from the

post of coal filler with effect from 3.10.1980 but, without

protecting the said wage, his pay was fixed in the minimum

basic available for the post of coal cutter i.e., Rs.19.50ps.

He suffered the said anomaly all these years and has

chosen to make his claim to rectify the said defect only by

raising the present dispute.

9. As can be gathered from the record, in the

beginning, considering the delay in making the claim only,

the Ministry has chosen to refuse to make the reference.

But, the fact remains that Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

does not fix any time limit for raising such disputes.

Therefore, merely on the ground that there is delay in

making the claim, such disputes can not be refused to be

entertained. As can be seen from the contentions in the

counter filed by the respondent, respondent is claiming

that since there is substantial delay in the making the

claim also, the same can not be sustained. This contention

is not acceptable.

10. As already observed supra, respondent is not

disputing the correctness of the contentions of the

Petitioner that , the workman has been earning the wage

of Rs. 22.35ps per day while working as coal filler and as

on the date of his being appointed as coal cutter i.e.,

3.10.1980 but, without considering the same and taking

the minimum pay available for the post of Coal cutter i.e.,

Rs.19.50ps the pay of the workman was fixed in the post of

coal cutter. For this action the reason given for the

respondent is that as per the guidelines in vogue as on

that day only the pay was fixed.

11. While the workman as WW1 was under cross

examination it put to him that Ex.W1 circular is not

applicable to him. He denied the truth of the same. Thus,

it is his claim that National Coal Wage Agreement-

II(NCWA-II) is applicable to him. For what reason the

same is not applicable to him is not explained by the

respondent. MW1, while under cross examination has

stated that piece rated wages were paid to the workman as

per mine average wages and as per National Coal Wage

agreements. He admitted that payments were made as per

para 8 of the Claim statement (Table). During further cross

examination MW1 admitted that the coal fillers, who are

appointed as coal cutters, will be drawing higher wages

than the coal fillers. It is in normal course for any person

who is appointed to higher category of the post from the

lower category of the post, to draw higher pay than the

one he was drawing in the lower post. Why and for what

reason the pay being drawn by the workman in the lower

post i.e., coal filler was not protected while fixing his pay

in the higher post i.e., coal cutter is not explained anywhere

by the respondent in the counter. It is being said that the

NCWA- II is not applicable to the claim of the workman . If

so, what are the guidelines which are applicable to him are

not explained and revealed.

12. Coal wage agreement No.2 is dated 11.8.1979.

The appointment of the workman as the coal cutter took

place on 3.10.1980. Thus the said agreement is applicable

to the workman. The basic pay being drawn by the

employee in the pre-promoted post shall be considered

and next higher stage in the promoted post is to be taken

for fixing his basic pay, in normal course of procedure in

fixation of pays. Same is provided for in the Ex.W1 circular,

which is issued in connection with implementation of

NCWA-II. In the given circumstances it is very much

clear that the pay of the workman as coal cutter has not

been properly fixed by the respondent company. Even at

this stage the said defect can be remedied and rectified by

re-fixing his salary.

13. One another aspect to be considered in this case

is the claim of the workman that a junior employee is

drawing more salary than that of the workman and this

anomaly also is to be rectified. Evidently, one Sri B.

Satyanarayana who is also working as Gr.B Mining Sirdar

in the respondent company along with the workman is

junior to the workman. It can be said so since in the very

counter of the respondent the particulars of the services

of both these persons are given (the same are reproduced

in this order supra). As per the same the workman was

appointed as casual worker on 29.9.1976 whereas Sri B.

Satyanarayana was appointed on 23.3.1977. The workman

was appointed as coal filler on 1.3.1977 whereas Sri B.

Satyanarayana was appointed as coal filler on 16.11.1978.

From coal filler workman was posted as coal cutter, Cat.V

whereas Sri B. Satyanarayana was appointed as coal cutter

on 8.3.1987. Mean while the said B. Satyanrayana has

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1581

worked as Timberman in Cat. IV. That means workman

has been working the capacity of coal cutter Cat.V from

3.10.1980 whereas Sri B. Satyanarayna has come to that

post only on 8.3.1987 and thereby said Sri B. Satyanarayna

has become junior to the workman by more than 6 years in

the post of coal cutter Cat.V. The workman has been

promoted Shot Firer Gr.D on 1.2.1981 from the post of coal

cutter Cat.V whereas Sri B. Satyanarayana has been

promoted to that post on 1.5.1987 and thus, Sri B.

Satyanarayana is junior to the workman by more than 6

years. Both these persons were posted as Shot Firer Gr.C

on 1.10.1987. But, the pay of the workman is shown as

Rs.1522 whereas Sri B. Satyanarayana is shown as

Rs.1582. For this shortage in pay of the workman, the

explanation being given by the respondent is that both

these persons can not be compared with each other since

Sri B. Satyanarayana has worked as Timberman Cat.IV

before being promoted as coal cutter Cat.V. This

explanation is not proper and acceptable. The workman

has been senior to the said Sri B. Satyanarayana in Cat.V

as well as Shot Firer Gr.D posts by about 6 years. In such

case, how and why there will be such disparity between

their respective salaries, making the pay of the workman

much less than that of said Sri B. Satyanarayana is a

puzzling question. It is certainly an anomaly. For

rectification of such anomalies several circulars were

issued while effecting pay revisions, providing for

stepping up of the salary of the senior on par with the

junior who is drawing more pay than that of him.

Respondent ought to have taken that recourse immediately

after Petitioner /workman has drawn the attention of the

respondent to the anomaly cropped up in this case. But

they failed to do so. Therefore, workman is entitled for the

relief of stepping up of his pay on par with the payoff Sri

B. Satyanarayana, Mining Sirdar GDK II Incline of the

respondent company.

14. In the schedule of the reference it is mentioned

that the workman has been promoted as shot firer in 1980.

It must be a mistake. It is no body’s case that the workman

has been promoted as a shot firer during the year 1980. He

has been promoted as coal cutter in the year 1980 and he

became shot firer only on 1.2.1981.

15. In view of the fore gone discussion of the

material on record it can safely be concluded that the claim

of the Petitioner that the workman Sri D. Krishna Murthy

is entitled for refixation/protection of pay on his promotion

as coal cutter in 1980 and also for one increment and

consequential benefits is legal and justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

16. Point No. 2 :

In view of the finding arrived at above, the workman

is entitled for re-fixation of his pay to the post of coal

cutter category 5 by protecting his pay in the post of coal

filler and fixing his pay in the pay scale available at the

relevant time for the post of coal cutter category 5 and

following the procedure laid down for fixation of pay in

NCWA-II.

17. Consequently he is also entitled for re-fixation

of his pay in all the other promotional posts and also re-

fixation of his increments in various posts he worked. He

is also entitled for the arrears of pay consequent to the re-

fixation of his pay.

18. While refixing the pay of the workman his pay

shall be stepped up when his pay becomes lower than

that of his junior B.Satyanarayana.

This point is answered accordingly.

19. Result :

In the result, petition is allowed. Respondent is

directed to refix the Pay of the workman Sri D. Krishna

Murthy in the post of coal cutter category V to which he

was promoted from the post of coal filler with effect from

3.10.1980, by protecting the pay of Rs.22.35 ps per day,

which he was earning as coal filler and following the

guidelines given for fixation of pay in NCWA-II

dt.11.8.1979; to refix the Pay of the said workman in all the

other promotion posts and also to refix the increments

granted to him and further to extend all the consequential

benefits to him. While refixing the pay of the workman his

pay shall be stepped up when his pay becomes lower to

that of his junior Sri B. Satyanarayana.

20. After so refixing the Pay, the respondent shall

pay the arrears of the salary becomes due to the workman

Sri D. Krishna Murthy. All this exercise shall be completed

within one month from the date of receipt of this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1 : Sri D. Krishna

MW1 : Sri P. Purushotham

Murthy

Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Photostat copy of circular No. P.49/3696/3472

dt.17.9.79.

Ex.W2 :

Photostat copy of circular No. P. 49/4117/676

dt. 18.4.84.

Ex.W3 :

Photostat copy of National Coal Wage

Agreement IV dt.28.12.1989.

Ex.W4 :

Photostat copy of letter No. P.49/4764/IR/133

dt. 24.1.1990.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 :

Photostat copy of Minutes of conciliation

proceedings No.1/75/88-E3 dt.1.3.89.

1582

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M2 :

Photostat copy of lr.No.1/10/89-E3 dt.15.3.89.

Ex.M3 :

Photostat copy of lr.No.L-22012(82)/89-IR(C-

II) dt.19/22.6.89.

Ex.M4 :

Photostat copy of affidavit filed in WP

No10967/1991.

Ex.M5 :

Photostat copy of counter affidavit filed in

WP No10967/1991.

Ex.M6 :

Photostat copy of order in WP No10967/1991.

Ex.M7 :

Photostat copy of circular No.P.49/3696/3472

dt.17.9.79.

Ex.M8 :

Photostat copy of circular No.P.49/3696/2104

dt. 15.6.1980.

Ex.M9 :

Photostat copy of Implementation instruction

No.18, JBCCI guidelines.

Ex.M10 :

Photostat copy of Chapter-III in NCWA-I

showing basics.

Ex.M11 :

Photostat copy of Chart showing basics in

NCWA-II.

Ex.M12:

Photostat copy of office order No.GDK.No.2

& 2A/Agt/87/525 dt.7.3.1987.

Ex.M13:

Photostat copy of another office order

dt.28.4.1987.

Ex.M14:

Photostat copy of another office order dt.

7.10.1988.

Ex.M15:

Photostat copy of another office order dt.

1.10.1980.

Ex.M16:

Photostat copy of another office order dt.

4.2.1981.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 569-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,llhlh,y ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 217@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@102@2001&vkbZvkj (lh,e&II)]

ch- ,e- iVuk;d] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 23rd January, 2014

S.O. 569.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 217/

2002) 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.

Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-22012/102/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B. M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 4th day of December, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 217/2002

Between :

The Secretary, (Sh. L. Prakash),

Singareni Collieries Workers Union(AITUC),

Godvarikhani-505209

...Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Ramagundam-III Divn.,

Godavarikhani-505209

...Respondent

Appearances:

For the Petitioner

: Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy,

Advocate

For the Respondent

: Sri P.A.V.V.S. Sarma, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

Order No. L-22012/102/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 4.3.2002

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. Singareni Collieries Company

Limited and their workmen. The term of reference is as

under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager, M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramagundam

Divn.III. Godavarikhani in denying to rectify the

anomaly in basic fixation of the workers comparing

with junior of the same and similar job under the

single seniority list is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

2. After receiving the reference and registering it as

ID No.217/2002 this forum secured the presence of the

General Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Limited, Ramagundam-III Division (Who will hereinafter

be referred to be as Management and the Secretary,

Singareni Collieries workers union, AITUC, Godavarikhani

(Who will hereinafter be referred to be the Petitioner).

3. Petitioner union representative has filed his

claim statement with the averments in brief as follows :

The service conditions of workmen working in the

coal mines will be regulated by bilateral settlements called

National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA) entered into in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1583

the JBCCI (Joint Bipartite Committee on Coal Industry)

meetings. The period of the agreement would be four

years. As per the settlement entered into, implementation

instructions will be issued for the items agreed. The

settlement and implementation instructions will be binding

on the Management of coal mines as well as the workmen.

Subsequent to arriving of NCWA-V implementation

instruction No.18 was issued, whereunder it is stipulated

that wherever anomalies arises the pay of the senior

employee has to be stepped up with the level of pay of

junior employee concerned from the date of such anomaly

arisen i.e., from the date the junior employee started getting

higher basic pay than the senior employee. The said

instruction does not make any differentiation between the

workmen of daily rated cadre to daily rated category or

between the daily rated workmen promoted monthly rated

or monthly rated employee promoted to higher monthly

rated post. Whereas the workmen S/Sri B. Venkateshwarlu,

A Ravinder Reddy, M. Srinivas and 34 others were all the

members of the Petitioner union and who are seniors to

Mr. B. Sarangam(EC No.1115921) used to get less pay than

that of said Sri B. Sarangam subsequent to pay fixations

made in pursuance of NCWA-IV pay scale and after his

being promoted to C grade. Said Mr. B. Saranagam was

initially appointed as operator Gr. D with effect from 8.3.89

whereas all the other workmen mentioned above were

appointed prior to him. Said Sri B. Sarangam was given Gr.

C with effect from 1.1.1991, whereas all the workmen were

given Gr. C much prior to him. The basic pay of Sri B.

Sarangam as on 30.6.91 was Rs. 50.59 ps (D-Grade), whereas

the basic pay of the other workmen used to be Rs. 53.22ps,

(Gr.C) the basic pay of Sri B. Sarangam 1.3.91(NCWA-V)

used to be Rs.77.57ps whereas the basic pay of all other

workmen used to be Rs.81.17 Ps but subsequently basic

pay of Sri B. Sarangam was fixed as Rs. 85.02 ps with effect

from 1.9.91 whereas the pay of all the other workmen

remained as 81.17. this anomaly is being continued even

as on today. And the said Sri B. Sarangam who is junior to

all other workmen mentioned above, is being paid a basic

pay of Rs. 257.54ps per day whereas the others are getting

basic pay of Rs. 251.03 ps, despite being seniors to him.

Several representations were made for redressal of the

grievance but in vain. Respondent failed to settled the

issue of anomaly inspite of representations and reminders.

Petitioner approached Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central) by submitting representation dated 16.3.99

seeking for conciliation proceedings to settle the issue

amicably. But the conciliation proceedings ended in

failure. Thus, this reference is made. Despite accepting

the contents of the implementation instruction No.18

Respondent refused to resolve the grievance on the

ground that wage anomaly arose between the daily rated

cadres but not daily rated employees promoted monthly

rated employee promoted to higher monthly rated post.

The contention of the Respondent was basing on the

circular dated 4.10.96 issued by General Manager (Per)

contending that wage anomalies cropped up in case of

daily rated employeed promoted monthly rated, and

monthly rated employee promoted to higher monthly rated

posts then only be resolved, the stepping up of the pay of

the employee on par with the junior but any wage anomaly

arose between the daily rated employees can not be

resolved in such manner by implementing Instruction

No.18 which is not a correct contention. The Instruction

No.18 does not differentiate or discriminate in such manner

and can not refuse to fix the pay of the above mentioned

workmen on par with their junior Sri B. Sarangam. Refusal

on the part of the Respondent officials to fix the pay in

such manner is contrary to the dicta laid down by Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India. The wage anomaly is to be

removed by applying implementation Instruction No.18

and concerned workmen are entitled for all other

consequential benefits.

4. Respondent filed the counter with the averments

in brief as follows :

Petition is not maintainable without making Sri B.

Sarangam as a party to this proceeding. Sri B. Sarangam

happened to get higher pay since he has been promoted

to C-Grade after pay fixation. The Pay fixation took place

on 1.7.91 and Sri B. Sarangam was promoted on 1.9.91

whereby he got a higher basic pay of Rs.85.02ps.

Petitioner union is not disclosing the fact that Sri B.

Sarangam was still in D Grade when his seniors were in C

Grade and Sri B. Sarangam was drawing lesser salary than

his seniors. The so called anomaly is not anomaly in law

since the disparity arose due to Sri B. Sarangam getting

promotion after pay fixation resulting into variations in

basic pay. The NCWA is being scrupulously followed by

the Management. If there are any doubts and need for

clarification the Petitioner union ought to have

approached standardisation committee under JBCCI which

is dealing with the same. Petitioner union is contending

that as anomalies between the daily rated persons

promoted to monthly rated or between monthly rated to

higher monthly rated are being corrected the same benefit

will have to be given to daily rated categories. The said

contention has no substance. Union has never expressed

any grievance regarding interpretation of the rectification

of the anomalies. It was clarified by letter dated 20.2.1984

addressed the Coal India Ltd., that anomalies within daily

rated categories can not be rectified. But no grievance

has been raised regarding the same since decades together.

No dispute was raised since 1991 because there is no

anomaly. Just because Sri B. Sarangam who was promoted

to Gr.C much subsequent to other workmen started to earn

higher pay than the pay of the others upon fixation after

pay since he was promoted after new wage agreement, he

will not be a senior to others. He continues to be junior to

the other even as on today. Thus, the grievance is

misconceived in law. There are no guidelines for

rectification of anomalies in the basic pay in respect of

1584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

daily rated employees promoted to higher daily rated

categories. The averment that implementation instruction

No.18 does not make any difference between the workmen

of any cadre or category is not correct. The workmen are

not entitled for the relief of rectification of so called

anomaly in pay. The difference in pay occurred only due

to promotion effected to Sri B. Sarangam after pay revision.

Whereas the other workmen got promoted prior to pay

fixation. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner

WW1 to WW3 were examined and Ex.W1 to W18 were

marked. To substantiate the contentions of the

Respondent MW1 was examined and Ex.M1 to M2 were

marked.

6. Heard arguments of either party.

7. The points for consideration are :

I. “Whether the action of the General

Manager, M/s. Singareni Collieries Company

Limited,

Ramagundam

Divn.III.

Godavarikhani in denying to rectify the

anomaly in basic fixation of the workers

comparing with junior of the same and similar

job under the single seniority list is legal

and justified?

II. To what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

8. Point No. I :

It is an admitted fact that several of the workmen

whose list is annexed to the reference and who are 37 in

number, are all seniors to another workman by name Sri B.

Sarangam. It is also an understood fact that all these

persons are in the same cadre and in the same seniority

list but said Sri B. Sarangam is drawing more pay than that

of these 37 workmen. This anomaly arose when the pay

of Sri B. Sarangam was fixed in the promotion post i.e., as

Operator Gr. C from the post of Operator Gr.D, with effect

from 1.9.1991. By that time all the aggrieved workmen who

are mentioned above, have been working in the cadre of

operator Gr.C and thus they were are all seniors to said Sri

B. Saranagam. But they all have been drawing Rs.81.17 Ps

whereas Sri B. Sarangam has been fixed with Rs.85.2 ps

with effect from 1.9.1991. Though he is junior to all the

other workmen by 1.3.2000 said Sri B. Saranagam was being

paid basic pay of Rs.257.54 ps whereas the others have

been getting basic pay of Rs.251.03 ps despite being

seniors to him. These are all admitted facts.

Representations were evidently made for rectification of

these anomalies but Respondent has not headed the said

request, on the ground that there is no anomaly at all,

since said Sri B. Saranagam as well as the other workmen

all belong to daily rated categories and as per the

clarification given regarding rectification of anomalies in

respect of such categories by the Coal India Limited, the

anomalies within daily rated categories can not be rectified.

According to them such clarification has been given vide

letter No.CIL/III JBCCI/MISC/178 dated 20.2.1984. Ex.M2

is the said letter. But there is neither any enforceable rule

nor any legal provision which permits such discrimination.

No reason at all is assigned for such discriminatory

decision which is resulting into great prejudice to the

affected workmen belonging to daily rated categories.

Thus, such practice can not be allowed to be prevailed

upon.

9. Further, Ex.W3 is the implementation instruction

No. 18 dt.18.9.1996 which provides for rectification of the

wage anomaly when it occurs in pay fixation resulting into

a junior drawing more pay than that of his senior. The said

document does not distinguish between the various

categories of the employees, it merely speaks of the junior

employees and senior employees. Therefore, the

contention of the Respondent that the said instruction

does not apply to the daily rated categories is not correct.

10. As per Ex.W3, when both the junior and senior

employees belong to the same cadre and post are covered

by the same seniority list and same cadre, and further the

pre-revised and revised scale of pay of lower and higher

posts in which they are entitled to draw pay are identical,

the said instruction will apply. All these conditions are

evidently complied with in this case. Another condition

laid down is that the anomaly should be directly as a result

of normal rules of fixation on such promotion in the revised

scale of pay under NCWA-V. Regarding this also there is

no dispute. In the given circumstances the wage anomaly

cropped up in this case is certainly to be rectified.

11. One another contention being raised by the

Respondent in support of their contention that the workmen

are not entitled for the rectification of anomaly is

belatedness in making the claim. No doubt, the anomaly

has cropped up in this case with effect from 1.9. 1991. But

the evidence on record discloses that the pay of Sri B.

Saranagam and others was revised and fixed in the year

1995 but with retrospective effect from 1.7.1991. Since

then the Petitioner union has been making representations

for rectification of the wage anomaly cropped up, but in

vain. Just because some time lapsed since the anomaly

cropped up, the workmen can not be curtailed from raising

industrial disputes, to cure the wage anomaly. There is

no time limit prescribed either in the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 or in any other relevant law, to raise industrial

disputes in this regard. Further more, when the Petitioner

union has been making efforts from the beginning to get

the anomaly rectified by giving representations time and

again, it can not be said that there is any lapse on their

part. Thus, the claim of the Respondent that the workmen

are not entitled for rectification of the wage anomaly since

there is delay in raising the dispute, is not a sustainable

contention.

12. In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely

be held that the action of the General Manager, M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Ramagundam

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1585

Division III Godavarikhani in denying to rectify the

anomaly in basic pay fixation of the workers whose names

are annexed in the list enclosed to the reference, comparing

with that of their junior of same and similar job under

single seniority list, i.e., Sri B. Saranagam, is neither legal

nor justified.

This point is answered accordingly.

13. Point No. II :

In view of the finding given in pint No.1 the wage

anomaly cropped up in fixation of basic pay of the 37

workers whose names are mentioned in the list annexed to

reference is to be get rectified, by directing the

Respondent to step up their Pay on par with the pay of Sri

B. Saranagam, their junior with effect from 1.9.1991 and

also to grant all other consequential benefits including

payment of arrears of the salary.

This point is answered accordingly.

Result :

14. In the result petition is allowed. Respondent

shall fix pay of the 37 workmen whose names are mentioned

in the list annexed to the reference on par with the pay of

their junior Sri B. Saranagam w.e.f. 1.9.1991 and also shall

grant all other consequential benefits including payment

of arrears of salary which becomes due to them in

consequence to the above mentioned fixation of pay and

grant of consequential benefits. All this exercise shall be

completed within one month from the date of receipt of

this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1 : Sri Md. Jameeluddin

MW1: Sri P. Rama

WW2 : Sri Md. Sarvar

Krishna

WW3 : Sri M. Dayakar Reddy

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Union subscription receipt.

Ex.W2 :

Union subscription receipt.

Ex.W3 :

Photostat copy of National Coal Wage

Agreement-V.

Ex.W4 :

Photostat copy of representation of workmen

dt.31.12.1998.

Ex.W5 :

Photostat copy of representation of workmen

dt. 11.2.1999.

Ex.W6 :

Photostat copy of representation of workmen

dt. 16.3.99.

Ex.W7 :

Photostat copy of another representation of

workmen.

Ex.W8 :

Photostat copy of calculation sheet.

Ex.W9 :

Photostat copy of National Coal Wage

Agreement-IV dt.1.11.1991.

Ex.W10 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG.III/5B/

35 dt. 4.1.1995.

Ex.W11 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG.III/5C/

1834 dt.3.8.1994.

Ex.W12 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG.III/5B/

1835 dt.3.8.1994.

Ex.W13 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG(P)/5C/

806 dt.3.7.90.

Ex.W14 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG.III/5B

dt. 4.1.1995.

Ex.W15 : Photostat copy of office order No.POC/103/

544 dt. 27.5.1990.

Ex.W16 : Photostat copy of office order No.P.RG(P)/5C/

216 dt. 25.1.1990.

Ex.W17 : Photostat copy of office order No.P(PM)4/4193/

A/Modifn./522 dt. 3.3.1997.

Ex.W18 : Photostat copy of office order No.P(PM)4/4193/

3101 dt. 7.10.1988.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 :

Office copy of lr. No.CIL/C-5/JBCCI/VI/224

dt.18/19.2.2004.

Ex.M2 :

Office copy of lr. No.CIL/III JBCCI/Misc./178

dt.20.2.1984.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 570-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV] lsaVªy

LVksj fMikVZesaV ,aM odZ'kki] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@ 36@2006) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&01&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@27@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 570.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/36/06) 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 The Commandant, Central Store

Department and Workshop, Bhopal and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

24.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/27/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

1586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/36/2006

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Sanjay Puri,

S/o Shri Veer Bahadur Puri,

C/o Bharti Kirana Store,

Bhimnagar, Near Vallabh Bhawan,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Central Store Department & Workshop,

Bhabhanda Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 31-7-2006 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-14012/

27/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Commandant, Central Storage Depot and Workshop,

Bhopal in terminating the services of their workman

Shri Sanjay Puri w.e.f. 4-12-2004 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Pages 5/1 to 5/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was employed by IInd party following due process of law

on daily wage basis from 13-10-93. Gate pass was issued

to him showing date of entry in service. That he had

continuously rendered services in institution of the IInd

party with some temporary breaks. That his services were

discontinued from 4-12-2004 without following provisions

of Sections 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. That he had completed

240 days continuous service during October-03 to

December 04. That the action of IInd party amounts to

illegal retrenchment. He was not issued notice under

Sections 25-F of I.D. Act. He was not paid compensation

in lieu of notice.

3. Workman alleged that IInd party was paying

wages less than minimum wages. Workman had produced

circular of State Bank showing wages at Collector rate.

IInd party got annoyed by it and refused to make payment

of wages to him for six months. As a view to punish him as

he complained about the wages paid to him, termination

of services is dehorse of provisions of I.D. Act, On such

grounds, workman prays for reinstatement with full back

wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6

denying claim of the workman. The IInd party submits

that workman was not employed as skilled workman. The

workman is testing the fact to gain undue sympathy. It is

submitted that workman is engaged at Central Storage

Depot and Workshop (CSD&W) Sashastra Seema Bal

(SSB), Bhopal as unskilled and casual labour on as and

when required basis. The budget was allotted by

Government. That SSB is a Border Guarding Force which

comes under Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and

CSD&W deals in Arms and Ammunition. It is a sensitive

establishment. It is submitted that the establishment of

IInd party is not covered as an Industry. The provisions

of I.D. Act are not applicable to it. The casual labours are

engaged by IInd party as per approval of Director of

Finance dated 2-6-91. That IInd party is an armed force of

Union of India placed in entry No. 2 of Schedule VII of the

constitution of India. Provisions of I.D. Act are not

applicable to it.

5. The unskilled casual labours were engaged by

IInd party as and when required basis. There is no question

of regularizing their services or paying compensation to

them. The workman was paid arrears of wages as per

directions of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim of workman.

6. Ist party filed rejoinder at pages 8/1to 8/2

reiterating its earlier contentions that the work performed

by workman is of permanent nature. He is entitled to be

absorbed in services of IInd party. IInd party is covered

as an industry as per ratio held in Bangalore Water supply

case. That activities of IInd party are (i) systematic activity,

(ii) organized by co-operation between the employer and

employee, (iii) for the production and/or distribution of

goods and services . That services of workman are

terminated in violation of Sections 25-F & H of I.D. Act.

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 establishment of

In Affirmative

IInd party is covered as an

Industry under Section 2(s)

of I.D. Act?

(ii) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and

Workshop, Bhopal in terminating

the services of their workman

Shri Sanjay Puri w.e.f. 4-12-2004

is legal?

(iii) If so, to what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled?

order.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1587

REASONS

8. IInd party in its written statement has denied that

its establishment is covered as an Industry under Section

2(j) of I.D. Act. IInd party has pleaded that it is Armed

Force of Union of India placed in entry No. 2 of Schedule

VII of the constitution of India. Government of India issues

instruction to it. Provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable.

By rejoinder, Ist party submits that as per ratio held in

Bangalore water supply and Sewerage Board versus

A.Rajappa reported in AIR 1978 SC-548, CSD is covered

as an Industry. To be precise affidavit of workman does

not state anything about the activities undertaken in

establishment of IInd party. The management’s witness

Shri H.S.Gaday in his affidavit of evidence in para-1 has

narrated the activities taken by depot of IInd party-

stocking and issuing of arms and ammunition and

equipment etc., repairing of defective Arms in the

workshop, procuring, stocking and issuing in bulk

expendable stores required by SSB, procuring, stocking

and issuing of tools and machinery, arranging disposal of

salvage material. Said part of evidence of management’s

witness is not challenged in his cross-examination. At the

time of argument, learned counsel for IInd party Shri

Chourasia submits that as per Section 2(j)(6) of I.D. Act,

establishment of IIind party is executed from provision of

Section 2(j) of I.D. Act, amended clause (6) provides any

activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign

functions of the Government including all the activities

carried on by the departments of the Central Government

dealing with defence research, atomic energy and space

are not excluded in the said section. Establishment of IInd

party is controlled by Ministry of Home Affairs is not

disputed.

9. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Pranay Choubey

on the point relies on ratio held in

“Case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Versus R. Rajappa and Others reported in 1978-

AIR-548. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with

scope of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act held Triple test to be

applied whether the statutory body performing what is in

essence regal functions by providing the basic amenities

to the citizens is outside the scope of the definition.”

Section 2(j) is amended in 1982 after judgment in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Versus

R. Rajappa and Others.

10. Learned counsel for Ist party workman also relies

on ratio held in

“Case of secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and another versus

Shri Soundararajan and others reported in 1994-II

LLN-217. His Lordship of Madras High Court

dealing with scope of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act,

definition is of very wide import and should be

interpreted in a manner as not to whittle down but to

advance object of Act. Ordnance Depot, Avadi, under

Army Ordnance corp. Which is part of defence

service is industry? Merely because it is a military

department maintained under the exercise of regal

sovereign functions of Central Government, the

establishment doesnot cease to be an industry.”

Their Lordship followed judgment in case of

Bangalore Water Supply Case. The judgment in case of

Union of India versus Central Govt. Industrial tribunal

reported in 1986 L&S-1269.

11. Learned counsel for Ist party also relies on ratio

held in

“Case of Union of India versus Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. equivalent citations 1995-1-LLJ-994-

MP. His Lordship observed sovereign functions,

strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption,

not the welfare activities or economic adventures

undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. Even

in a department discharging sovereign function, if

there are units which are industries and they are

substantially severable, then they should be

considered to come within the fold of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Their Lordship held I

find myself in complete agreement with the opinion

expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of

Soundararajan and Others (supra) that the Central

ordnance Depot being a severable unit of the Defence

Department and is carrying on a systematic activity

with the co-operation of employees and employer, it

satisfies the triple test laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board (supra).”

12. Considering ratio held in above cases and the

activities carried by the IInd party, I hold that the

establishment of IInd party is covered as Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

13. Workman is claiming that he has completed 240

days continuous service. His services were terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. the parties are in

serious dispute about completion of 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of the termination of services.

The management has produced document Exhibit M-1 i.e.

copy of attendance register. On careful scrutiny of Exhibit

M-1, it is found that workman Sanjay Puri was working for

252 days during preceding 12 months of termination of his

services. IInd party has admittedly not issued notice, not

paid notice pay, therefore termination of services of

workman amounts to illegal retrenchment. That provisions

of Section 25-F were not complied while terminating

services of workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point

No. 2 in Negative.

14. In view of my finding in Point No.2 that

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

1588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

arises to what relief the workman is entitled? Whether he

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman

was working on daily wages, his name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He had not faced selection

process. Workman was working in establishment of IInd

party from 13-10-93 to 4-12-2004 for more than 10 years.

However the workman is not in employment since more

than 9 years. He was not working against sanctioned post.

He was working on daily wages. Therefore his

reinstatement with back wages would not be appropriate

instead reasonable compensation would be proper.

Considering circumstances of the case, in my considered

view, considering the period of service on daily wages by

the Ist party workman, compensation Rs.1,50,000 would

be appropriate. Accordingly, I record my finding on Point

No.3.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and Workshop,

Bhopal in terminating the services of their

workman Shri Sanjay Puri w.e.f. 4-12-2004 is

illegal.

(2)

IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs.1,50,000 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] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 571-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj HkrhZ ,;jVsy

l£olst fyfeVsM] ubZ fnYyh ,aM vylkrsyqlsaV usVodZ eSustesaV

l£olst fyfeVsM] xqMxkao ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 115@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40011@04@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 571.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 115/

2012) of the Cental Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bharti Airtel Services Limited, New

Delhi and Alcatel-Lucent Network Management Services

Limited, Gurgaon and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-40011/04/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I. D. NO. 115/2012

Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan,

S/o Shri Chhotelal,

Senior Technician,

C/o All India General Mazdoor

Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund

Khand Giri, Kalkaji,

New Delhi-110 010

...Workman/Claimant

Versus

(1) M/s Bharti Airtel Services Limited

224, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,

New Delhi-110 020

Also at

Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar,

Phase IV, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122 002

...Management No.1

(2) M/s Alcatel-Lucent Network

Management Services Ltd.,

15^th Floor, Tower C, DLF

Cyber Green DLF City,

Phase III, Gurgaon,

Haryana-122 002

...Management No. 2

AWARD

A Senior Technician joined services with M/s. Bharti

Airtel Services Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as management

No.1) on 01.06.2006. He served management No.1 till

31.07.2009, the date when he tendered his resignation. His

resignation was accepted by management No.1 on that

very day and wages for the month of July 2009 as well as

some amount towards full and final settlement was given

to the Senior Technician. Thereafter, he joined services

with M/s Alcatel Lucent Network Management Services

Pvt. Ltd. (in short the management No. 2) on 01.08.2009.

However, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer

claiming that his services were terminated by management

No.1 in an illegal manner. Since his claim was contested,

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-40011/04/2012-IR(DU) New Delhi dated 21.09.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of Bharti Airtel

Services Ltd. in terminating services of the workman,

Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan, S/o Shri Chhotelal,

ex-Senior Technician with effect from 01.08.2009 is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1589

legal and justified. If not, what relief the workman is

entitled to?”

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, the Senior

Technician, namely, Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan opted not to

file his claim statement with the Tribunal.

3. Notice was sent to Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan by

registered post on 16.10.2012, calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on or before 07.11.2012. This

notice was sent to him through All India General Mazdoor

Trade Union, 170, Bal Mukund Khand Giri, Kalkaji, New

Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate Government

in order of reference. Neither the postal article was received

back nor it was observed by the Tribunal that postal

services remained affected from 16.10.2012 till 07.11.2012.

Therefore, every presumption lies in favour of the fact

that the above notice was served upon the claimant.

4. Since none came forward on behalf of the claimant

to file his claim statement, fresh notice was sent to him by

registered post on 12.11.2012 calling upon him to file claim

statement before the Tribunal on 04.12.2012. Another

notice was transmitted to the claimant by registered post

on 06.12.2012 asking him to file his claim statement on or

before 28.12.2012. Notice dated 18.01.2013 was again

dispatched by registered post enabling the claimant to file

his claim statement on or before 28.01.2013. Lastly, notice

dated 30.01.2013 was sent by registered post commanding

the claimant to file his claim statement before the Tribunal

on or before 25.02.2013. Despite service of these notices,

claimant opted to abstain away from the proceedings. No

claim statement was filed on his behalf.

5. Order of reference projects a question as to

whether action of M/s Bharti Airtel Services Ltd. in

terminating services of Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan with effect

from 01.08.2009 is legal and justified? Onus is thereon on

management No.1 to project that its action of terminating

services of Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan was legal and

justified. Consequently, management No.1 was called upon

to file its response to the reference order. In pursuance of

the directions so issued, management No.1 filed its

response to the reference order.

6. When response, so filed, is perused, it emerged

that Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan joined services with

management No.1 on 01.06.2006 as Senior Officer. His basic

pay was Rs.5000.00, besides house rent allowance of

Rs. 3720.00 and conveyance allowance of Rs. 3000.00 per

month. His wages were paid by way of transmission to his

bank account No. 00891050130439. Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan

served management No.1 till July 2009. He tendered his

resignation, which was accepted by management No.1 on

31.07.2009. His wages amounting to Rs.11120.00 were paid

by way of transmission to his aforesaid bank account.

Besides wages, a sum of Rs. 10662.00 was also paid to the

claimant towards leave encashment. After getting his dues,

claimant left servces of management No. 1. He joined

management No. 2 on 1.08.2009. His basic salary, which he

is getting from management No. 2, is Rs. 5938.00, besides

house rent allowance of Rs. 3725.00, conveyance

allowance of Rs. 800.00 and special allowance of

Rs. 5351.00. Thus, he gets a sum of Rs. 15814.00 from

management No. 2, which is higher than the wages which

he was getting from management No.1. It is evident that

Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan resigned the job of management

No.1 in search of greener pastures. It is apparent that

management No.1 has not taken any steps to terminate

services of Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan.

7. As unfolded by management No.2, its name has

been changed to M/s Telesonic Network Ltd. with effect

from 25.02.2013. Certificate issued by Registrar of

Companies has been placed before the Tribunal in that

regard. Consequently, it is evident that the management

No.2 took required steps to change its name, as referred

above.

8. Nothing has been brought over the record by Shri

Naresh Kumar Itkan to establish that his services were

terminated by management No.1. On the other hand,

management No.1 could demonstrate that Shri Naresh

Kumar Itkan resigned the job for good. He joined services

with management No. 2, where he was offered better

emoluments. Consequently, it is concluded that

management No.1 had not taken any action in terminating

services of Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan. It was the employee

who tendered his resignation and marched away. Under

these circumstances, neither any illegality nor

unjustifiability can be noted on the part of management

No.1. Shri Naresh Kumar Itkan is not entitled to any relief.

An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 25.03.2013

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 572-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iz'kklfud

vfèkdkjh] fjtuy bULVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@

vkj@9@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@70@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

1590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 572.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/9/2008) 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 The Administrative Officer, Regional

Institute of Education, Bhopal and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/70/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/9/2008

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Ashok Kumar Singh,

R/o 392/B, Ashoka Garden,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Administrative Officer,

Regional Institute of Education,

Shyamla Hills,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29^th day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 17-1-2008 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-42012/70/2007-IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Regional

Institute of Education, Bhopal in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma

w.e.f. 30-4-2006 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. Ist party workman is challenging his termination

w.e.f. 30-4-2006 from management in the dispute under

reference . Even after issuing notices, neither the workman

nor management appeared in the proceeding till date and

no claim is filed on behalf of parties.

3. 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] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 573-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯izfliy ,aM

vkWnlZ uoksn; fo|ky; lfefr ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@313@99) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@133@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 573.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/313/99) 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 The Prinipal and Ors., Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/133/96-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIA L TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/313/99

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Ram Prakash Shakya,

S/o Shri Ram Sia Shakya,

Vill. PO Mcnhada Ghat,

Distt. Bhind

...Workman

Versus

Principal,

Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Birkhodi, Tehsil Raun,

Distt. Bhind (MP)

Director,

Navodaya Vidyalaya Simiti,

Regional Office,

E-3/3, Arora Colony,

Bhopal

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated 14-10-99 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1591

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-42012/

133/96-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Ram Prakash Shakya w.e.f.

30-4-93 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. The case of Ist party workman is that he

belongs to Scheduled Caste(Koli). He had passed his

middle Exam. He was selected in Class IVth in Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti at Birkhadi. He was posted on 6-9-88.

Appointment order was given to him after break of 2-3

days. He was continued till April 1990. His services were

terminated by Principal. He had submitted representation

dated 18-6-90. Thereafter Ist party workman was continued

on that post without any break till 30-4-93. His services

were terminated orally w.e.f. 30-4-93. Section 25-F of

I.D.Act was not followed. He was not given notice. He

has not paid retrenchment compensation. The termination

of his service is illegal. That Writ Petition No. 1108/93 filed

by him was disposed as per order dated 14-12-95 for

deciding his representation by IInd party No.1.

3. Workman submits that he had completed 240 days

continuous service. His services are illegally terminated

in violation of I.D.Act and Rules 77 mandatory provisions.

On such ground, workman prays for reinstatement with

consequential benefits.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/6. The claim of Ist party workman is totally denied. IInd

party submits that workman was initially appointed as daily

rated employee on temporary basis for 89 days in 1988. He

has no right to claim reinstatement. IInd party further

submits that the workman continued for sometime. His

services were terminated as the workman was engaged as

daily rated employee temporarily. That workman has not

completed 240 days service. He is not entitled to protection

under Section 25-F of I.D.Act. it is submitted that the

workman was paid retrenchment compensation after

disposing his representation. Workman is not entitled to

reinstatement. It is denied that junior employees are

continued. IInd party prays for rejection of the 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 Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal in

terminating the services of

Shri Ram Prakash Shakya

w.e.f. 30-4-93 is legal and

justified?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to

reinstatement as

prayed by him.

REASONS

6. Workman is challenging termination of his

services for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. that his

services were orally terminated. He was not issued notice.

Retrenchment Compensation was not paid . IInd party

denied his material contentions. It is contended by IInd

party that retrenchment compensation was paid to the

workman.

7. Ist party workman filed affidavit of his evidence

covering his contentions in Statement of claim that he had

completed 240 days service. His services were terminated

in violation of I.D.Act, Rules under I.D.Act. However the

workman remained absent for his cross-examination. The

evidence of workman was closed on 2-2-2006. Management

was given opportunity to adduce evidence,.

Management’s evidence is closed on 26-8-2013. From

above, it is clear that both parties did not properly

participate in the reference proceeding. Workman failed to

appear for cross-examination therefore his evidence cannot

be relied. Management has failed to adduce evidence. The

burden lies on workman to prove that he was working

more than 240 days preceding termination of his services

and violation of statutory provision. The burden is not

discharged by workman therefore the action of IInd party

management terminating the services of Ist party workman

cannot be said illegal. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1)

Action of the management of Navodaya

Vidyalaya Samiti, Bhopal in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Prakash Shakya w.e.f.

30-4-93 is proper.

(2)

Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 574-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfoftuy

bathfu;j] VsfydkWe izkstsDV] jk;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@208@98) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@13@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

1592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 574.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/208/98) 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 Engineer,

Telecom Project, Raipur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/13/98-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/208/98

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Samaru,

S/o Shri Brahma,

Vill Ghatkachhar,

PO Sighora,Tehsil Saraipali,

Raipur

...Workman

Versus

Divisional Engineer,

Telecom Project,

7, Sahakari Marg-II,

Choubey Colony,

Raipur (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 2nd day of December 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-40012/13/98/IR(DU). The dispute under reference

relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of

Divisional Engineer, Telecom Project, Raipur (MP)

in terminating the services of Shri Samaru, S/o Shri

Brahma Ex. Mazdoor is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Workman filed Statement of Claim at Page 3/1

to ¾. Case of workman is that he was appointed as

Mazdoor against permanent post in 1986. Though he had

worked more than 240 days in 86-87, his services were

discontinued on 16-2-88. That he had raisied industrial

dispute before ALC challenging termination. In conciliation

proceeding, settlements arrived on 27-12-89 between

parties and he was reinstated immediately without back

wages. On 1-1-91, services of workman were discontinued

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. Termination of his services is in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act.

3. Ist party workman further submits that IInd party

followed policy of hire and fire violating fundamental

rights of the employees. Workman was not served with

notice for termination of his services. That he had

completed 240 days continuous service from 86 to 98,.

That some junior employees filed petition No. 196/90 before

CAT Jabalpur for regularization claiming that they have

completed 240 days continuous service. Said petition was

allowed by CAT, Jabalpur,. Workman also submits that he

is entitled to reinstatement with back wages. On such

ground, workman prays accordingly.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 7/1 to

7/2. The claim of workman is totally denied. It is submitted

that workman was not appointed by management. Such

post was not lying vacant. That workman was not engaged

by DE, Telecom Project, Jabalpur but was engaged by DE

Coaxial Cable Project Raipur which was wound up on 31-

3-91. IInd party further submits that workman was

appointed on muster roll on daily wages. The musters

beyond 5 years are not reserved. Workman was engaged

and discontinued as per exigencies. The dispute is referred

after 12 years. Workman is not entitled to reinstatement.

As he was engaged on temporary basis, workman was not

appointed as per the order passed by CAT, Jabalpur. The

order pertains to only who had approached said forum on

all such contentions, IInd party prays for rejection of

claim.

5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating his

contentions in Statement of Claim.

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 Affirmative

management of Divisional

Engineer, Telecom Project,

Raipur (MP) in terminating

the services of Shri Samaru,

S/o Shri Brahma Ex. Mazdoor

is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

Relief prayed by

is entitled to?”

workman rejected.

REASONS

7. Workman is challenging termination of his

services for violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. That he

was continuously working from 1986 to 1990. He had

completed 240 days continuous service during each of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1593

the year. IInd party denies all the material contentions of

workman. Workman has filed affidavit of his evidence.

However the workman remained absent and failed to make

available for his cross-examination. his evidence was

closed on 28-12-2010. Management also failed to adduce

evidence. The evidence of workman cannot be relied as

he has failed to make available for his cross-examination.

Thus the claim of Ist party is not supported with any legal

evidence. Therefore I record my finding in Point No.1 in

Affirmative.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) Action of the IInd party management

terminating the services of Shri Samaru, S/o

Shri Brahma Ex. Mazdoor is legal.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 575-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj]

vkWMZusUl iSQDVªh] tcyiqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@161@91) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@78@91&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 575.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/161/91) 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 General Manager,

Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/78/91-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/161/91

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

The President,

Ordnance Factory Workers Union.

Type-I, 57/2, Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria, Jabalpur

LRs-

Prabhawati Jhariya,

Pradeep Kumar Jhariya,

Sandeep Kumar,

Pinky Jhariya, Sweta Jhariya,

Sawitri Jhariya

...Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Ordnance Factory,

Khamaria,

Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this12th day of December, 2013

1. As per letter dated Nil 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-14012/78/91-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates

to:

“ Whether the management of Ordnance Factory

Khamaria, Jabalpur MP is justified in not promoting

Shri Ravi Prakash Jharia, Fire Engine Driver Grade-I

to the post of Supervisor-B(NTFB) w.e.f. 1987? If

not, what relief he is entitled to and from what date?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party Union submitted Statement of Claim

at Page 3/1 to 3/2. Case of Ist party Union is that there

were 4 post of supervisor Grade B(NTFB) the candidates

from Reserved Category were not available for some time.

Those post were filled by candidates belonging to General

Category. That IInd party should have kept one post

vacant for the personal belonging to SC/ST as and when

candidate is available. Instead of it, IInd party fills all the

post of General candidates. There is no justification in

promoting persons from General Category to work against

the post reserved for SC, ST. that workman Shri Ravi

Prakash Jharia was entitled to be promoted to the post of

supervisor B (MTMB) since 1987 when he becomes

eligible. However the promotion was denied to him for

arbitrary action by the IInd party. Therefore it is prayed

that workman Ravi Prakash Jharia be promoted as

supervisor Grade B (NTFB) from 1987.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/2. The claim of Union is denied. IInd party submits that

against total sanctioned strength of post of supervisor

(non-technical) for Ordnance Factory, Kaharia, 4 post of

supervisor were allotted to Fire Brigade Section of the

Factory. All those allocated post were filled since 1-4-95.

That workman Ravi Prakash Jharia was appointed as

Labour B Grade on 11-1-78. He was holding the post of

fire engine driver Grade-I in Fire Brigade Section on

1-4-82. That Ravi Prakash Jharia belongs to SC. The

1594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4 posts of supervisor non-technical allotted to Fire Brigade

sections were held by persons senior to Ravi Prakash

Jharia except one got promotion to Supervisor in non-

technical post. As said post was for ST category, no other

ST candidate was available at the relevant time. That

promotion to fill over all vacancy of supervisor Grade B

Non-technical is made following 40 point roster. The

promotions were affected accordingly. That Ravi Jharia

will get promotion to supervisor Grade B as and when

becomes due as per the rules. IInd party submits that the

workman is not entitled to promotion claimed by him.

4. IInd party submitted rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/2

reiterating its contentions in Written Statement.

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 management of

In Affirmative

Ordnance Factory Khamaria,

Jabalpur MP is justified in not

promoting Shri Ravi Prakash

Jharia,. Fire Engine Driver

Grade-I to the post of

Supervisor-B (NTFB)

w.e.f. 1987?

(ii)

If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

6. Though the terms of reference related to the

denial of promotion to Shri Ravi Prakash Jharia in the post

of Supervisory Category B from 1987, the workman died

during pendency. His LRs are brought on record. The

affidavit of evidence of Ravi Prakash Jharia is filed. He

claims to be only candidate belonging to SC. The vacancies

were not carried forward to subsequent year and the

backlog was filled up when C candidate become available,

management in his case inspite of carrying forward

vacancies reserved for SC, General candidate were

appointed. He was deprived promotion. In his cross-

examination, he says that since 1-4-82, he was working as

Fire Engine Driver Grade-I. The post of Supervisor Grade

B fell vacant in 1985. Those posts were filled in 1985. He

was not qualified for promotion in 1985. The evidence of

management’s witness Ashish Bhattacharjee is on the point

that in 1985, there was a common pool for Supervisor (NT)

for all section in the Ordnance Factory. Out of which 4

posts were allocated in fire brigade section. Said post was

to be filled following the rules laid down in SR Rules. That

out of 4 posts, 3 posts were to be filled by General Category

while 4 post are to be filled by ST candidate due to the

non-availability of eligibility of eligible candidates, 4th

post was also filled by General candidate. All the 4 post of

Supervisor Grade B (NTFB) was occupied by persons who

were senior to the workman except one vacancy for ST

category. In his cross-examination, management’s witness

says that the post reserved for ST category was filled

from General candidates as ST candidate was not available.

Workman Ravi Prakash Jharia was promoted as supervisor

Grade-B in 1993. He belong to ST category. That he had

passed certificate of eligibility in 1987. No post of

Supervisor Grade B was vacant from 1987 to 1994. That

candidate of General Category was appointed on vacancy

reserved for ST category. Workman does not belong to

ST category, he belong to SC category. The evidence of

management’s witness that one post of ST category was

vacant as per roster is not shattered in his cross-

examination. In 1985, deceased workman was not holding

eligibility certificate. He had passed certificate in 1987.

Union has not adduced evidence about the roster for

reservation of post and how management has violated the

roster system. All the 4 candidates who were appointed in

1985 were not impleaded as parties. Therefore the action

of the management cannot be said illegal. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of the management of Ordnance

Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur MP is justified

in not promoting Shri Ravi Prakash Jharia,.

Fire Engine Driver Grade-I to the post of

Supervisor-B(NTFB) w.e.f. 1987is legal.

(2) Workman is not entitled to relief prayed by

him.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 576-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV] lsaVªy

LVksj fMikVZesaV ,aM odZ'kki] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@35@2006) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@25@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 576.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/35/2006) 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 Commandant, Central

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1595

Store Department and Workshop, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/25/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/35/2006

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Shivji Giri,

S/o Shri Ramnath Giri,

C/oBharti Kirana Store,

Bhimnagar, Near Vallabh Bhawan,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Central Store Department & Workshop,

Bhabhanda Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 21-7-2006 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-14012/

25/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Commandant, Central Storage Depot and Workshop,

Bhopal in terminating the services of their workman

Shri Shivji Giri w.e.f. 7-1-2005 is legal and justified?

If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was employed by IInd party following due process of law

on daily wage basis from December 96. Gate pass was

issued to him showing date of entry in service. That he

had continuously rendered services in institution of the

IInd party with some temporary breaks. That his services

were discontinued from 7-1-2005 without following

provisions of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.Act. That he had

completed 240 days continuous service during December

December 96 to 7-1-2005. That the action of IInd party

amounts to illegal retrenchment. He was not issued notice

under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He was not paid

compensation in lieu of notice.

3. Workman alleged that IInd party was paying

wages less than minimum wages. Workman had produced

circular of State Bank showing wages at Collector rate.

IInd party got annoyed by it and refused to make payment

of wages to him for six months. As a view to punish him as

he complained about the wages paid to him, termination

of services is dehorse of provisions of I.D.Act. On such

grounds, workman prays for reinstatement with full back

wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to

6/4 denying claim of the workman. The IInd party submits

that workman was not employed as skilled workman. The

workman is testing the fact to gain undue sympathy. It is

submitted that workman is engaged at Central Storage

Depot and Workshop (CSD&W) Sashastra Seema Bal

(SSB), Bhopal as unskilled and casual labour on as and

when required basis. The budget was allotted by

Government. That SSB is a Border Guarding Force which

comes under Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and

CSD&W deals in Arms and Ammunition. It is a sensitive

establishment. It is submitted that the establishment of

IInd party is not covered as an Industry. The provisions

of I.D.Act are not applicable to it. The casual labours are

engaged by IInd party as per approval of Director of

Finance dated 2-6-91. That IInd party is an armed force of

Union of India placed in entry No.2 of Schedule VII of the

constitution of India. Provisions of I.D.Act are not

applicable to it.

5. The unskilled casual labours were engaged by

IInd party as and when required basis. There is no question

of regularizing their services or paying compensation to

them. The workman was paid arrears of wages as per

directions of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim of workman.

6. Ist party filed rejoinder at page 8/1 to 8/2

reiterating its earlier contentions that the work performed

by workman is of permanent nature. He is entitled to be

absorbed in services of IInd party. IInd party is covered

as an industry as per ratio held in Bangalore Water supply

case. That activities of IInd party are (i) systematic activity,

(ii) organized by cooperation between the employer and

employee, (iii) for the production and/or distribution of

goods and services . That services of workman are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F & H of I.D.Act.

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 establishment of

In Affirmative

IInd party is covered as an

Industry under Section 2(s)

of I.D.Act?

(ii)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and

1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workshop, Bhopal in terminating

the services of their workman

Shri Shivji Giri w.e.f. 7-1-2005

is legal?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the workman

Relief prayed

is entitled?

by workman

is rejected.

REASONS

8. IInd party in its written statement has denied that

its establishment is covered as an Industry under Section

2(j) of I.D.act. IInd party has pleaded that it is Armed

Force of Union of India placed in entry No.2 of Schedule

VII of the constitution of India. Government of India issues

instruction to it. Provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable.

By rejoinder, Ist party submits that as per ratio held in

Bangalore water supply and Sewerage Board versus

A.Rajappa reported in AIR 1978 SC-548, CSD is covered

as an Industry. To be precise affidavit of workman does

not state anything about the activities undertaken in

establishment of IInd party. The management’s witness

Shri H.S.Gaday in his affidavit of evidence in para-1 has

narrated the activities taken by depot of IInd party-

stocking and issuing of arms and ammunition and

equipment etc., repairing of defective Arms in the

workshop, procuring, stocking and issuing in bulk

expendable stores required by SSB, procuring, stocking

and issuing of tools and machinery, arranging disposal of

salvage material. Said part of evidence of management’s

witness is not challenged in his cross-examination.

Management’s witness was unable to tell the working days

of workman without going through the record. At the time

of argument, learned counsel for IInd party Shri Chourasia

submits that as per Section 2(j)(6) of I.D. Act, establishment

of IInd party is executed from provision of Section 2(j) of

I.D. Act, amended clause(6) provides any activity of the

Government relatable to the sovereign functions of the

Government including all the activities carried on by the

departments of the Central Government dealing with

defence research, atomic energy and space are not excluded

in the said section. Establishment of IInd party is controlled

by Ministry of Home Affairs is not disputed.

9. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Pranay Choubey

on the point relies on ratio held in

“Case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Versus R.Rajappa and others reported in 1978-

AIR-548. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing

with scope of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act held Triple test

to be applied whether the statutory body performing

what is in essence regal functions by providing the

basic amenities to the citizens is outside the scope

of the definition.”

Section 2(j) is amended in 1982 after judgment in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Versus

R.Rajappa and Others.

10. Learned counsel for Ist party workman also

relies on ratio held in —

“Case of Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and another versus

Shri Soundararajan and others reported in 1994-II

LLN-217. His Lordship of Madras High Court

dealing with scope of Section 2(j) of I.D. Act,

definition is of very wide import and should be

interpreted in a manner as not to whittle down but to

advance object of Act. Ordnance Depot, Avadi, under

Army Ordnance corp. which is part of defence service

is industry. Merely because it is a military department

maintained under the exercise of regal sovereign

functions of Central Government, the establishment

does not cease to be an industry.”

Their Lordship followed judgment in case of

Bangalore Water Supply Case. The judgment in case of

Union of India versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

reported in 1986 L&S-1269.

11. Learned counsel for Ist party also relies on ratio

held in—

“Case of Union of India versus Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. equivalent citations 1995-1-LLJ-994-

MP. His Lordship observed sovereign functions,

strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption,

not the welfare activities or economic adventures

undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. Even

in a department discharging sovereign function, if

there are units which are industries and they are

substantially severable, then they should be

considered to come within the fold of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Their Lordship held I

find myself in complete agreement with the opinion

expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of

Soundararajan and others (supra) that the Central

Ordnance Depot being a severable unit of the

Defence Department and is carrying on a systematic

activity with the cooperation of employees and

employer, it satisfies the triple test laid down by the

Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board (supra).”

12. Considering ratio held in above cases and the

activities carried by the IInd party, I hold that the

establishment of IInd party is covered as Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

13. Workman is claiming that he has completed 240

days continuous service. His services were terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. the parties are in

serious dispute about completion of 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of the termination of services.

The management has produced document Exhibit M-1 i.e.

copy of attendance register. On careful scrutiny of Exhibit

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1597

M-1, it is found that workman Shivji Giri was working for

194 days during preceding 12 months of termination of his

services. Workman failed to establish that he has worked

for more than 240 days. Provisions of Section 25-F cannot

be invoked for his protection. As such I record my finding

in Point No.2 that termination of workman is legal.

14. In view of my finding in Point No.2 that

termination of services of workman is legal, the relief prayed

by workman is rejected. Accordingly I record my finding

on Point No.3.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) Action of the management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and Workshop,

Bhopal in terminating the services of their

workman Shri Shivji Giri w.e.f. 7-1-2005 is

legal.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 577-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dekaMsaV] lsaVªy

LVksj fMikVZesaV ,aM odZ'kki] Hkksiky ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@34@2006) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@26@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 577.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/34/2006) 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 Commandant, Central

Store Department and Workshop, Bhopal and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/26/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/34/2006

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Shivmuni Bharti,

S/o Shri Nathuni Bharti,

R/o Jhuggi No.102/3,

Bharti Kirana Store,

Bhimnagar, Near Vallabh Bhawan,

Bhopal (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Commandant,

Central Store Department & Workshop,

Bhabhanda Road,

Bhopal (MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of July 2013

1. As per letter dated 21-7-2006 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-14012/

26/2005-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of

Commandant, Central Storage Depot and Workshop,

Bhopal in terminating the services of their workman

Shri Shivmuni Bharti w.e.f. 4-12-2004 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 6/1 to 6/4. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was employed by IInd party following due process of law

on daily wage basis from 13-10-93. Gate pass was issued

to him showing date of entry in service. That he had

continuously rendered services in institution of the IInd

party with some temporary breaks. That his services were

discontinued from 4-12-2004 without following provisions

of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D. Act. That he had completed

240 days continuous service during October-03 to

December 04. That the action of IInd party amounts to

illegal retrenchment. He was not issued notice under

Section 25-F of I.D. Act. He was not paid compensation in

lieu of notice.

3. Workman alleged that IInd party was paying

wages less than minimum wages. Workman had produced

circular of State Bank showing wages at Collector rate.

IInd party got annoyed by it and refused to make payment

of wages to him for six months. As a view to punish him as

he complained about the wages paid to him, termination

of services is dehorse of provisions of I.D. Act, On such

grounds, workman prays for reinstatement with full back

wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 8

denying claim of the workman. The IInd party submits

that workman was not employed as skilled workman. The

workman is testing the fact to gain undue sympathy. It is

1598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted that workman is engaged at Central Storage

Depot and Workshop (CSD&W) Sashastra Seema Bal

(SSB), Bhopal as unskilled and casual labour on as and

when required basis. The budget was allotted by

Government. That SSB is a Border Guarding Force which

comes under Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and

CSD&W deals in Arms and Ammunition. It is a sensitive

establishment. It is submitted that the establishment of

IInd party is not covered as an Industry. The provisions

of I.D.Act are not applicable to it. The casual labours are

engaged by IInd party as per approval of Director of

Finance dated 2-6-91. That IInd party is an armed force of

Union of India placed in entry No.2 of Schedule VII of the

Constitution of India. Provisions of I.D.Act are not

applicable to it.

5. The unskilled casual labours were engaged by

IInd party as and when required basis. There is no question

of regularizing their services or paying compensation to

them. The workman was paid arrears of wages as per

directions of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Bhopal. IInd

party prays for rejection of claim of workman.

6. Ist party filed rejoinder at page 9/1to 9/2

reiterating its earlier contentions that the work performed

by workman is of permanent nature. He is entitled to be

absorbed in services of IInd party. IInd party is covered

as an industry as per ratio held in Bangalore Water Supply

case. That activities of IInd party are (i) systematic activity,

(ii) organized by cooperation between the employer and

employee, (iii) for the production and/or distribution of

goods and services . That services of workman are

terminated in violation of Section 25-F & H of I.D.Act.

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 establishment of

In Affirmative

IInd party is covered as an

Industry under Section 2(s)

of I.D.Act?

(ii)

Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and

Workshop, Bhopal in

terminating the services of

their workman Shri Shivmuni

Bharti w.e.f. 4-12-2004 is legal?

(iii)

If so, to what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled?

order.

REASONS

8. IInd party in its written statement has denied that

its establishment is covered as an Industry under Section

2(j) of I.D. Act. IInd party has pleaded that it is Armed

Force of Union of India placed in entry No.2 of Schedule

VII of the Constitution of India. Government of India issues

instruction to it. Provisions of I.D.Act are not applicable.By

rejoinder, Ist party submits that as per ratio held in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board versus

A.Rajappa reported I AIR 1978 SC-548, CSD is covered as

an Industry. To be precise affidavit of workman does not

state anything about the activities undertaken in

establishment of IInd party. The management’s witness

Shri H.S.Gaday in his affidavit of evidence in para-1 has

narrated the activities taken by depot of IInd party-

stocking and issuing of arms and ammunition and

equipment etc., repairing of defective Arms in the

workshop, procuring, stocking and issuing in bulk

expendable stores required by SSB, procuring, stocking

and issuing of tools and machinery, arranging disposal of

salvage material. Said part of evidence of management’s

witness is not challenged in his cross-examination. At the

time of argument, learned counsel for IInd party Shri

Chourasia submits that as per Section 2(j)(6) of I.D.Act,

establishment of IIind party is executed from provision of

Section 2(j) of I.D.Act, amended clause(6) provides any

activity of the Government relatable to the sovereign

functions of the Government including all the activities

carried on by the departments of the Central Government

dealing with defence research, atomic energy and space

are not excluded in the said section. Establishment of IInd

party is controlled by Ministry of Home Affairs is not

disputed.

9. Learned counsel for Ist party Mr. Pranay Choubey

on the point relies on ratio held in—

“Case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage

Board Versus R.Rajappa and Others reported in

1978-AIR-548. Their Lordship of the Apex Court

dealing with scope of Section 2(j) of I.D.Act held

Triple test to be applied whether the statutory body

performing what is in essence regal functions by

providing the basic amenities to the citizens is

outside the scope of the definition.”

Section 2(j) is amended in 1982 after judgment in

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Versus

R.Rajappa and Others.

10. Learned counsel for Ist party workman also relies

on ratio held in—

“Case of secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and another versus

Shri Soundararajan and others reported in 1994-II

LLN-217. His Lordship of Madras High Court

dealing with scope of Section 2(j) of I.D.Act,

definition is of very wide import and should be

interpreted in a manner as not to whittle down but to

advance object of Act. Ordnance Depot, Avadi, under

Army Ordnance corp. which is part of defence service

is industry. Merely because it is a military department

maintained under the exercise of regal sovereign

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1599

functions of Central Government, the establishment

does not cease to be an industry.”

Their Lordship followed judgment in case of

Bangalore Water Supply Case. The judgment in case of

Union of India versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal

reported in 1986 L&S-1269.

11. Learned counsel for Ist party also relies on ratio

held in—

“Case of Union of India versus Presiding Officer,

Central Govt. equivalent citations 1995-1-LLJ-994-

MP. His Lordship observed sovereign functions,

strictly understood (alone) qualify for exemption,

not the welfare activities or economic adventures

undertaken by Government or statutory bodies. Even

in a department discharging sovereign function, if

there are units which are industries and they are

substantially severable, then they should be

considered to come within the fold of Section 2(j) of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Their Lordship held I

find myself in complete agreement with the opinion

expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of

Soundararajan and others (supra) that the Central

ordnance Depot being a severable unit of the Defence

Department and is carrying on a systematic activity

with the cooperation of employees and employer, it

satisfies the triple test laid down by the Supreme

Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply and

Sewerage Board (supra).”

12. Considering ratio held in above cases and the

activities carried by the IInd party, I hold that the

establishment of IInd party is covered as Industry under

Section 2(j) of I.D.Act. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No.1 in Affirmative.

13. Workman is claiming that he has completed 240

days continuous service. His services were terminated in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act. the parties are in

serious dispute about completion of 240 days continuous

service preceding 12 months of the termination of services.

The management has produced document Exhibit M-1 i.e.

copy of attendance register. On careful scrutiny of Exhibit

M-1, it is found that workman Shivmuni Bharti was working

for 256 days during preceding 12 months of termination of

his services. IInd party has admittedly not issued notice,

not paid notice pay, therefore termination of services of

workman amounts to illegal retrenchment. That provisions

of Section 25-F were not complied while terminating

services of workman. Therefore I record my finding in Point

No. 2 in Negative.

14. In view of my finding in Point No.2 that

termination of services of workman is illegal, question

arises to what relief the workman is entitled? Whether he

is entitled for reinstatement with back wages. Workman

was working on daily wages, his name was not sponsored

through Employment Exchange. He had not faced selection

process. Workman was working in establishment of IInd

party from 1993 to December 2004 for more than 10 years.

However the workman is not in employment since more

than 9 years. He was not working against sanctioned post.

He was working on daily wages. Therefore his

reinstatement with back wages would not be appropriate

instead reasonable compensation would be proper.

Considering circumstances of the case, in my considered

view, considering the period of service on daily wages by

the Ist party workman , compensation Rs.1,50,000 would

be appropriate. Accordingly I record my finding on Point

No.3.

15. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) Action of the management of Commandant,

Central Storage Depot and Workshop, Bhopal

in terminating the services of their workman

Shri Shivmuni Bharti w.e.f. 4-12-2004 is illegal.

(2) IInd party management is directed to pay

compensation Rs.1,50,000 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] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 578-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

esustj] VsfydkWe iSQDVªh] fjNkbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@100@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@25@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 578.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/100/2008) 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 Chief General

Manager, Telecom Factory, Richai and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

24.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/25/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/100/08

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Ram Das,

Ex-Chowkidar,

R/o Temar Bhita Thana Cantt.

Jabalpur

...Workman

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom Factory,

Richai, Jabalpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 29-7-08 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/

25/2008-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom Factory, Richai Jabalpur

in terminating the services of Shri Ram Das w.e.f. 25-

1-1993 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 3/1 to 3/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he

was employed by IInd party as watchman from 19-11-87

against permanent vacancy in Pay Scale Rs.750-12-870.

That he was placed under suspension from 3-8-89. He was

suspended w.e.f. 3-8-89. Charge sheet was served on him

on 6-7-90. Two charges were alleged against him. (1) he

unauthorisely entering Telecom Factory , Richai Jabalpur

when he was not on duty and (2) that he had stolen zinc

tiles from godown. Workman submitted reply to the charge

sheet denying the charges. He has requested to stop

enquiry since criminal case was pending against him for

the similar charges. That Disciplinary Authority appointed

Shri Ram Subhag Asstt. Engineer, Telecom Factory as

Enquiry Officer and Shri T.R.K.Prasad Junior engineer,

Telecom Factory, Richai, Jabalpur as Presenting Officer. It

is further submitted by him that no finding was recorded

about charge No.2 i.e. theft of zinc tiles. The Enquiry officer

after conducting enquiry held that charge No.1 was proved.

The report was submitted by Enquiry Officer. The

Disciplinary Authority after receiving Enquiry Report, time

was granted to the workman for submitting representation

about proposed penalty of dismissal. Workman submitted

his representation on 23-9-93. Considering charges against

him, punishment of dismissal would be disproportionate.

Disciplinary Authority did not consider his submissions.

The order of dismissal passed on 25-1-93 exercising

powers under Rule-12 of CCS Rules.

3. Workman further submits that in Criminal Case

No. 1282/01, he was acquitted by Criminal Court of charge

No. 457 of IPC on 30-11-03. That after his acquittal in

criminal case, the workman submitted representations to

the management of IInd party and reminder requesting for

reinstatement but any order was not passed on his

representations. The workman submits that order of

dismissal passed by IInd party is legal. He prays for his

reinstatement with back wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim

of Ist party workman. IInd party submits that workman

was appointed as chowkidar on 18-11-87. While he was

working as chowkidar, he was involved in misconduct.

The workman was suspended vide order dated 4-8-89.

Departmental Enquiry under Rule-14 of CCS Rules 1955

was initiated for unauthorisely entering Telecom Factory,

Richai, Jabalpur and for committing theft of zinc tiles from

godown on 3-8-89. That the Disciplinary Authority

appointed Asstt. Engineer Richai as Enquiry officer and

T.R.K. Prasad Junior engineer, Telecom Factory, Richai,

Jabalpur as Presenting Officer. The enquiry was held

during 8-3-91 to 22-4-92. The workman was given

opportunity for his defence following principles of natural

justice. Enquiry officer submitted his findings with respect

to Article of charge No.1, charge No.2 was not enquired as

it related to theft subject of criminal case. IInd party submits

that for proving misconduct of scaling down the

compound wall, after issuing showcause notice,

punishment of dismissal was imposed. Punishment is legal

considering gravity of misconduct. IInd party prays for

rejection of claim of workman.

5. Workman filed rejoinder reiterating its earlier

contentions and prayed for his reinstatement with back

wages.

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 Chief General

Manager, Telecom Factory,

Richai Jabalpur in terminating

the services of Shri Ram Das

w.e.f. 25-1-1993 is legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

As per final

is entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

7. Workman has not challenged legality of the

enquiry conducted against him Punishment of dismissal

is challenged by him. No enquiry was conducted in respect

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1601

of article of charge No.2 relating to theft of zinc tiles as

criminal case was prosecuted against the workman.

Workman was acquitted in Criminal Case. Copy of judgment

is produced at Exhibit W-3. The reading of judgment in

criminal case shows any of the material witnesses could

not be examined as their presence was not secured. The

witness examined before court, refused to identify the

accused. Thus the material witnesses were not examined

and accused workman was acquitted. The record of

Enquiry Proceedings is not produced by IInd party.

Documents Exhibit W-2 is the order issuing charge sheet

and the charges alleged against the workman. The Enquiry

officer recorded finding that charges were proved

observing that on 13-4-92, in his statement Ramdas himself

admitted that he jumped into the Factory by scaling

compound wall which is a grave misconduct. The statement

dated 13-2-92 in which the enquiry officer placed reliance

is not produced on record.

8. Workman in his evidence on affidavit has stated

that enquiry was conducted against him in respect of the

charge, he entered Telecom Factory in unauthorized manner

when he was not on duty. That he was acquitted in criminal

case. The Departmental enquiry was held against him on

same set of charges. In his cross-examination workman

says that Criminal Case against him was in respect of the

same charge. That his signatures were obtained by the

officer but he was unable to tell his name. That he is

working as labour for his survival.

9. The managements filed affidavit of evidence of

Shri S.S.Paraste. the management’s witness states that

enquiry under CCS Rule 14 was initiated as per

memorandum dated 6-7-90. The Article (1) was Ramdas

unauthorisely entered the Telecom Factory, Richai,

Jabalpur when he was not on duty. Thus committed

misconduct in violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS Conduct

Rule 1964. That said charge was proved in the enquiry.

The Disciplinary Authority accepted findings of the

Enquiry Officer. That on 13-4-92, the workman admitted

that he had jumped into Factory. In his cross-examination,

the witness of the management states that he was not

Enquiry Officer or Presenting Officer. He was not working

in the Factory where alleged incident occurred. That he

was giving evidence as per record. He claims ignorance

whether documents are produced on record or not. He

was unable to tell whether the document was asked by the

workman. The management’s witness was unable to tell

the names of witnesses in support of the charge sheet. It

is surprised to say that the record of Enquiry proceedings

is not produced by the management. Statement dated

13-2-92 is not produced on record. The findings of Enquiry

Officer are not supported by any documents. The workman

had submitted application for his reinstatement. Exhibit

W-5 after his acquittal by criminal court. His request was

not considered. From the evidence discussed above, it is

established that the action of the management terminating

service of workman Ramdas w.e.f. 25-1-93 is illegal.

Accordingly I record my finding on Point No.1.

10. As to Point No.2, question arises to what relief

the workman is entitled. The workman was working as

watchman from 1987, his services were terminated from

25-1-93. The workman in his cross-examination says that

for his survival, he is working as labour. Thus the workman

is in gainful employment after termination of his services.

He is acquitted in criminal case related to theft. Material

witnesses were not examined in the criminal case. The

record of DE conducted against workman is not produced.

The alleged statement of workman dated 13-2-92 admitting

the charge is not produced on record. Thus the Charge

No.1 against workman is not supported by any evidence.

The workman is terminated from service. Normally he would

have been entitled to reinstatement but the age of workman

is shown 70 years in his affidavit of evidence. Thus he

has crossed the age of retirement. Therefore the relief of

reinstatement cannot be granted. The workman was in

gainful employment as per his evidence in cross-

examination. Considering above aspects in my considered

view, compensation of Rs.2 Lakh would be appropriate.

Accordingly I hold and record my finding in Point No.2.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) The action of management of Chief General

Manager, Telecom Factory, Richai Jabalpur

in terminating the services of Shri Ram Das

w.e.f. 25-1-1993 is illegal.

(2) Management is directed to pay Rs.2 Lakh as

compensation 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] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 579-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fMfoftuy

vkWfiQlj (iQksUl)] dksjck ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@10@07) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@62@2006&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 579.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/10/07) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 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 Sub Divisional Officer (Phones),

BSNL, Korba and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/62/2006-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/10/2007

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Shri Sameer Singh Rajput,

S/o Shri Mahaveer Singh,

r/o Ring Road, Qtr.No.15,

Balconagar, Korba (CG)

...Workman

Versus

The Sub Divisional Officer (Phones),

BSNL, Balconagar,

PO Balconagar,

Korba (CG)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of July, 2013

1. As per letter dated 5-1-2007 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/

62/2006-IR(DU). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Bilaspur in terminating the

services of their workmen Shri Sameer Singh Rajput

w.e.f. 1-4-2005 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman filed statement of claim at

page 3/1 to 3/2. Ist party submits that he was appointed as

temporary employee in November 1995 by IInd party. At

the time of his appointment, BSNL was not in existence.

Deptt. of Telecommunication was in existence. His services

were transferred to BSNL from 1-10-2000. BSNL came into

existence, he had continuously worked in IInd party from

November 1995 to 31-3-05. That he is covered as workman

and IInd party is an industry under I.D.Act. He has

completed 240 days service . He was not assigned duty

from 1-4-2005. Refusal to take on duty amounts to

termination of services. That his services are terminated

in violation of Section 25-F, G & H of I.D.Act. Appointment

order or termination order were not given to him. Action of

IInd party is by way of victimization or unfair labour

practice. That he was not in gainful employment. On such

ground, he prays for his reinstatement with back wages.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement opposing claim

of workman. IInd party submits that workman was casual

labour working under contractor. Workman never worked

under the Management of IInd party. That Sub Divisional

Officer has no power to issue certificate about the working.

The Certificate produced by workman is forged document.

Workman is not entitled for reinstatement as his claim is

based on forged document. On such ground, IInd party

prays for rejection of claim.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

“Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd. Bilaspur in terminating

the services of their workmen

Shri Sameer Singh Rajput w.e.f.

1-4-2005 is legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman is

As per final

entitled to?”

order.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman challenges his termination from

1-4-2005. He has filed affidavit of his evidence covering

most of his contentions that he was continuously working

with IInd party from November 95 to 31-3-05. Initially he

was working in Telecom Deptt. From 9-10-01, he was

working with IInd party BSNL. Appointment order or order

of termination were not given to him that he was working

for 10 years with IInd party. His services are terminated

without notice, retrenchment compensation was not paid

to him. In his cross-examination workman says the post

on which he was working was not advertised. If they were

not sponsored through Employment Exchange, no written

test was conduct, appointment letter was not given. Order

of termination was not issued to him. That he was working

as daily wage labour. His attendance was recorded. In his

affidavit, it is written that he was working as casual labour.

He denied that he was working under contract. He was

paid wages under voucher obtaining signature by SDO.

Workman had submitted application for production of

documents. The documents attendance register and muster

roll are not produced by management.

6. IInd party filed affidavit of witness Shri Birendra

Singh. He is supporting the management’s claim that

workman was working under contractor through BSNL.

He was unable to tell name of the contractor. No documents

are produced on record to show that the workman was

working under contractor. The contractor is to submit bills,

names of labours were not mentioned in the bills. That the

contractors are engaged in operational work and not for

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1603

office work. That several petty contractors were working

in the department engaging 20 or more labours. That

workman Sameer Singh was working with contractor

engaging more than 20 labours. The management’s witness

was unable to tell under which contractor Sameer Singh

was working. The attendance of the employees of BSNL

is marked in the Attendance Register. The contractor

maintains attendance register of its employees.

Management also filed affidavit of evidence of witness

Shri S.T.Khan. Said witness has stated that workman

Sameer Singh was working in Contractor M/S. Shabir

Brothers, Korba. The said witness was working as

Supervisor . That workman had not completed 240 days

service. The evidence of said witness remained

unchallenged. The evidence of said witness appears

afterthought as name of M/s. Shabir Brothers contractor

is not stated by MW-I. The name of contractor is not

disclosed in the Written Statement. 3^rd witness Shri D.Patel

tried to support the management that Sameer Singh was

working under contractor for repair work. He had not

completed 240 days. In his cross-examination , MW-3 says

that he had no authority to execute contracts. His affidavit

is silent under which contractor the workman was working.

The management has produced zerox copy of agreement

bearing date 26-12-2002, name of contractor is shown

M/s. Sungrey construction. The evidence on record

adduced by IInd party is not consistent, cogent and reliable

to establish that workman was working under contractor.

Therefore the evidence of workman deserves to be

accepted. From the evidence discussed above, it is

established that the workman was continuously working

with IInd party management form November 1995 to March

2005, his services are terminated in violation of Section

25-F of I.D. Act. For above reasons, I record my finding in

Point No.1 in Negative.

7. As to Point No.2, the question arises to what

relief the workman is entitled. As per evidence on record,

workman was continuously working for 10 years with the

IInd party. Workman is out of employment from 1-4-05 for

more than 8 years. His services are terminated without

issuing notice or paying retrenchment compensation. His

evidence that since 1-4-05, he is unemployed remained

unchallenged in his cross-examination. Considering above

aspects of evidence, workman is entitled to reinstatement

with back wages. Accordingly I hold and record my finding

in Point No.2.

8. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) Action of the management of Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd. Bilaspur in terminating the

services of their workmen Shri Sameer Singh

Rajput w.e.f. 1-4-2005 is illegal.

(2) IInd party is directed to reinstate workman

with back wages.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 580-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj uqDysvj ikWoj

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ,aM vksBslZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2@11 dk 2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@201@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 580.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-

2/11 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Nuclear Power

Corporation Limited and Anr. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42011/201/2011-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-2/11 of 2012

Employers in relation to the management of Nuclear

Power Corporation Limited and Anr.

The Site Director

M/s. NPCIL, TMS (Distt. Thane)

Post Tapp, Via Boiser

Distt.Thane-401 504.

The Director (HR)

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

12^th floor, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan

Central Avenue, Anushakti Bhavan

Mumbai-400 094.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Avinash G. Petkar

Sahkar (DDR) Colony

Ganeshpur

Bhandara-441 904 (MS).

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Mr. V. H. Kantharia,

Advocate.

1604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

For the Workman

Mr. A. P. Kulkarni,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 23rd December, 2013.

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-42011/201/2011-IR (DU),

dated 24.02.2012 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.

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., Tarapur,

Maharashtra Site, Distt. Thane in imposing the

punishment of ‘dismissal from services’ with

immediate effect vide order No.TMS/TAPS 3 & 4/

HR/DC/092501 dated 29/06/2009-01/07/2009 is legal

and justified and in proportion to the charges of

misconduct? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, the second

party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-8.

According to the second party workman, since January

2002, he is employee of the first party. He was serving as

Tradesman-B when he was dismissed from service.

According to him he was suspended on 20/11/2008 for the

alleged misconduct. The alleged act does not amount to

misconduct as the same has not taken place inside the

premises of first party Corporation. The first party served

him with charge sheet dt. 31/12/2008 alleging that, the

workman had given threats to his co-worker Shri

PankajKashyap and to Shri Sheikh Yunus A.R. The first

party conducted inquiry against the second party

workman only for one day i.e. on 18/03/2009. The second

party workman has admitted the misconduct alleged

against him as he was under mental stress, confused state

of mind and due to several mental pressures and with a

view to protect his employment. The admission by itself

cannot take place as proof of allegations of misconduct.

The first party was under legal obligation to conduct full-

fledged inquiry against the employee. The second party

has not given any unequivocal admission of guilt and it

was necessary to examine the witnesses and to conduct

regular full-fledged inquiry against the second party

workman to record the findings of guilt against him.

According to the workman the inquiry is based on mere

admission and the same is not fair and proper. The findings

of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. The Appellate

Authority has dismissed his appeal. The said order is

also not sustainable and the same is totally perverse.

Therefore the workman has raised industrial dispute before

ALC (C). As conciliation failed, on the report of ALC (C),

the Labour Ministry, Govt. of India has sent the reference

to this Tribunal. The workman herein prays that, the inquiry

conducted against the second party be declared illegal

and unfair and findings of the Inquiry Officer be declared

perverse. The workman also prays that the punishment of

dismissal from service be quashed and set aside and the

management be directed to reinstate him with full back-

wages in the cadre of Tradesman Grade-B. He also prays

for compensation from the first party as an additional relief.

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim

vide their written statement at Ex-9. According to them

the workman has completed his training and appointed as

Tradesman-B w.e.f. 24/01/2004. He was on probation for a

period of one year. During the period of probation his

conduct was not satisfactory. Consequently his period of

probation was extended twice. As a member of O & M

Crew of Tarapur Atomic Power Station, the workman was

required to maintain high standard of discipline. However

during his service workman committed serious acts of

misconducts violating various norms of discipline and

indulged himself in intemperate/ violent and riotous

behaviour in the work place as well as in the residential

township. He has remained unauthorisedly absent in many

spells during 2004 to 2006. He was served with couple of

memos for his absence from duty and for misbehaviour

with superiors. As he repeated the misconducts, he was

issued a charge-sheet dt. 23/5/2006 and disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against him wherein he admitted

the charges and was relieved with minor penalty. Again

another charge-sheet was served on him on 15/03/2008

for assaulting an employee at his residence in the

residential township and manhandled two other employees

who tried to pacify him. During the said inquiry second

party workman unconditionally accepted all charges

levelled against him. Considering his apologies and

assurance not to repeat the misconduct, though the

charges were of serious nature, the disciplinary authority

took a lenient and sympathetic view and imposed minor

penalty of reducing his pay for a period of one year without

cumulative effect.

4. On 14/11/2008 the second party abused a co-

employee and assaulted him at the work place in the plant

site. The co-employee suffered injuries on his head as

well as other body parts. On 20/11/2008 second party

workman was suspended. On 31/12/2008 departmental

inquiry was initiated against him. During the inquiry

proceedings the second party workman unconditionally

accepted all the charges levelled against him. He was also

given personal hearing by disciplinary authority.

Considering the gravity and repetitive misconducts the

disciplinary authority ordered second party’s dismissal

from service with immediate effect vide order dated 29/6/

2009. The second party preferred appeal. Appellate

Authority upheld the inquiry, findings and the penalty of

dismissal imposed upon him. The contents in the statement

of claim are false. The workman has given unconditional

admission before the IO. Therefore IO held him guilty and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1605

submitted his report. There is no illegality in the inquiry.

The findings of the IO are based on facts. They are not

perverse. The punishment is not shockingly

disproportionate. Therefore the first party prays that the

reference be dismissed with cost.

5. Following are the preliminary issues for my

determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

no.

Whether the inquiry held against the

Yes.

workman is fair and proper?

If yes, whether the findings of the

No.

Inquiry Officer are perverse?

REASONS

Issue no.1:-

6. In this respect it is the case of the second party

that there was no full-fledged inquiry against him and the

Inquiry Officer conducted only one day inquiry and

submitted his report merely on the basis of his admission.

According to the Ld. Adv. of the second party law is well

settled on the point that an admission itself cannot take

place of proof of allegations of misconduct. In support of

his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Madras High Court

ruling in S.K. Raman V/s. The management of Kundah

Rural Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd. & Ors.1987

(I) LLJ 487. In that case the services of the employee were

terminated on charge of misconduct as employee admitted

the charge in the interview and gave a statement to that

effect. In that case neither workman was served with

charge sheet nor any inquiry was held against him. In the

circumstances Hon’ble Court observed that;

“Inquiry should be held even if employee admits

the misconduct in interview and gives a statement

of admitting the misconduct.”

7. In the case at hand the facts are different. The

employee herein was served with the charge sheet, Inquiry

officer was appointed. He explained the charges to the

workman. In response thereto the workman had admitted

the charges of misconduct. In the case at hand the

admission was not given during the course of inquiry or

interview as in the above referred case. Therefore the

ratio laid down in the above case is not attracted to the

present case. The Ld. Adv. for the second party cited

another Madras High Court ruling in Annamalai V/s.

Regional Manager, Region-IV, State Bank of India &Ors.,

1987(I), LLJ 174. In that case the employee therein had

admitted the guilt therefore instead of holding inquiry the

management dismissed the services on the ground of

admission of guilt. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble High

Court observed that;

“Even assuming that the employee concerned

admitted the guilt, there has been failure to hold

inquiry as per the circular since the charges levied

against him where termed as gross resulting in his

dismissal.”

8. In that case the Bank Board did not follow the

instructions contend in circular. Furthermore the workman

was dismissed without inquiry merely on the basis of his

admission. However, in the case at hand the charge was

framed against the employee. The inquiry officer was

appointed. During the course of inquiry, the inquiry officer

has explained the charge to the workman. He asked the

workman whether he understood the charges levied

against him. Workman admitted the same and he also

admitted the charge of misconduct. Therefore, the inquiry

officer held him guilty and submitted his report to the

disciplinary authority. In this case it was submitted on

behalf of the workman that the admission herein was given

in the preliminary inquiry. The Ld. Adv. for the second

party pointed out that the management witness Mr. P.K.

Bansal in para 2 of his affidavit has contended that on

18.03.2009 at 11.00 hrs, preliminary inquiry was held. I

perused the said affidavit at Ex.-16. In para 2, it is

mentioned that on 18.03.09 at 11.00 hrs, a preliminary

hearing was held at Civil Maintenance Office. In the same

para, it further contended that the workman and the

Presenting Officer, Shri A.N. Mohan Kumar, Dy. Manager

(H.R.) was present on behalf of first party. The charges

were read and explained by the inquiry officer to the second

party. The Presenting Officer presented the case of the

first party. He further says that during the hearing,

workman accepted/admitted the charges against him.

Therefore, no further proceeding took place and inquiry

was closed. He has not stated that, it was preliminary

inquiry it is contended that it was preliminary hearing.

Meaning thereby it was beginning of the inquiry. When

charge was framed and inquiry officer had explained the

same to the workman and recorded his plea, it cannot be

said that there was no inquiry as in the case cited herein

above. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above ruling

is also not attracted to the set of facts of the case at hand.

9. The Ld. Adv. cited another ruling in Natwar Bhai

S. Makwana V/s. Union Bank of India &Ors. 1985 (II) LLJ

296 wherein the Hon’ble Court on the point of admission

observed that

“…..admission by an employee alone is insufficient

proof of misconduct as well as the facts constituting

misconduct.”

In that case main point therein was, the charge of

misconduct was not specifically enumerated in the charge

sheet. It was also not specifically enumerated whether the

said misconduct was gross misconduct. In the

circumstances, the Hon’ble Court has made the above

observation. Thus the ratio therein is not applicable to the

case at hand.

1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the second party

resorted to Rajasthan High Court ruling in State Bank of

Bikaner & Ors. V/s. Jagdish Chandra Khadgawat 1987 LAB.

I.C.112 wherein the Hon’ble Court held that, termination

on the basis of admission of employee before investigating

officer was violation of principle of natural justice. In that

case the admission was during the course of preliminary

inquiry or when the investigation was in progress whereas

the admission in the case at hand was given before the

inquiry officer and not to the investigating officer.

Therefore, the ratio laid down in this ruling is also not

applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

11. The Ld. Adv.for the second party on the point

also cited Bombay High Court ruling in Cock Brand Sinnar

Bidis Ltd., Nasik V/s. Shakuntla Bai Dashrath Khandare

1991 (II) CLR 722 wherein the services of illiterate workman

was terminated on the basis of confessional statement.

She had denied to have given any such confession. The

appellate authority set aside the order of termination. The

matter was taken in writ petition before Hon’ble High Court

wherein Hon’ble High Court while confirming the order

held that the appellate authority rightly emphasized the

fact that the workman was illiterate and in a matter like this

where documents could have been produced and proper

evidence recorded in a domestic inquiry, the petitioner

cannot short circuit the procedure by purporting to rely

on the confessional statement of such an illiterate worker.

In that case the workman was illiterate woman and she

had denied to have given any such confessional statement.

In the circumstances Hon’ble Court held that such

confessional statement cannot be relied upon and it was

not proper to terminate the services of an illiterate workman

without any other evidence on record. In the case at hand

neither the workman is an illiterate person nor he has

denied to have given admission of guilt before the inquiry

officer. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above ruling

is not applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

12. The Ld. Adv. for the second party in this respect

cited the ruling of Delhi High Court in SudeshYadav V/s

Oberoi Flight Services 2012 (133) FLR806. In that case the

service of workman therein was terminated for misconduct

of theft. It is alleged that when her bag was checked by

Security Guard, she had already told him that there were

chocolates insider her bag. On the basis of that the inquiry

officer held her guilty and the management terminated her

services. In this respect the Hon’ble High Court held that

merely finding chocolates in her bag is not sufficient to

prove the theft as the management failed to show that

there were chocolates in their stock and they were stolen

or there was shortage in the stock. In this case neither

there was confession for having committed theft nor the

workman has admitted the guilt. Therefore, the ratio laid

down in this case is not attracted to the set of facts of this

case.

13. The Ld. Adv. for the second party on the point

of admission resorted to Apex Court ruling in Nirmala J.

Jhala V/s State of Gujarat & Ors. 2013 (II) LLN 25 (SC). In

that case the evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry was

relied by inquiry officer. The Hon’ble Court held that the

delinquent had no opportunity to cross-examine persons

examined in the preliminary inquiry and thus, their evidence

cannot be used in regular inquiry, same if used would

amount to violation of principle of natural justice. In the

case at hand as it is discussed herein above the admission

of the workman was not recorded in preliminary inquiry.

On the other hand it was recorded by the inquiry officer in

the regular domestic inquiry. The facts of the cited case

are altogether different. Therefore the ratio laid down in

the above ruling is also not applicable to the set of the

facts of the case at hand.

14. The Ld. Adv. in this respect cited another

Bombay High Court ruling in M/s. Sahney Kirkwood Pvt.

Ltd. V/s. B.G. Kondkar&Ors. 1985 (I) LLR 314. In that case

the workman therein has accepted that what he had done

might be only a mistake but not a crime, what he meant

that it was not a mistake as to merit punishment. The

Hon’ble Court held that the statement was in the nature of

submission and did not amount to a confession of any

guilt on his part. In that case there was no clear admission

of guilt. Therefore, the ratio laid down in this ruling is also

not helpful to the workman.

15. The Ld. Adv. on the point also cited one more

Apex Court ruling in Jagdish Prasad Saxena V/s. The State

of Madhya Bharat AIR 1961 SC 1070. In that case a

Government servant was removed from service on the basis

of statement made by him in inquiry held against other

Government servant. The statement was not amounting

to clear admission of guilt inspite of that he was removed

from service. In the circumstances Hon’ble Court observed

that;

“It is of the utmost importance that in taking

disciplinary action against a public servant a proper

departmental enquiry must be held against him after

supplying him with a charge sheet, and he must be

allowed a reasonable opportunity to meet the

allegations contained in the charge-sheet.”

16. In the case at hand not only the charge was

supplied to the workman, contents therein were also

explained to him. He also admitted before the inquiry officer

that he under-stood the charges and admitted the guilt.

Thus ratio in the above ruling is not attracted to the set of

facts of the case at hand.

17. On the point the Ld. Adv. for the first party

cited one more Apex Court ruling in Roop Singh Negi V/s

Punjab National Bank and Others 2009(1) L.L.N. 806 wherein

the Inquiry Officer has held the workman guilty on the

basis of alleged confession of the workman given to the

Police Officer. The Hon’ble Court held that employee’s

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1607

confession should have been proved. Some evidence

should be brought of record. In that case there was no

direct and indirect evidence to prove the confession of

the workman. In the circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court

set aside the punishment and reinstated the workman

therein. The ratio laid down in the above ruling is also not

attracted to the set of facts of the case at hand as the

confessional statement or admission of guilt was made by

the workman before the Inquiry Officer who explained the

charges to the workman and workman admitted to have

understood the same and admitted the charges. The

workman has also not denied to have given admission

before the inquiry officer. Therefore it requires no other

evidence to prove his admission. In the circumstances

this ruling also does not extend any help to the workman.

18. As against this the Ld. Adv. for the first party

on the point of admission and evidential value thereof

resorted to Apex Court ruling in Delhi Transport

Corporation V/s. Shyamlal(2004) 8SCC 88 wherein in para

7 of the judgement the Hon’ble Apex Court on the point of

evidential value of an admission observed that;

“It is fairly settled position in law that admission is

the best piece of evidence against the person making

the admission. It is however open to the person

making the admission to show why the admission is

not to be acted upon.”

19. The Ld. Adv. also resorted to another recent

Apex Court ruling in Manoj H. Mishra V/s. Union of India

& Ors. (2013) 6 SCC 313. In that case in disciplinary

proceedings appellant workman admitted to the charges

levelled against him and thereupon dismissed for the

misconduct for which he was charged. The Hon’ble Apex

Court upheld the punishment of dismissal. The Ld. Adv.

for the first party also resorted to another Apex Court

ruling in Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra V/s.

Prabhakar Chaturvedi and Anr. (1996) 2 SCC 12. In that

case the workman therein was dismissed from services on

his own admission in writing to the Inquiry Officer about

his carelessness and fault. On the point of admission in

para 4 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed

that;

“Infact on account of the clear admission contained

in writing given by Respondent 1 on 14/12/1984, the

charge against him stood proved on admission and

the only question that remained to be considered

was about the nature of punishment to be imposed

on him.”

20. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to

Apex Court ruling in Central Bank of India Ltd. V/s.

Karunamoy Banerjee AIR 1968 SC 266 wherein Hon’ble

Court observed that;

“If the workman admits his guilt, to insist upon the

management to lead in evidence about the allegations

will only be an empty formality.”

21. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to

another Apex Court ruling in Channabasappa Basappa

Happali V/s. The State of Mysore 1971 (1) SCC 1 wherein

on the point of evidential value of admission in

departmental inquiry, the Hon’ble Court in para 4 of the

judgement observed that;

“……..…infact he admitted all the relevant facts on

which the decision could be given against him and

therefore it cannot be stated that the inquiry was in

breach of any principles of natural justice.”

22. In the light of above Apex Court rulings it is

clear that allegations in departmental inquiry can be held

proved on the basis of admission of facts or guilt. In such

circumstances non-examination of further witnesses by

the management to offer them for cross-examination would

not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In

the circumstances I hold that the inquiry was fair and

proper. Accordingly, I decide this issue no.1 in the

affirmative.

Issue no.2 :

23. In respect of findings I would like to point out

that the charges leveled against the workman were that,

on 16/2/2008 the workman Shri Avinash G. Petkar visited

Shri KailashTagade’s residence and manhandled him at

his residence and caused him injury. It was also alleged

that during the incident he also caused damage to the

household articles of Shri Tagade. It is also alleged that

the behaviour of the workman was riotous at the residential

area near Type 3, C-6 creating panic among the residents

and workman used abusive, un-parliamentary language

against Shri Dhananjay Doye and Paresh Naik who had

tried to persuade him from such riotous act in the colony.

Shri Tagade had lodged complaint about the incident

against the workman. In the domestic inquiry the workman

has admitted all the charges levelled against him and the

Inquiry Officer held him guilty for all the charges. The

findings of the IO are quite consistent as the charges were

admitted by the workman. Therefore the findings cannot

be called perverse. Accordingly I decide this issue no. 2

in the negative that findings of the IO are not perverse. In

the light of findings of issue nos.1 & 2 I hold that inquiry

is fair and proper and findings of IO are not perverse. I

therefore call upon both the parties to argue/ lead evidence

on the point of punishment. Thus the order:

ORDER

(i)

The inquiry held against the workman Shri A. G. Petkar

is fair and proper.

(ii) The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not perverse.

(iii) Issue notice to parties to argue/lead evidence on the

point of punishment r/o 13/01/2014.

Date : 23rdDecember, 2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 581-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj] iQkeZ

e'khujh VSª¯ux ,aM Vs¯LVx bafLVV~;wV] flgksjs ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@157@97)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@54@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 581.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT/

LC/R/157/97) 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 Director, Farm

Machinery Training and Testing Institute, Sehore and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/54/96-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIA L TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/157/97

Presiding Officer : Shri R. B. PATLE

Smt. Aktari,

W/o Shri Jafer Khan,

Behind Railway Station,

Godi Mohalla, PO Budhni,

Distt. Sehore (MP)

...Workman

Versus

The Director,

Farm Machinery Training and

Testing Institute,

Tractor Nagar,

Budhni, Distt.Sehore

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of March, 2013

1. 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-

42012/54/96-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. Aktari W/o Shri

Jafer Khan is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

2. After receipt of reference and notice to parties.

Ist party submitted statement of claim at Page 8/1 to 8/2.

The case of Ist party workman is that she was employed

on daily wages as casual labour in the year 1987 by IInd

party. She rendered continuous service till her termination

in the year 1994. That she had completed 240 days working

in each of the calendar year. That IInd party with ulerior

motive adopted pick and choose policy. The services of

24 employees were regularized. Three of them namely Gulab,

Sivlal, Narmada Prasad were regularized though they were

above 70 years of age. Hiralal, Ashok Kumar and Suresh

who were engaged after Ist party were also regularized.

Services of Ist party were terminated without notice or

paying retrenchment compensation. On above grounds,

Ist party prays for her reinstatement with back wages.

3. Despite of notices send by different modes to

IInd party including notice under Certificate of posting,

IInd party failed to give appearance. IInd party was

proceeded exparte on 15.6.2007.

4. Considering pleadings on record, the points

which arise for my consideration and determination are as

under. My findings are recorded against each of them for

the reasons as below:-

(i)

Whether the termination of

In Nagative

services of Ist party/workman

by IInd party management of

Central Farm Machinery

Training and Testing Institute,

Budhni is just and legal?

(ii)

If not, what relief the workman

Ist party is

is entitled to?”

entitled to

compensation

Rs. 40,000 and

other relief as

per final order.

REASONS

5. Ist party workman is challenging termination of

his services by IInd party. Ist Party filed affidavit of

evidence at Page 10/1 to 10/2. Ist party in her affidavit has

stated that she was working with IInd party from 1987 to

1994. She had completed 240 days continuous service

during each of calendar year. That as per the scheme for

regularization of temporary employees in 1993, her services

were not regulaized, other junior persons were regularized.

The persons who were overage such as Gulab, Sivlal,

Narmada Prasad were also regularized. She prays for

reinstatement with back wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1609

6. The evidence of Ist party/workman remained

unchallenged. IInd party is proceeded exparte, therefore, I

find no reason to disbelieve her evidence. Ist party is out

of employment since 1994. She was not served with notice,

no retrenchment compensation was paid. Ist party is a

rustic lady. Considering those facts, in my considered view

instead of reinstatement, compensation Rs. 40,000 would

be appropriate. In addition, Ist party is entitled to one

month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment

compensation for 7 years service i.e. wages for 105 days.

For above reasons, I record my finding on Point No. 1 in

Negative and Point No. 2 accordingly.

7. In the result, award is passed as under:-

“1.

Termination of services of Ist party Smt.

Aktari by IInd party is illegal.

IInd party is directed to pay compensation

Rs. 40,000 to Ist party, one month wages in

lieu of notice and 105 days wages towards

retrenchment compensation.”

The above amount shall be calculated at the rate of

last wage paid to the Ist party. Amount as per above order

be paid within 30 days from the date of award. In case of

default, the amount shall carry 9% interest from the date

of award till its realization.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 582-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

esustj] VsfydkWe] iatkc ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@516@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 582.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 69/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Chief General Manager, Telecom,

Punjab and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/516/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 69 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/516/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.01.2001

Avtar Singh S/o Lal Singh

R/o. Village Sohana,

Tehsil Mohali, Ropar

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman :

Shri P.K.Longia, Advocate

For the Management :

Shri G. C. Babbar

AWARD

Passed on : 26-9-2013

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/516/2000/

IR(DU)dated 31.01.2001 has refered the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Avtar Singh S/o Lal Singh w.e.f.

June, 1997 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2. The above noted reference was earlier answered

vide award dated 6.10.2010. The management challenged

the award in the Punjab & Haryana High Court through

CWP No.8664 of 2011 and the Hon’ble High Court vide its

order dated 23.5.2013 remanded the case for decision as

afresh while passing the following order:

“Learned counsel would then submit that the three

matters being connected and the issue of master-

servant relationship involved in all the three cases

deserves to be remanded to return proper findings

by resolving the conflict of decisions. His alternative

plea is that in case direct employment is not

established the learned Tribunal ought to have then

addressed itself to the question of relief of

reinstatement at the hands of the contractor since

the termination of the workmen was in contravention

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel

appearing for the management-BSNL has been

unable to reconcile the two sets of awards on the

1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

same subject matter on substantially the same

evidence by the same Presiding Officer.

There can be no doubt that there is apparent conflict

of decisions in the three cases, two on the one hand

and one on the other with both parties feeling

aggrieved by the judicial dispensation. In the

circumstances, there is a broad consensus on both

sides that the three impugned awards deserve to be

set aside and the matter remanded for fresh

consideration by clubbing the three matters to be

heard afresh. It is also well possible for the learned

Tribunal to re-examine the matters and record

consistent findings without letting in any further

evidence by the respective parties.

Resultantly, the impugned awards in the three cases

are set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned

Tribunal for fresh consideration untrammeled by

anything said in this order which will not be taken

as an expression on the merits of the claims set up

by either side. The Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-

Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, is directed to decide

the three cases afresh on the evidence already led

after hearing both the parties. The Presiding Officer

would endeavor to decide the cases by passing a

fresh award/s within four months from the date when

this order is placed before it. It would remain in the

discretion of the Presiding officer to either deal with

the cases separately or by clubbing them.

Ordered accordingly.

Petitions stand disposed of without any order as to

costs.”

3. Therefore, in pursuance of the order of the

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 23.5.2013

the reference in hand is being disposed off by separate

award.

4. The Brief facts of the case according to the

petitioner workman are that he was appointed as waterman

on 01.04.1992 under the management and his work and

conduct was satisfactory. Subsequently on 27.02.1999 his

services were terminated without any notice and in

violation of Section though 25F of the ID Act. He has

already completed 240 days of services with the

management. The workmen’s further stated that he was

shown to be appointed through a contractor which was

sham transaction and the workmen was directly working

and the work on he was engaged was of perennial nature.

It is further submitted that after the termination of his

services, the department has sanctioned 500 posts of

regular majdoor for regularizing the services of the daily

wagers who were engaged part time in Punjab Circle, vide

order dated 20.04.2000 and order dated 10.09.2000. The

work was still available that the management and his

services were dispensed with illegally and no notice was

given to him, the department terminated his services. No

show cause notice or charge sheet was served upon the

workmen, nor any enquiry was held and the management

violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25H, F and

T of the ID Act. The workmen demand that he may

reinstated in services with full back wages.

5. Management filed written statement. The

management alleged that department of Telecom now

known as BSNL is not an Industry nor the claimants are

workman. Claimant was not engaged nor recruited by the

management nor any appointment letter was issued nor

his services were terminated by the management nor the

management paid to the workman. In fact the management

entered into a contract with contractor for providing the

labour for emergency work. The contractor supplied the

labourer. The payment was directly made to the contractor.

Management also pleaded that the workman was not

appointed by the management. The question of

termination of service without notice or without pay does

not arise. It was also denied that the workman has

completed 240 days with the department of the

management. The department of Telecom has imposed a

partial ban on 30.3.1985 for engagement of casual labourer

for any type of work and a complete ban on 22.6.1988 and

it was decided that there shall be no recruitment for casual

labourer even for specific jobs. After the issue of notice

dated 22.6.1988, a need was felt for amending Para 193 of

P&T Manual, which permits engagement of casual

labourer directly or through contractor. In lieu of the ban

imposed by the DOP Letter dated 30.3.1985 and 22.6.1988,

the case of workmen for engagement as workmen cannot

be considered. The management also mentioned in written

statement that department of Telecom has sanctioned 500

posts of Group D. Workmen and other similarly persons

approached the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal

Bench by filling OA No. 980/PB/2000. Hon’ble Tribunal

vide order dated 24.1.2001 directing the respondent passed

the following order :

“On consideration of the matter and after pursuing

the record of the case, we find that respondents are

required to consider the applicants for the purposes

of regular mazdoors, keeping in view of the decision

rendered by the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent

Malkapatnam Krishna District, AP Vs. K.B.N

Visheshwara Rao and others, alongwith other

candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

Once the cases of the applicants are liable to be

considered for The post of regular Mazdoor as per

the written statement, the relief claimed by the

applicants in the present O.A. stands granted to

them as they had prayed their cases for regular

appointment be ordered to be considered.

In that view of the matter, this O.A. is disposed of as

anfractuous. Interim order dated 27.11.2000 stands

vacated.”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1611

6. Management also pleaded that the workman

might have been engaged by the contractor and the

management cannot be fastened with any liability of the

contractor. The claims were not recruited according to the

recruitment rules by the management. Management also

pleaded in its written statement that no seniority list was

maintained in respect of the labourer supplied by the

contractor. The question of retaining juniors to the

workman does not arise. In fact keeping contract labour

has been dispensed with and the contractor was not further

renewed. There is no violation of Section 25 F and 25 C of

the I.D. Act 1947. It was also pleased that no new

appointment has been made after the abolition of the

system of engaging casual labour directly or through

contractor which has been dispensed with on 12.2.1999 as

per Govt. policy. The management also pleaded that the

contractor is a necessary party, but the claimant has

intentionally not impleaded him in the present case.

7. The workmen filed rejoinder reiterating the claim

made in the claim statement.

8. In evidence workman filed his affidavit. He was

cross-examined by the learned counsel for the management.

The workman in his cross-examination clearly deposed

that he has no document in his possession to show his

appointment made by any officer of the department. He

further stated that he has no certificate or any other

document to show his employment from 1.4.1992 to

27.2.1999 with the management. He has also stated that he

has not brought any document to show his performance

of duty as mentioned in para 3 of his affidavit. He has no

document in his possession to show that the wages were

paid to him directly by any officer. He has no duty chart to

support his averments made in para 5 of his affidavit. No

termination letter was given. He has no seniority list of

labourer engaged, so he can not tell who the junior was

and who was the senior in their employment.

9. The management in evidence filed affidavit of

MW1 Vinod Kumar Commercial Officer who tendered his

affidavit Ex.M1 and also relied on documents Ex.M2 to

M7. He also stated in cross-examination that original

documents Ex.M3 to M& are not traceable in the office. It

is admitted by the witness that department had not

maintained any attendance register for marking the

attendance of the workman and he has no record for

payment of wages to the workman.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties

gone through the evidence as recorded in this case and

has also gone through the different cases laws relied upon

and filed by the counsel for the parties.

11. The learned counsel for the workman relied upon

JT 2010(1) SC 598, Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation, JT 2010(I) SC 618 State of U.P.

and other Versus Saroj Kumar Singh, JT 2010(2) Supreme

Court 599 Krishan Singh Versus Executive Engineer, 2010(3)

SLR page 663 Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer,

2010(3) SLR 673 General Manager Allahabad Bank Versus

Shib Shankar Mukherjee, 2011 Lab. I.C. 2799 Devinder

Singh Versus Municipal Council Sanaur., 2011 Lab I.C.

2807 Smt.Shipra Jindal Versus Union of India & ors., 1981(2)

Service Law Reporter 11 Mohan Lal Versus Bharat

Electronics Ltd., AIR1981 Supreme Court 422 Surender

Kumar Verma Versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-

cum-labour Court Delhi and another, AIR 2001 Supreme

Court 3527 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus National

Union Water front workers.

12. The learned counsel for the management relied

upon 1978(4) Supreme Court cases 257, Hussain Bai Versus

Alath factory and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1160

Haryana Electricity Board Versus Suresh Kumar and AIR

1995 Supreme Court 1893(1) Gujarat Electricity Versus Hind

Majdoor Sabha and others, and on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others. The

management also relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi dated 20.3.2013 in WP(C) 3150/2007 BSNL

Vs. Attar Singh and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 969

Ram Singh and others Versus U.T Chandigarh, and a

judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No

292 of 2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jammu Vs. Teja

Singh.

13. Both the parties have been heard.

14. As per reference, the short questions for

adjudication were referred, whether the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workman is

just and legal? The management clearly stated that the

workman was not their employee. Workman was supplied

by the contractor as per agreement. Photocopy of the

agreement have been filed. Workman’s counsel argued

that no original agreement or contract has been filed

despite the repeated orders of the Tribunal as the

agreement is a sham document. Counsel for the

management rebutted the arguments advanced by the

counsel for the workmen and submitted that agreement or

contract can be effective even without any writing or

document. Even an oral agreement between the parties

can take effect. The learned counsel for the workman

pointed out to the photocopies of the attendance sheets

and argued that the workman marked his attendance with

the management and no contractor was involved. The

management in this regard submitted that the copies of

the attendance sheets though not admitted by the

management running from May 1995 to 1996, whereas the

photocopies of the agreements are dated 22.8.1994 and

27.2.1998 has been filed and relied upon by the

management. These agreements clearly mentioned for the

supply of the labourer by the contractor. In this regard the

learned counsel for the management referred to the

statement made by the workman in his cross-examination

in which he stated that he has no document in his

1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

possession to show his appointment made by any officer

of the department. He further stated that he has no

certificate or any other document to show his employment

from 1.4.1992 to 27.2.1999 with the management. He has

also stated that he has not brought any document to show

his performance of duty as mentioned in para 3 of his

affidavit. He has no document in his possession to show

that the wages were paid to him directly by any officer. He

has no duty chart to support his averments made in para 5

of his affidavit. No termination letter was given. He has

no seniority list of laborers engaged, so he can not tell

who the junior was and who was the senior in their

employment. From the above statement of the workman, it

is clear that there is no relationship of employer and

employee between the workman and the management as

the burden to prove this relationship is purely on the

workman and this burden can not be shifted on the

management and the workman certainly failed to prove

this relationship.

15. I have gone through the case laws cited by the

workman. These case laws are not applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the case in hand as the same are

quite different from the facts and circumstances of the

case in hand.

16. In the light of the statement of the workman, it

is clear that the workmen fails to established that they

were the employees of the management i.e. Telecom

department. In the case of Ram Singh and others Vs. Union

Territory Chandigarh and others, Dharam Pal and Others

Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, and Amar

Kumar and others Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others (AIR

2007 S.C.969), Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the

regularization of the service of the contract labour- prayer

for- relationship of employer and employees is question

of fact has to be raised and proved before industrial

adjudicator no relief can be granted before such

adjudication. Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal.

In BSNL Vs. Attar Singh ( Supra) Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi has observed that in respect of workmen who are

found not entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the Act,

no compensation is payable as they, an any event are not

workmen of the petitioner and, consequently no case of

retrenchment is made out by them against the petitioner.

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Jammu Vs. Teja Singh

(Supra), The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the civil appeal

moved by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Jammu.

17. As stated above, the workmen failed to establish

the relationship of employee and employer, therefore, the

workman is not entitled to reinstatement in service as

claimed by him.

18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the

reference is answered against the workman as he is not

entitled to any relief. The reference is answered

accordingly. Central Govt. Be informed. A soft copy as

well as hard copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication

of the award.

Chandigarh

26-09-2013

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 583-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj phiQ tujy

esustj] VsfydkWe] iatkc ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 223@2001] 135@2001] 332@2000] 311@2000]

323@2001] 401@2000] 157@2001] 296@2000] 72@2001] 205@2001]

227@2001] 274@2000] 305@2000] 63@2003] 53@2004] 68@2001]

66@2003] 64@2003] 69@2003] 321@2001] 272@2000] 327@2001]

304@2000] 312@2000] 22@2001] 399@2000] 124@2001] 62@2003]

335@2000] 140@2001] 204@2001] 317@2000] 427 dk 2000) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@44@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@14] 242] 244&245@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@334@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@03] 12] 30@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@263] 200] 334] 168] 519] 161]

193] 515] 157] 192] 199] 391] 311] 556]

268] 581] 292] 372&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@208] 221] 207] 227] 199&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@121@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 583.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 223/

2001, I.D. No. 135/2001, I.D. No. 332/2000, I.D. No. 311/

2000, I.D. No. 323/2001, I.D. No. 401/2000, I.D. No. 157/

2001, I.D. No. 296/2000, I.D. No. 72/2001, I.D. No. 205/

2001, I.D. No. 227/2001, I.D. No. 274/2000, I.D. No. 305/

2000, I.D. No. 63/2003, I.D. No. 53/2004, I.D. No. 68/2001,

I.D. No. 66/2003, I.D. No. 64/2003, I.D. No. 69/2003, I.D.

No. 321/2001, I.D. No. 272/2000, I.D. No. 327/2001, I.D. No.

304/2000, I.D. No. 312/2000, I.D. No. 22/2001, I.D. No. 399/

2000, I.D. No. 124/2001, I.D. No. 62/2003, I.D. No. 335/

2000, I.D. No. 140/2001, I.D. No. 204/2001, I.D. No. 317/

2000, I.D. No. 427 of 2000) of the Central Government

Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now

as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of The Chief

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1613

General Manager, Telecom, Punjab and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

23.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/44/2001-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/14, 242, 244-245/2001-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/334/2001-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/03, 12, 30/2001-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/263, 200, 334, 168, 519, 161,

193, 515, 157, 192, 199, 391, 311, 556,

268, 581, 292, 372-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/208, 221, 207, 227, 199-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/121/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Details of Industrial Disputes to be answered :

(1) Case No. ID 223 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/44/2001/IR(DU)

dated 15.5.2001

Aswani Kumar son of Sh. Dulo Ram,

resident of House No. 133,

Village Atawa, P.O. Badheri,

UT, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Aswani Kumar son of Dulo Ram

w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

(2) Case No. ID 135 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/587/2000/IR(DU)

dated 26.3.2001

Balwant Singh son of Sh. Hazoora Singh,

resident of V.P.O. Mauli Baidwan,

District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh Distt. In ordering

disengagement/termination of services of Sh.

Balwant Singh a workman engaged through

contractor M/s. Gupta w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

and from which date?”

(3) Case No. ID 332 of 2000

Reference No. L-40012/263/2000/IR(DU)

dated 29.8.2000

Bhikhari Ram S/o Sh. Dev Sharan Ram,

resident of House No. 233,

Ramdarbar Colony, Phase-II

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Bhikhari Ram S/o Sh. Dev Sharan

Ram is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled and from which date?”

(4) Case No. ID 311 of 2000

Reference No. L-40012/200/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Bejinder Kumar S/o Sh. Sohari Singh,

resident of House No. 1104,

Ramdarbar, Phase-II

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Bejinder Kumar S/o Sh. Soharad Singh

is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled and from which date?”

1614

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(5) Case No. ID 323 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/244/2001/IR(DU)

dated 6.11.2001

Chatti Lal S/o Sh. Ram Dharan Ram,

resident of House No. 233,

Ramdarbar, Phase-II,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager, Telecom,

Telephone Department, Sector-18-A,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Chatti Lal S/o Sh. Ram Dharan

Ram is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

(6) Case No. ID 401 of 2000

Reference No. L-40012/334/2000/IR(DU)

dated 28.9.2000

Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ayodhya Saw,

resident of House No. 2493,

Sector 27-C,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Manoj Kumar S/o Sh. Ayodhya is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled and from which date?”

(7) Case No. ID 157 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/3/2001/IR(DU)

dated 12.4.2001

Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Teedi Ram,

resident of House No. 6294,

Maloya Colony, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh, Department

in ordering disengagement/termination of services

of Sh. Mohan Lal a workman engaged through

contractor M/s. Gupta w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

and from which date?”

(8) Case No. ID 296 of 2000

Reference No. L-40012/168/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Harjit Singh S/o Sh. Dharampal,

resident of Village Dadumajra,

Near Talaab, UT, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh, Department

in ordering disengagement/termination of services

of Sh. Harjit Singh a workman engaged through

contractor M/s. Gupta w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

and from which date?”

(9) Case No. ID 72 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/519/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.1.2001

Mukhtyar Singh S/o Sh. Puran Singh,

resident of House No. 2230,

Dadumajra Colony,

Sector 38 West,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Puran

Singh w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1615

(10) Case No. ID 205 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/12/2001/IR(DU)

dated 24.4.2001

Ranjit Singh S/o Sh. Mai Ditta,

resident of Village and

Post Office Jyanti Majri,

Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh, in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of Sh. Ranjit

Singh a workman engaged through contractor R. K.

Mittal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?”

(11) Case No. ID 227 of 2001

Reference No. L-40012/30/2001/IR(DU)

dated 27.4.2001

Jasmer Singh S/o Sh. Charanjit Singh,

resident of Village Mirapura,

Post Office Jarout,

Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh, in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of Sh. Jasmer

Singh a workman engaged through contractor M/s.

Nagpal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?”

(12) Case No. ID 274 of 2000

Reference No. L-40012/161/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Swarn Singh S/o Sh. Hardayal Singh,

resident of Village and

Post Office Sohana,

Tehsil Mohali, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh, in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of Sh. Swarn

Singh a workman engaged through contractor R. K.

Mittal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?”

(13) Case No. ID 305/2000

Reference No. L-40012/193/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Hare Ram Mehta S/o Sh. Shiv Nath Mehta,

resident of House No. 1104,

Phase-II, Ramdarbar,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Hare Ram Mehta S/o Sh. Shiv Nath

Mehta is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled from which date?”

(14) Case No. ID 63/2003

Reference No. L-40012/208/2002/IR(DU)

dated 21.3.2003

Sarwan Kumar S/o Sh. Kasturi Lal,

resident of P-1082, Transit House,

Sector-52, Kajehri,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom,\, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Sarwan Kumar, Ex-Peon w.e.f.

27.2.1999 without complying with the provisions of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is just and legal? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

(15) Case No. ID 153/2004

Reference No. L-40012/121/2003/IR(DU)

dated 9.3.2004

Iqbal Singh S/o Sh. Gorakh Singh,

resident of House No. 319/A,

Krishna Enclave,

Dhakoli (Zirakpur)

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Iqbal Singh, Ex-Peon w.e.f.

27.2.1999 without complying with the provisions of

I.D. Act is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

(16) Case No. ID 68/2001

Reference No. L-40012/515/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.1.2001

Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh,

resident of House No. 414,

Ward No. 2, Mundi Kharar

District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Baldev

Singh w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

(17) Case No. ID 66/2003

Reference No. L-40012/221/2002/IR(DU)

dated 21.3.2003

Darshan Singh S/o Sh. Pritam Singh,

resident of Village and

Post Office Bajehri,

Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Darshan Singh, Ex-Lift Operating

w.e.f. 27.2.1999 without complying with the

provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

(18) Case No. ID 64/2003

Reference No. L-40012/207/2002/IR(DU)

dated 21.3.2003

Jasbir Singh S/o Sh. Hazara Singh,

resident of Village Bharongian,

Post Office Mullanpur,

Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Jasbir Singh, Ex-Peon, w.e.f.

27.2.1999 without complying with the provisions of

Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is just and legal? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

(19) Case No. ID 69/2003

Reference No. L-40012/227/2002/IR(DU)

dated 21.3.2003

Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Pyare,

resident of House No. 6312,

Maloya Colony, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Ram Kumar, w.e.f. 27.2.1999

without complying with the provisions of Section

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1617

25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not, so

what relief the workman is entitled?”

(20) Case No. ID 321/2001

Reference No. L-40012/245/2001/IR(DU)

dated 6.11.2001

Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Baryam Singh,

resident of Village and

Post Office Fathegarh,

District Ambala (Haryana)

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Surjit Singh S/o Sh. Baryam Singh,

w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not, so what relief

the workman is entitled?”

(21) Case No. ID 272/2000

Reference No. L-40012/157/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.07.2000

Shamsher Singh, S/o Sh. Karam Singh,

resident of House No. 2428,

BSNL Society, Sector 50-C,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Principal General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the

Principal General Manager, Telecorn, Chandigarh

Department in ordering disengagement/termination

of services of Sh. Shamsher Singh, a workman

engaged through contractor Sh. R.K. Mittal w.e.f.

27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not so what relief the

workman is entitled?”

(22) Case No. ID 327/2001

Reference No. L-40012/242/2001/IR(DU)

dated 6.11.2001

Labh Singh S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass,

resident of Village Haripur Hinduya,

Post Office Rampur Sainia,

Tehsil Derabassi, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

Sh. Labh Singh S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass, w.e.f. 27.2.1999

is just and legal? If not, so what relief the workman

is entitled?”

(23) Case No. ID 304/2000

Reference No. L-40012/192/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Mehma Singh,

resident of Village Manauli,

District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18A,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Jaswant Singh S/o Sh. Mehma Singh

is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled and from which date?”

(24) Case No. ID 312/2000

Reference No. L-40012/199/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.7.2000

Inderjit Chaudhary S/o

Sh. Bhukhan Chaudhary,

resident of House No. 2493,

Sector 27-C,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Inderjit Chaudhary S/o Sh. Bhukhan

Chaudhary, is just and legal? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled and from which date?”

1618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(25) Case No. ID 22/2001

Reference No L-40012/391/2000/IR(DU)

dated 27.12.2000

Rashid Khan S/o Sh. Dina,

resident of House No. 58,

Village Nadyali, Near Masjid,

Tehsil and District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of Sh. Rashid

Khan, a workman engaged through contractor

Sh. R.K. Mittal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and legal? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled from which

date?”

(26) Case No. ID 399/2000

Reference No. L-40012/311/2000/IR(DU)

dated 28.9.2000

Vinod Kumar Ray S/o

Sh. Manohar Ray,

resident of House No. 1107,

Village Burail,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Milan Ram, is

just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled and from which date?”

(27) Case No. ID 124/2001

Reference No. L-40012/556/2000/IR(DU)

dated 13.3.2001

Karamjit Singh S/o

Sh. Parkash Singh,

resident of Village Padach,

Post Office Mullapur,

Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Karamjit Singh S/o Sh. Parkash

Singh, w.e.f. 27.02.1999 is just and legal? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

(28) Case No. ID 62/2003

Reference No. L-40012/199/2002/IR(DU)

dated 21.3.2003

Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Isam Singh,

resident of House No. 2435,

Ramdarbar Colony,

Phase-II, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Telephone Department,

Sector-18-A, Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of

Department of Telecom (BSNL), Chandigarh in

terminating the services of Sh. Randhir Singh,

Security Guard, w.e.f. 27.2.1999 without complying

with the provisions of Section 25 (F), (G) & (H) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled and from which date?”

(29) Case No. ID 335/2000

Reference No. L-40012/268/2000/IR(DU)

dated 29.8.2000

Shivji Ram S/o Sh. Ram Dharan Ram,

resident of House No. 233,

Ramdarbar, Phase-II,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

1. The General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18,

Chandigarh

...Respondent

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the

services of Sh. Shivji Ram S/o Sh. Ram Dharan Ram,

is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1619

(30) Case No. ID 140/2001

Reference No. L-40012/581/2000/IR(DU)

dated 26.3.2001

Jagjiwan Ram S/o Sh. Ram Saran Ram,

resident of House No. 233,

Ramdarbar, Phase-II,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of

Sh. Jagjiwan Ram, a workman engaged through

contractor Sh. R.K. Mittal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

from which date?”

(31) Case No. ID 204/2001

Reference No. L-40012/14/2001/IR(DU)

dated 24.4.2001

Ramjiwan Ram S/o Sh. Ram Saran Ram,

resident of House No. 233,

Ramdarbar, Phase-II,

Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of

Sh. Ramjiwan Ram, a workman engaged through

contractor Sh. R.K. Mittal w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

from which date?”

(32) Case No. ID 317/2000

Reference No. L-40012/292/2000/IR(DU)

dated 24.8.2000

Sukhdarshan Singh S/o

Sh. Gurmail Singh,

resident of Village Ratwara,

Post Office Mullanpur,

Tehsil Kharar, Mohali (Punjab)

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of Chief General Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal

General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in ordering

disengagement/termination of services of

Sh. Sukhdarshan Singh, a workman engaged through

contractor Sh. Anil Kumar w.e.f. 27.2.1999 is just and

legal? If not to what relief the workman is entitled

from which date?”

(33) Case No. ID 427/2000

Reference No. L-40012/372/2000/IR(DU)

dated 31.10.2000

Dara Singh S/o Sh. Babu Singh,

resident of Village Patran,

P.O. Chandiala Sudan,

Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab)

...Applicant

Versus

l. The Chief General Manager,

Telecorn, Punjab Circle,

Sector-34, Chandigarh.

2. The Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Sector-18, Chandigarh

...Respondents

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle,

Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager,

Telecom, Chandigarh in ordering disengagement/

termination of services of Sh. Dara Singh, a workman

engaged through contractor Sh. R.K. Mittal w.e.f.

27.2.1999 is just and legal? If not to what relief the

workman is entitled and from which date?”

APPEARANCES :

For the workmen

: Shri Ashwani Bakshi advocate for

Sr. No.1 to 32. Shri P. K. Longia

advocate for Sr. No.33.

For the management : Shri G. C. Babbar advocate in all

33 cases.

1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Passed on : 26-09-2013

2. The above 33 industrial disputed have been

remanded by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated

23.05.2013 passed in Civil Writ Petition number 10665 of

2011 and CWP no. 21919 of 2011. The relevant portion of

the order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court is reproduced below.

“Learned counsel would then submit that the three

matters being connected and the issue of master-

servant relationship involved in all the three cases

deserves to be remanded to return proper findings

by resolving the conflict of decisions. His alternative

plea is that in case direct employment is not

established the learned Tribunal ought to have then

addressed itself to the question of relief of

reinstatement at the hands of the contractor since

the termination of the workmen was in contravention

of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Rathee, learned counsel

appearing for the management-BSNL has been

unable to reconcile the two sets of awards on the

same subject matter on substantially the same

evidence by the same Presiding Officer.

There can be no doubt that there is apparent conflict

of decisions in the three cases, two on the one hand

and one on the other with both parties feeling

aggrieved by the judicial dispensation. In the

circumstances, there is a broad consensus on both

sides that the three impugned awards deserve to be

set aside and the matter remanded for fresh

consideration by clubbing the three matters to be

heard afresh. It is also well possible for the learned

Tribunal to re-examine the matters and record

consistent findings without letting in any further

evidence by the respective parties. Resultantly, the

impugned awards in the three cases are set aside.

The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for

fresh consideration untrammeled by anything said

in this order which will not be taken as an expression

on the merits of the claims set up by either side. The

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court-I,

Chandigarh, is directed to decide the three cases

afresh on the evidence already led after hearing both

the parties. The Presiding Officer would endeavor

to decide the cases by passing a fresh award/s within

four months from the date when this order is placed

before it. It would remain in the discretion of the

Presiding Officer to either deal with the cases

separately or by clubbing them.

Ordered accordingly.

Petitions stand disposed of without any order as to

costs.”

3. On the request of the learned counsels for the

parties these 33 above mentioned cases are being disposed

off by common award. The brief facts in all above

mentioned 33 cases are, that the services of workmen were

terminated on 27.02.1999 although the workmen completed

240 days of service with the management and the

management while terminating the services of the workmen

violated the mandatory provisions Section 25F, 25H and

25T of the ID Act 1947. It is further pleaded by the workmen

that anything if shown to be engaged through contractor

which was a sham transaction and workmen were directly

working under the supervisions and control of the

management. As the work on which they were engaged

was of perennial nature, therefore the workmen demanded

that their termination may be declared as illegal and void.

4. Management filed written statement in all the

above 33 references taking same plea in all references.

The management alleged that Department of Telecom now

known as BSNL is not an Industry nor the claimants are

workmen. No claimant was engaged nor recruited by the

management nor any appointment letter was issued nor

their services were terminated by the management nor the

management paid to the workman. In fact the management

entered into a contract with contractor for providing the

labour for emergency work. The contractor supplied the

labourer. The payment was directly made to the contractor.

Management also pleaded that the workmen were not

appointed by the management. The question of

termination of service without notice or without pay does

not arise. It was also denied that the workmen have

completed 240 days with the department of the

management. The Department of Telecom has imposed a

partial ban on 30.3.1985 for engagement of casual labourer

for any type of work and a complete ban on 22.6.1988 and

it was decided that there shall be no recruitment for casual

labourer even for specific jobs. After the issue of notice

dated 22.6.1988, a need was felt for amending Para 193 of

P&T Manual, which permits engagement of casual

labourer directly or through contractor. In lieu of the ban

imposed by the DOP Letter dated 30.3.1985 and 22.6.1988,

the case of workmen for engagement as workmen cannot

be considered. The management also mentioned in written

statement that Department of Telecom has sanctioned 500

posts of Group D. Workmen and other similarly persons

approached the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal

Bench by filling OA No. 980/PB/2000. Hon’ble Tribunal

vide order dated 24.1.2001 directing the respondent passed

the following order :

“On consideration of the matter and after pursuing

the record of the case, we find that respondents are

required to consider the applicants for the purposes

of regular mazdoors, keeping in view of the decision

rendered by the Apex Court in Excise Superintendent

Malkapatnam Krishna District, AP Vs. K.B.N

Visheshwara Rao and Others, alongwith other

candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange.

Once the cases of the applicants are liable to be

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1621

considered for the post of regular Mazdoor as per

the written statement, the relief claimed by the

applicants in the present O.A. stands granted to

them as they had prayed their cases for regular

appointment be ordered to be considered.

In that view of the matter, this O.A. is disposed of as

infructous. Interim order dated 27.11.2000 stands

vacated.”

5. Management also pleaded that the workmen

might have been engaged by the contractor and the

management cannot be fastened with any liability of the

contractor. The workmen were not recruited according to

the recruitment rules by the management. Management

also pleaded in its written statement that no seniority list

was maintained in respect of the labourer supplied by the

contractor. The question of retaining juniors to the

workmen does not arise. In fact keeping contract labour

has been dispensed with and the contractor was not further

renewed. There is no violation of Section 25 F and 25 C of

the I.D. Act 1947. It was also pleased that no new

appointment has been made after the abolition of the

system of engaging casual labour directly or through

contractor which has been dispensed with on 12.2.1999 as

per Govt. policy.

6. Earlier 41 cases along with I D number 157 of

2001 Mohan Lal were disposed off jointly as similar

question of fact and law was involved. 32 workmen as

mentioned above challenged the award dated 27.04.2010

before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and the

earlier award dated 27.04.2010 was set aside and these

32 cases industrial disputes have been remanded to this

Court to decide the references afresh. Similarly Dara Singh

also challenged the award dated 28.10.2010 in CWP No.

21919/2011 before the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court and vide order dated 23.5.2013 and the earlier award

dated 28.10.2010 was set aside and this industrial dispute

has been remanded to this Court to decide the reference

afresh.

7. On the request of the counsels for the parties.

these 33 cases along with the case of Dara Singh Vs.

Telecom ID No. 427/2000 which was also remanded by the

order dated 23.5.2013 passed in CWP No. 21919 of 2011,

are being taken up for the decision. I have heard the

learned counsel for the parties gone through the evidence

as recorded in all the 33 cases alongwith the case of Dara

Singh mentioned above and have also gone through the

different cases laws relied upon and filed by the counsel

for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the workmen relied upon

JT 2010 (1) SC 598, Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation. JT 2010 (1) SC 618 State of U.P.

and other Versus Saroj Kumar Singh, JT 2010(2) Supreme

Court 599 Krishan Singh Versus Executive Engineer, 2010(3)

SLR page 663 Anoop Sharma Versus Executive Engineer,

2010(3) SLR 673 General Manager Allahabad Bank Versus

Shib Shankar Mukherjee, 2011 Lab. I.C. 2799 Devinder

Singh Versus Municipal Council Sanaur, 2011 Lab I.C. 2807

Smt. Shipra Jindal Versus Union of India & ors., 1981(2)

Service Law Reporter 11 Mohan Lal Versus Bharat

Electronics Ltd., AIR 1981 Supreme Court 422 Surender

Kumar Verma Versus Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Delhi and another, AIR 2001 Supreme Court

3527 Steel Authority of India Ltd. Versus National Union

Water Front Workers.

9. The learned counsel for the management relied.

upon 1978(4) Supreme Court cases 257, Hussain Bai Versus

Alath factory and others, AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1160

Haryana Electricity Board Versus Suresh Kumar and AIR

1995 Supreme Court 1893( 1) Gujarat Electricity Versus Hind

Majdoor Sabha and others, and on the judgement of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of

Karnatka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others. The

management also relied upon a judgement of Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi dated 20.3.2013 in WP(C) 3150/2007 BSNL

Vs. Attar Singh and others, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 969

Ram Singh and others Versus U.T. Chandigarh, and a

judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.

292 of 2009 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jammu Vs. Teja

Singh.

10. Both the parties have heard.

11. As per references, the short questions for

adjudication were referred, whether the action of the

management in terminating the services of the workmen is

just and legal? The management clearly stated that the

workmen were not their employees. Workmen were

supplied by the contractor as per agreement. Photocopy

of the agreement have been filed. Workman’s counsel

argued that no original agreement or contract has been

filed despite the repeated orders of the Tribunal as the

agreement is a sham document. Counsel for the

management rebutted the arguments advanced by the

counsel for the workmen and submitted that agreement or

contract can be effective even without any writing or

document. Even an oral agreement between the parties

can take effect. Counsel for the management referred the

statement of contractor Ramesh Kumar Mittal recorded in

ID No. 157 of 2001 Mohan Singh vs. Telecom in which

Ramesh Kumar Mittal acknowledge the agreement. The

agreement was made between the management and the

contractor to supply the labour. Para No. 5 of the agreement

clearly mentioned that the department will not be

responsible for any dispute arising as a result of

contravention of labour law. This agreement also

stipulates in Para No.7 that the labour engaged will have

no claim from the department for regular employment. The

parties to this agreement acknowledge this agreement.

Besides this, in ID No. 233 of 2001 Ashwani Kumar Vs.

1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Telecom, the statement of the workman is relevant. In this

case, workman Ashwani Kumar clearly stated in cross-

examination that he has no document in his possession to

show appointment made by any officer of the department.

He is not having in his possession certificate or any other

document to show his employment from 6.3.1996 to

27.2.1999 with the management. He also stated that he is

not having any document to show that the wages were

paid to him (workman) directly by any officer. He has clearly

stated that no termination letter was given.

12. I have gone through the case laws cited by the

workmen. These case laws are not applicable to the facts

and circumstances of the cases in hand as the same are

quite different from the facts and circumstances of the

cases in hand.

13. In the light of the above statement of the

workmen, it is clear that the workmen fails to established

that they were the employees of the management i.e.

Telecom department. In the case of Ram Singh and others

Vs. Union Territory Chandigarh and others. Dharam Pal

and Others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others,

and Amar Kumar and others Vs. UT, Chandigarh and others

(AIR 2007 S.C.969), Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the

regularization of the service of the contract labour-prayer

for- relationship of employer and employees is question

of fact has to be raised and proved before industrial

adjudicator no relief can be granted before such

adjudication. Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal.

In BSNL Vs. Attar Singh (Supra) Hon’ble High Court of

Delhi has observed that in respect of workmen who are

found not entitled to wages under Section 17-B of the Act,

no compensation is payable as they, an any event are not

workmen of the petitioner and, consequently no case of

retrenchment is made out by them against the petitioner.

In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Jammu Vs. Teja Singh

(Supra). The Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the civil appeal

moved by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Jammu.

14. As stated above, the workmen in all the above

33 cases failed to establish the relationship of employee

and employer, therefore, the workmen are not entitled to

reinstatement in service as claimed by all of them ill their

claim statement. Therefore, in view of the above

discussion, the references are answered against the

workmen as they are not entitled to any relief against the

management. The references are answered accordingly.

Central Govt. be informed. A soft copy as well as hard

copy be sent to the Central Govt. for publication of the

award. The office is also directed to keep the original award

in the leading case of ID No. 223 of 2001 Ashwani Kumar

Vs. Telecom and one photocopy be placed in all the

remaining 32 cases.

Chandigarh.

26-09-2013

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 584-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ps;jeSu]

v@D;w ex (oDl) vEckyk dSUV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1325@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@2@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 584.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1325/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Chairman, A/Q MG (WKS) and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-14012/2/2007-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. 1325/2007

Registered on 30.7.2007

Miss Anita D/o Shri S.S. Pati Ex-Serviceman,

H.No.84, S-IV, Partap Nagar,

Ambala Cantt (Haryana)

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman, A/Q MG (WKS),

Lt. Col. S.C. Sipaiya, Bhihpi Subarea,

Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Sh. S.K. Sharma Advocate

For the Management :

Sh. C.L. Sharma Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 24.9.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-14012/

2/2007-IR(DU)) Dated 23.7.2007, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 sub-section (1) Clause (d) and sub-

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1623

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

“Whether the action of the management of Golden

Lion Canteen, Ambala Cantt. in terminating the

services of their workman Miss Anita w.e.f. 21.8.2003

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that she was

appointed as Sales Girl on 1.8.1999 in the Golden Lion

Canteen under the Canteen Department at Ambala Cantt.

by finding her suitable and was initially paid Rs.1500 and

the wages were increased from time to time. That the

services of the persons namely Nirmal Singh and Mohinder

Singh who were junior to her were regularized and she

submitted a written representation on 14.9.2002 for

regularization of her services. She again made a

representation on 12.8.2003. However her services were

terminated by verbal order on 21.8.2003 which are illegal

as she has completed more than 240 days of service.

Respondent-management filed written statement

pleading that the workman was not eligible for appointment

and no selection process was adopted. It is denied that

the persons junior to her were appointed. The workman

was engaged as per requirement and did not complete the

requisite period. She approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal who dismissed her petition vide

order dated 20.1.2004. That the present claim petition is

not maintainable.

Parties led their evidence.

During the pendency of the reference, the

management moved an application that the Central

Government was not competent to make the reference as

the employees of Golden Lion Canteen are not

Government employees and prayed that the reference be

dismissed.

Reply was filed controverting the averments.

I have heard Mr. S.K. Sharma counsel for the

workman and Mr. C.L. Sharma counsel for the management.

It is the case of the workman itself that she was

appointed as a Sales Girl on 1.8.1999 in the Golden Lion

Canteen under the Canteen Department at Ambala Cantt.

Thus she was an employee of the Unit Run Canteen. In

R.R. Pillai Vs. Commanding Officer HQ S.A.C. (U) and

Others in Civil Appeal No.3495 of 2005 the Hon’ble Supreme

Court has specifically held that employees of the Unit

Run Canteen are not Government servants. In view of

this pronouncement of the Apex Court, the workman cannot

be held to be Government servant. When it is so, the

Central Government is not the competent authority to make

the present reference to this Tribunal. Hence the present

reference is not maintainable and is answered accordingly.

Let two hard copies and one soft copy of the Award be

sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 585-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izkstsDV eSustj]

bZ Vh Mh lhesaVs'ku bafM;k fyfeVsM] eaMh ,aM m-j- baizQkLVªDpj

daiuh izkbosV fyfeVsM] fcykliqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 221@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@95@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 585.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 221/

2011) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Project Manager, ITD

Cementation India Ltd. Mandi and U.R. Infrastructure

Company Pvt. Ltd. and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/95/2010-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. 221/2011

Registered on 8.12.2011

Sh. Bhoop Singh son of Shri Paras Ram,

RVPO Jamthal, Tehsil Sadar, Bilaspur

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Project Manager,

M/s. ITD Cementation India Ltd.,

Kol Dam Hydro Electric Power Project,

Village Kayan, PO Slapper,

District Sundernagar,

Mandi (HP)

2. M/s. U.R. Infrastructure Company

Pvt. Ltd., Village Chamb,

Post Office Harnora, Bilaspur

...Respondents

1624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

None

For the Management

None for respondents

AWARD

Passed on 19.3.2012

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

95/2010-IR(DU) Dated 14.10.2011, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Management of M/s. U.R.

Infrastructure Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, a sub-

contractor of M/s. Italian Thai Development Public

Co. Pvt. Ltd., Koldam Hydro Electric Power Project,

Mandi in suspension of Shri Bhoop Singh son of

Shri Paras Ram welder w.e.f. 13.10.2007 and to not

allow on duty is legal and justified? What relief the

workman is entitled to?”

After receiving the reference notices were issued to

the parties but none of them turned up despite notices

sent through registered posts on 20.1.2012. Notices not

received back undelivered. Hence services of the notices

are presumed on them. As the workman fails to file claim

statement, 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] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 586-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj]

VsfydkWe] Hk¯BMk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 267@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@237@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 586.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 267/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the General Manager, Telecom,

Bathinda and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/237/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 267/2005

Registered on 21.10.2005

Smt. Asha Rani, C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, 27349,

Lal Singh Basti Road, Bathinda

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom,

Bathinda

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 9.12.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

237/2001-IR(DU)) Dated 6.11.2001, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Management of General

Manager Telecom, Bathinda in terminating the

services of Smt. Asha Rani W/o Sh. Kake Ram is

just and legal? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that she was

serving as sweeper with the management on a permanent

job from 1.1.1994 on a salary of Rs.300/- per month. Her

services were terminated on 1.3.1999 without notice or

inquiry. That Juniors to workman were retained in service.

Since her termination is against the provision of act,

therefore, she be retained in service with all the

consequential benefits.

Management filed written reply denying the

relationship of employer and employee and further pleaded

that the workman was never engaged by the management.

That management gave a contract for some certain jobs

and she may have been employed by the contractor and

she was never an employee of the management.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1625

In support of her case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed her affidavit reiterating the case as

stated in the claim petition.

But the workman was proceeded against ex parte

vide order dated 10.12.2010.

The management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. Anish Babbar counsel for the

management.

It is the case of the workman that she was employed

by the management on a permanent job of Sweeper on

1.1.1994 on salary of Rs.300/- per month and her services

were terminated on 1.3.1999. But she did not produce any

appointment letter on the file to establish that she was

actually employed by the management at any point of

time. Again there is no evidence that she was ever paid

any wages by the management. In the absence of any

cogent evidence on the file that the workman was actually

employed by the management and her services were

terminated by the management, it cannot be said that she

was an employee of the management and her services

were terminated by it. Being so, she is no entitled to any

relief and the reference is answered against her. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 587-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j

lqifjUVsUMsUV vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQl] fMikVZesaV vkWiQ iksLV~l] jksgrd

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

65@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@76@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 587.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 65/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of the Sr. Superintendent of Post Office,

Department of Posts, Rohtak and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/76/2004-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.65/2004

Registered on 17.1.2005

Sh. Madan Lal S/o Sh. Amar Singh,

H.No.132, Pocket A-3, Sector 7,

New Delhi

...Petitioner

Versus

The Sr. Superintendent of Post Office,

Deptt. of Posts, Rohtak Division,

Rohtak

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. Surinder Gandhi, Adv.

For the Management

: Sh. R.P. Singh, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 23.7.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

76/2004 -IR(DU) Dated 25.11.2004, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Sr. Supdt.

of Post Offices, Rohtak in dismissal of services of

Sh. Madan Lal, EDBPM S/o Sh. Amar Singh, w.e.f.

31/10/2001 is just and legal? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

As per claim statement the workman was working

on the post of EDBPM at village Khadwali District Rohtak

since 1.11.1974. On 10.11.2000 he was charge-sheeted to

embezzle a total amount of Rs.400/- deposited by three

account-holders on 19.3.1999 in their respective accounts.

The workman had made the deposit entries in the

passbooks and R.D journal of the office but he did not

deposit the said amount in Government account. The

workman had denied the charges and an inquiry followed.

According to the workman the inquiry conducted by the

Inquiry Officer is false, fictitious and baseless as copy of

charge-sheet as well as the list of witnesses were not

supplied to the workman at the time of inquiry, no chance

of hearing was given to him nor he was given any

opportunity to cross-examine the witness also. Copy of

inquiry report was not supplied by the Inquiry Officer to

the workman and inquiry proceedings were not written in

his presence. It has been alleged by him that on the

relevant date i.e. 19^th March, 1999 he was ill and under the

treatment of a registered Vaid Ram Kishan and he had

submitted medical certificate. He was not on duty on that

1626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

date. He never embezzled any amount. According to the

claim statement the alleged amount had been given to one

Ashu the son of workman’s brother-in-law, by the

depositors and the said boy had made the entries in the

relevant passbooks but he did not disclose the fact to the

workman. The two of the depositors Bhup Singh and

Satpal were not produced in the inquiry and the statements

given by the witnesses during the preliminary inquiry

under undue pressure were exhibited by the Presenting

Officer. The punishing authority has wrongly mentioned

in the dismissal order that the statement of the workman

was not acceptable and he had made up the story of his

false illness and false information regarding the working

of Ashu son of his brother-in-law to save his skin.

According to the workman, management authority wanted

to adjust their near and dear person in his place and the

story of the management was just to kick out the workman

from the service. His appeal was also rejected by the

Chief Post Master General, Haryana Civil, Ambala. The

workman has alleged that his dismissal is absolutely illegal.

He has prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service

and back wages.

The claim was contested by the management on the

ground that Department of Post is not an industry and its

employees are not workmen and the Extra Departmental

Agents now known as Gramin Dak Sewaks are the holders

of civil posts and their service matters are to be dealt with

by the Central Administrative Tribunal and this Tribunal

has no jurisdiction in the matter. On merits, it was alleged

that the inquiry was conducted as per departmental rules

and instructions on the subject, and full opportunity was

given to the workman. Charge-sheet along list of witnesses

and list of documents had been issued to the workman

under registered AD. Every chance was given to him to

nominate his Assisting Officer to attend the inquiry

proceedings and to cross-examine the witness. The details

of each day proceedings were recorded in the daily order

sheets and one copy of each daily order sheet was given

to the workman either in person or through registered post.

Copy of inquiry report was also supplied to him under

registered AD. The punishment order was passed on

31.10.2001 after giving due consideration to all the relevant

facts and record of inquiry. It was denied that the workman

was not on duty on 19.3.1999 and he did not embezzle any

amount. It was also denied that the depositors had given

the amount to the son of workman’s brother-in-law and

the latter had made the entries in the passbook. According

to the management the deposit entries had been made in

the passbook by the workman and the workman and the

depositors had admitted this fact in their respective

statements. Material witnesses could not be examined in

the inquiry as they did not attend the inquiry despite

summons repeatedly issued to them. The workman had

been given every opportunity to defend his case but he

did not nominate any Assisting Officer and absented

himself also from the inquiry without any information. His

appeal was rejected after due consideration of facts and

circumstances of the case.

In replication the workman asserted that the

Department of Posts is an industry and the petitioner is a

workman and this Tribunal has jurisdiction. Rest of the

replication is the repetition of the claim statement.

In support of its case workman examined himself

but his cross-examination could not be completed as the

management wanted to submit the inquiry record to

confront him. On 4^th August, 2006 his statement was

deferred. His statement could not be concluded sometimes

due to his absence or sometimes due to the absence of his

counsel and sometimes due to the absence of management.

On 30.6.2010 the notices were issued to the workman by

registered post. In reply, a letter was received from the

workman in which he requested for adjournment on

account of his illness and for fixing the case in September

or October 2010. Considering his request the case was

adjourned to 13.10.2010 with a notice to workman giving

him the information about the date fixed but he failed to

appear on 13.10.2010 and also on next date 25.11.2010.

Therefore the case was ordered ex parte against him on

25.11.2010. On the next date 19.1.2011 management witness

tendered his affidavit in evidence. Thereafter even after

several dates the workman did not appear and therefore

the arguments of management were heard.

I have considered the arguments of management

and perused the evidence and the inquiry record. The

inquiry record shows that on the first date of hearing in

the inquiry the workman was present and he had admitted

to have received the charge-sheet and had not admitted

the charge on the ground that he had deposited Rs. 402

on 19.5.2000. He had been given opportunity on his request

to examine the documents with the help of his Assisting

Officer but on the next date the workman did not appear in

the inquiry and the inquiry proceedings were adjourned.

The copy of the order sheet had been sent to workman by

registered post. But on the next date also the workman

remained absent hence the departmental proceedings were

held ex parte. The workman however was provided last

opportunity to nominate his Assisting Officer within a

week after receipt of the order sheet and the order sheet

was sent to the workman by registered post. The inquiry

was adjourned to 14.3.2001. On 14.3.2001 the workman

appeared, but in the afternoon and before his appearance

Surinder, Ramesh Chand and C.B. Singh Inspector (PG)

had been examined. Surinder is one of the depositors.

The copies of their statements were given to the workman

when he appeared. The workman did not nominate any

person as his A.O that day also. He however had informed

that he had no defence document and defence witness to

defend his case.

Thereafter, on several dates the inquiry could not

proceed further and on 11.5.2001 the management closed

its evidence. On 4.6.2001 the workman was examined. The

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1627

copy of the inquiry report had been sent to the workman

and after considering his representation the punishment

order was passed.

It was submitted on behalf of management that in

the inquiry the three depositors namely Bhup Singh S/o

Sh. Chand Ram, Satpal Singh S/o Sh. Meher Singh and

Surinder S/o Sh. Jage Ram who had deposited the money

had been summoned. But out of these three depositors

only Surinder Singh S/o of Sh. Jage Ram appeared in the

inquiry and supported the charge framed against the

workman. The other two depositors/witnesses did not

appear in the inquiry despite repeated notices to them.

Apparently they had been won over by the workman, but

from the statement of Surinder one of the charges framed

against the workman stands proved. It falsifies the

workman’s story that he was ill on the relevant date

19.3.1999 and was not on duty on that date and the

depositors had given the amount to the son of his brother-

in-law namely Ashu. There is nothing on record to show

that the workman was on leave on 19.3.1999 and he had

sent the medical certificate to the department.

The learned counsel for management argued that it

was for the workman to prove that he was not on duty on

19.3.1999 and the depositors had given the amount to his

brother-in-law Ashu. The workman in his claim statement

has wrongly put the burden on the management to examine

the said Vaid under whose treatment he was, and Ashu.

He argued that though the statement of Surinder the

depositor had been recorded before the appearance of the

workman on 14.3.2001 after lunch. But the copy of the

statement of the witnesses had been given to the workman

and he had not requested to cross-examine the witnesses.

I agree with the learned counsel for management

that the statement of Surinder is sufficient to prove the

embezzlement by the workman at least in the accounts

related to the witnesses. I am of the view that the amount

embezzled is not relevant. Relevant is the act of the

employee who was the custodian of the public money.

From the above going discussion I am of the view

that the inquiry held in the matter was fair and proper and

the punishment awarded to the workman was also proper.

Workman is not entitled to any relief. Hard and soft copies

of the award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 588-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dfe'uj]

E;qfufliy dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ MsYgh] ubZ fnYyh ds izcaèkra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2009) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&16012@01@2012&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 588.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 47/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 23.01.2014.

[No. L-16012/01/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No.47/2009

Smt. Anna Kuddi,

W/o Shri Panchalam,

R/o A-393, T Huts Indra Colony,

Camp Trinagar

Delhi 110 035

...Workman

Versus

The Commissioner,

Municipal Corporation of Delhi,

Civic Centre, Kamla Market,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

Twelve days training programme in the field of

computer education was organized in batches for teachers

by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short the

Corporation), Training programme was carried out at six

centres during the year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10.

Computer training was imparted to its teachers by the

Corporation in 60 batches, which training started on

27.04.2007 and came to an end on 22.10.2009. At one of

the Centres located at Science Centre, Tilak Nagar, New

Delhi, Smt. Anna Kuddi was engaged as a safai karamchari

on daily wage basis. She was engaged as such for limited

period of training programme for 27 batches only. When

training programme came to an end, there remained no

occasion for engagement of Smt. Anna Kuddi as safai

karamchari on daily wage basis. Taking it to be an act of

retrenchment of her service, Smt. Anna Kuddi raised an

industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, seeking

1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

her reinstatement in the service of the Corporation. Her

claim was contested by the Corporation. On failure of

conciliation proceedings, failure report was submitted to

the appropriate Government by the Conciliation Officer.

On consideration of failure report, so submitted, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-16012/01/2012-

IR(DU), New Delhi, dated 23.08.2012 with following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi in terminating the services of

Smt. Anna Kuddi W/o Shri Panchalam, Ex-Daily

Wages Assistant with effect from 22.10.2009 is

justified nor not? If not, what relief will be given to

the workman and from which date?”

2. Claim statement was filed by Smt. Anna Kuddi

pleading that she worked as safai karamchari at computer

seminar, held at Science Centre, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi,

on temporary basis with effect from 29.11.2007 to

31.12.2007, 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 and 02.01.2009 to

22.10.2009. She worked honestly to entire satisfaction of

her superiors. On account of her loyal and sincere work,

she was awarded certificate of merit in the year 2007-08.

However, her services were terminated with effect from

22.10.2009 without any reason. She had completed 120

days continuous service and was entitled for grant of

temporary status. Her services were dispensed with in an

illegal manner. She had been discriminated when one Shri

Raj Kumar, junior to her, was allowed to continue in service.

She is a member of scheduled caste community and ought

to have been absorbed against a reserved vacancy. She

claims reinstatement in service of the Corporation with

continuity and full back wages.

3. Demurral was made to her claim by the

corporation pleading that the claimant was engaged as

safai karamchari on daily wages for specific purpose for

some of computer seminars conducted at Science Centre,

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Since her engagement was for a

specific period, her termination, when purpose of her

engagement came to an end, does not amount to

retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). Even

otherwise, she had not worked for 240 days in any calendar

year. She was engaged for a few seminars in the year 2007-

08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Seminars lasted till 22.10.2009

and her services came to an end. Her claim for grant of

temporary status on completion of 120 days continuous

service is unfounded. Provisions of section 25F, 25G and

25H of the Act are not applicable in her case. Her services

came to an end when computer training programme stood

completed. There was no occasion for the Corporation to

terminate her services. No person with the name of Shri

Raj Kumar, junior to her, was working at the Science Centre,

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Smt. Anna Kuddi is not entitled

to relief of reinstatement in service.

4. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(1) Whether the claimant was engaged for

specific period when computer seminars

were conducted?

(2) Whether claimant has rendered continuous

services for 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date of her termination?

(3) As in terms of reference.

5. To discharge onus resting on her, the claimant

entered the witness box. Miss Kamlesh Suman and

Ms. Asha Bector were examined by the Corporation. No

other witness was examined by either of the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Khairati

Lal, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the claimant. 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:

Issue No.1

7. In affidavit Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence,

Ms.Anna Kuddi unfolds that she was engaged by the

Assistant Education Officer, Science Centre, Tilak Nagar,

New Delhi, in 2005. Her services were taken by the

Corporation for different works from January 2006 to

October 2009 continuously without any break. Records

relating to the period from 2007 to 2009 is available with

her, which she produced to substantiate her engagement

by the Corporation. From January 2005 to December 2006,

her services were utilized for distribution of food for

children in MCD Primary School, Karampura, Delhi. Since

the authorities were satisfied with her sincere work, they

shifted her to Science Centre, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, as

Assistant where she worked in the year 2007-2008.

Certificate of merit was awarded by the authorities in her

favour. Her services were utilized not only for specific

work but for different nature of work. She was not allowed

to perform her duties on 23.10.2009 and thereafter. During

course of her cross examination, she admits that payment-

cum-attendance sheets, which are Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/

M27, bear her signatures.

8. Ms. Kamlesh Suman unfolds in her affidavit

Ex.MW1/A that the claimant was engaged as safai

karamchari at Science Centre, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Her

engagement was for a limited period for a few seminars,

conducted at Science Centre, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

Budget allocation letters are Ex.MW1/1 to Ex.MW1/3 in

that regard. Details of payments made to the claimant are

there in Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M27.

9. Ms. Asha Bector details in affidavit Ex.MW2/A,

tendered as evidence, that the claimant was engaged as

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1629

safai karamchari on daily wage basis at Science Centre,

Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, where computer seminars were

conducted by the Corporation. Details of her payments

and attendance record are there in Ex.WW1/M1 to

Ex.WW1/M27. During course of her cross examination,

she unfolds that since the claimant was engaged as a daily

wager, there was no occasion to enquire about her

educational qualification. Claimant never rendered

continuous services of 240 days in any calendar year, hence

was not entitled for grant of temporary status.

10. Facts unfolded by the claimant, Ms.Kamlesh

Suman and Ms.Asha Bector are appreciated in the light of

documents brought over the record. Ex.MW1/1 projects

that 12 days’ teacher’s training programme in the field of

computer education was carried out at six training centres

during the year 2007-08. Training programme was organized

for the teachers by the Corporation in 24 batches. Total

expenditure of Rs.48,69,792.00 was allocated. There was a

demand of Rs.8,11,632.00 per centre for the above training

programme. Ex.MW1/2 brought it over the record that in

the year 2008-09, training programme for teachers was

conducted in 24 batches. Total expenditure of

Rs.49,61,088.00 was sanctioned. There was demand of

Rs.8,26,848.00 per centre to carry out training programme.

Training programme was conducted at these centres, as

was done in the year 2007-2008. Ex.MW1/3 highlights

that in the year 2009-2010 training programme was

conducted in 12 batchers, held at six training centres. Out

of facts detailed in above three documents, it came to light

that the Corporation decided to impart computer education

to its teachers. For training, teachers were sent in all 60

batches to six training centre. Training started on

07.04.2007 and lasted upto 22.10.2009.

11. Attendance sheet-cum-payment record in

respect of the claimant has been proved as Ex. WW1/M1

to Ex. WW1/M27. Claimant does not dispute authenticity

of these documents. Out of Ex. WW1/M1, it came to light

that the claimant was initially engaged on 29.11.2007 and

she worked for 12 days in batch No.73. She was again

engaged in batch No.74 and worked for 12 days, as emerge

out of Ex. WW1/M2. In the same manner, she worked for

12 days in batch No.75, which fact came over the record

through Ex. WW1/M3. In batch No.76, claimant worked

for 12 days as is evident out of Ex. WW1/M4. These

documents bring it to the light that in the year 2007-08,

claimant was engaged as sweeper to work in batch No.73,

74, 75 and 76 only. Attendance sheets-cum-payment

record, which are Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M4, make it

evident that the claimant appended her signatures on each

and every date when her services were availed. Her wages

were paid at daily rate basis after completion of training of

each batch. Above documents make it apparent that the

claimant was well aware that she was engaged for training

programme which was batch-wise and on conclusion of

training of a particular batch, her term of engagement came

to an end.

12. Training programme for the year 2008-09 started

from 15.04.2008 and came to an end on 27.03.2009. In all 24

batches, teachers took training during the aforesaid

academic year. Services of the claimant were availed in

batch No.85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103 and

104, as emerge out of attendance sheet-cum-payment

record, Ex.WW1/M5 to Ex.WW1/18. She was made to sign

against attendance of each day when her services were

availed. On completion of training of each batch, her

payment was released. Out of the above documents, it is

evident that claimant was well aware that her services were

availed by the Corporation during the training programmes

in a particular batch. She was not under any misconception

to the effect that she was rendering services against a

sanctioned post.

13. Training programme for the year 2009-2010

started on 15.04.2009 and lasted till 22.10.2009. Only 12

batches of teachers were imparted training in the academic

year 2009-2010. Services of the claimant were availed in

batch No.105 with effect from 17.04.2009 to 28.04.2009.

She was also made to work in batch No.106. 107, 108, 109,

113, 114, 115 and 116, as emerge out of documents

Ex.WW1/M19 to Ex.WW1/M27. These documents bring

it over the carpet that the claimant signed each day’s

attendance sheet as and when her services were availed.

Her wages were paid on completion of training of each

batch. These facts crystallize that the claimant was well

aware that her services were engaged for a specific period,

as and when computer seminars were conducted.

14. Onus was there on the claimant to establish that

her services were engaged against a regular post. In order

to discharge onus resting on her, claimant had tendered

her affidavit Ex.WW1/A, wherein bald facts are narrated.

Facts unfolded by the claimant, to the effect that her

services were engaged against Group D post, do not get

any confirmation from any other evidence, documentary

or otherwise. Contra to it, her attendance sheet-cum-

payment record proved as Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M27

make it clear that services of the claimant were engaged in

different batches, when computer training was imparted

by the Corporation to its teachers in academic year 2007-

2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. There is absolutely no

evidence to record findings to the effect that the claimant

was engaged against a vacant Group D post. The

Corporation has been able to being it over the record that

the services of the claimant were availed for a specific

purpose, as and when batches of teachers underwent

computer training. The issue is, therefore, answered in

favour of the Corporation and against the claimant.

1630

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Issue No. 2

15. In order to establish that she rendered

continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, the

claimant presses her affidavit Ex.WW1/A in service.

However, she concedes that payment-cum-attendance

sheets Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M27 pertain to the periods

for which she was engaged by the Corporation. Contra to

facts unfolded by the claimant, Ms. Kamlesh Suman and

Ms. Asha Bector detail that the claimant was engaged in a

few batches, when computer training was imparted to its

teachers by the Corporation. Witnesses brought by the

Corporation conclude that the claimant did not render

continuous service for 240 days in any calendar year.

16. Section 25F of the Act lays down conditions

pre-requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month’s notice in

writing to the workman concerned.

(ii)

The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii)

The period of one month’s notice should

have expired before retrenchment is enforced,

or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice the wages for the period.

(iv)

The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent

to 15 days’ average pay for every one years’

service or any part thereof provided it

exceeds six months.

(v)

The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

17. For seeking protection under section 25-F of

the Act an employee should be in continuous service

under an employer for not less than one year. Continuous

service for a period of one year may include period of

interruption on account of sickness or authorized leave or

accident or strike, which is not illegal or lockout or

cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part

of the workmen, as enacted by provisions of sub-section

(1) of section 25B of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said

section introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a

workman is not in “continuous service” within the meaning

of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall

be deemed to in continuous service for that period under

an employer if he has actually worked for the days specified

in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968

Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year’s period

contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman actually

worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

18. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years’ service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

“Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed One year’s service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than. 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25B has

further to show that he has worked during all the

period he has been in the service of the employer for

240 days in the year”.

19. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under section 25-B of the Act will operate if

workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The explanation appended to section 25-B of the

Act specifically includes the days on which workman was

laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with

full wages, or he has been absent due to temporary

disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment and in the case of a female,

maternity leave, under the expression ‘actually worked’

used under sub-section (2) of section 25-B of the Act.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the

words ‘actually worked’ would not include holidays,

Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid.

The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition

in American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ

539], wherein it was ruled that the expression ‘actually

worked under the employer’. cannot mean those days only

when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but

must necessarily comprehend all those days during which

he was in the employment of the employer and for which

he had been paid wages either under express or implied

contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing

orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other

holidays, would be comprehended in the words ‘actually

worked” and it countenanced the contention of the

employer that only days which are mentioned in the

explanation should be taken into account for the purpose

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1631

of calculating the number of days on which the workman

had actually worked though he had not so worked and no

other days. The Court observed that the explanation is

only clarificatory, as all explanations are, and cannot be

used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent

in Lalappa Lingappa (1981 (1) LLJ 308) was distinguished

by the Apex Court in the case referred above. The

precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of

India Ltd. (1986 (1) LLJ 34). Thus, it is crystal clear from

the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be

included in computing continuous service under section

25-B of the Act.

20. The Tribunal is saddled with a responsibility to

scrutinize the records, referred above, to ascertain whether

the claimant had rendered continuous services of 240 days

in any calendar year. When Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/M27

are scrutinized, it came over the record, that the claimant

worked for a period of 183 days only from 22.10.2009 to

23.09.2008. She worked for a period of 131 days from

24.09.2008 to 23.08.2004.

21. Period of service rendered by the claimant, as

detailed above, nowhere includes Sundays and holidays.

In a year, an employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides

three national holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three

national holidays are added to the periods referred above,

in none of the years, she reaches notional figure of 240

days, to claim continuous service for a period of one year.

Resultantly, it is obvious that the claimant has not been

able to project that she rendered continuous service of

240 days to avail benefit of provisions of section 25F of

the Act.

22. Though the claimant asserts that she served

the Corporation since 2005 till 22.10.2009 continuously,

yet she made bald assertions in that regard in her affidavit

Ex.WW1/A. No document such as salary slip or wage

receipt or any record or order issued by the Corporation

was brought over the record to substantiate factum of

continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year, not to

talk of continuous service of five years, as claimed. Self-

serving words, detailed by the claimant, are not sufficient

to discharge burden resting on her. Burden to prove that

she had rendered continuous service of 240 days in a

calendar year lies on the claimant. To discharge that

burden, she had to lead cogent evidence to show that she

had in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding her

termination. Mere filing of affidavit or by giving her own

statement was found not to be enough by the Apex Court,

to prove factum that the claimant had worked with the

management for 240 days, in Rajasthan Sate Ganganagar

Mills Ltd. [2004 (103) FLR 192] and Essen Deinki [2003 SC

(L&S) 113]. Also see Municipal Corporation, Faridabad

[2004 (8) SCC 195] and Reserve Bank of India [2005 (5)

SCC 100].

23. In such a situation, onus lies on the claimant to

prove that she worked for 240 days in a calendar with the

Corporation. To discharge that onus, apart from oral

evidence, claimant had not produced any evidence to

prove the fact that she had worked for 240 days in a

calendar year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages or

any record or order in that regard was produced to establish

that she had rendered continuous service for a period of

240 days in a calendar year. The claimant opted not to

examine a co-worker or to produce any document to

contradict facts recorded in the attendance-cum-payment

record, produced by the Corporation before the Tribunal.

Therefore, it is crystal clear that the claimant has not been

able to prove that she had rendered continuous service of

240 days in any calendar year, to entitle her for protection

of section 25F of the Act. In view of these reasons, the

issue is answered in favour of the Corporation and against

the claimant.

Issue No. 3

24. Claimant asserts that by not allowing her to

perform her duties on 23.10.2009, her services were

retrenched by the Corporation. On the other hand,

Ms. Kamlesh Suman and Ms. Asha Bector claim that the

claimant was engaged in a few batches when training was

imparted to its teachers by the Corporation. To substantiate

their point of view, attendance-cum-payment record was

proved by these witnesses. Ex.WW1/M1 to Ex.WW1/

M27 could bring it over the record that the claimant was

engaged for a specific propose, when training was

imparted by the Corporation to its teachers. When training

programme came to an end, her services were not availed

of thereafter. Question for consideration would be as to

whether action of the Corporation in not renewing contract

of employment of the claimant would amount to

retrenchment? For an answer, definition of the term

‘retrenchment’ is to be construed. Clause (oo) of section 2

of the Act defines terms “retrenchment”. For sake of

convenience, the said definition is extracted thus:

“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation in

that behalf; or

(bb)

termination of the services of the workman as

a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

1632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

25. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

26. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the

ambit of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination of

the service of a workman as a result of non-renewal of the

contract of employment between the employer and the

workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination of the

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part

relates to termination of service of a workman as a result

of non-renewal of the contract of employment between

the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry.

Thus “non-renewal of contract of employment” pre-

supposes an existing contract of employment, which is

not renewed. When services of an employee is terminated

on account of non-renewal of contract of employment,

between the employer and the workman, it does not amount

to retrenchment. The second part refers to “such contract”

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf

contained therein. The cases contemplated, under this part

too, would not amount to retrenchment. However this sub-

clause, being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo)

of section 2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly

when contractual agreement is used as modus operandi

to frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or

permanent against a job. The adjudicator has to address

himself to the question whether the period of employment

was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device

to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment.

See Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. I.C. 1607), Dilip

Hanumant Rao Shrike (1990 Lab. I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh

[1990 (1) LLJ. 443]. On review of law laid by the Apex Court

and various High Courts, a single Judge of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (1996 Lab. I.C. 1161) has laid following principles of

interpretation and application of sub-clause (bb) of clause

(oo) of section 2 of the Act:

“(i)

that the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) are to

be construed benevolently in favour of the

workman,

(ii)

that if the workman is allowed to continue in

service by making periodic appointments from

time to time, then it can be said that the case

would not fall under section 2(oo)(bb),

(iii)

that the provisions of section 2 (oo)(bb) are

not to be interpreted in the manner which may

stifle the main provision,

(iv)

that if the workman continues in service, the

non-renewal of the contract can be deemed as

malafide and it may amount to be a fraud on

statute;

(v)

that there would be wrong presumption of non-

applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) where the

work is of continuous nature and there is

nothing on record that the work for which a

workman has been appointed had come to an

end”.

27. Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted

in the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies

in negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain

benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service,

falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment. On

compliance of the requirements of section 25F or 25N and

25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a

workman.

28. Termination of service of an employee during

the period of probation was held to be covered by the

exception contained in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act, in C.M. Venugopal [1994 (1) LLJ 597]. As per fact

of the case, Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered

the Corporation to terminate the service of an employee

within the period of probation. The employee was put on

probation for a period of one year, which was extended by

another year. Since he could not achieve the target to earn

confirmation, his service was terminated in terms of

Regulation 14 as well as order of appointment. The Apex

Court ruled that the case was covered by the exception

contained in sub-clause (bb), hence it was not

retrenchment.

29. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996

Lab. I.C. 221) a sugar factory used to employ certain number

of workmen during crushing season and at the end to the

crushing season their employment used to cease. The

Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen

worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their

employment at the end of crushing season would not

amount to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1633

clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. It was observed as

follows:

“4.

It would thus be clear that the respondents

were not working throughout the season.

They worked during crushing seasons only.

The respondents were taken into work for the

season and consequent to closure of the

season, they ceased to work.

The question is whether such a cessation

would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only

a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be

said to have been retrenched in view of what

is stated in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act. Under these circumstances, we are of

the opinion that the view taken by the Labour

Court and the High Court is illegal. However,

the appellant is directed to maintain a register

for all workmen engaged during the seasons

enumerated herein before and when the new

season starts the appellant should make a

publication in neighbouring places in which

the respondents normally live and if they

would report for duty, the appellant would

engage them in accordance with seniority and

exigency of work”.

30. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex

Court in Anil Bapurao Kanase [1997 (10) S.C.C. 599] wherein

it was noted as follows:

“3.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay

relied on in the impugned order dated 28.3.1995

in Writ Petition No.488 of 1994 is perhaps not

applicable. Since the appellant has worked for

more than 180 days, he is to be treated as

retrenched employee and if the procedure

contemplated under Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his

retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this

contention. In Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd.

v. Ram Kishan in para 3, this Court has dealt

with engagement of the seasonal workman in

sugarcane crushing, in para 4, it is stated that

it was not a case of retrenchment of the

workman, but of closure of the factory after

the crushing season was over. Accordingly, in

para 5, it was held that it is not ‘retrenchment’

within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act.

As a consequence the appellant is not entitled

to retrenchment as per sub-clause (bb) of

Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work

is seasonal business, the principles of the Act

have no application. However, this Court has

directed that the respondent management

should maintain a register and engage the

workmen when the season starts in the

succeeding years in the order of seniority. Until

all the employees whose names appear in the

list are engaged in addition to the employees

who are already working, the management

should not go in for fresh engagement of new

workmen. It would be incumbent upon the

respondent management to adopt such

procedure as is enumerated above”.

31. In Harmohinder Singh [2001 (5) S.C.C. 540] an

employee was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen

on 1.6.74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.75. The

letter of appointment and Standing Orders, inter alia,

provided that his service could be terminated by one

month’s notice by either party. He was served with a notice

to the effect that his service would be relinquished with

effect from 30.6.1989. Relying precedent in Uptron India

Ltd. [1998 (6) S.C.C. 538] the Apex Court ruled that contract

of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of

retrenchment. Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held

to be erroneous. It was also ruled that principles of natural

justice are not applicable where termination takes place

on expiry of contract of service.

32. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. [2005 (8) S.C.C.

481] an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily

wages for specific work and for a specific period. He was

engaged on 1.4.1986 and worked upto 12.2.94. The Labour

Court concluded that termination of his services was

violative of provisions of section 25-F of the Act, hence

ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages.

Relying precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra)

and Anil Bapurao Kanase (supra) the Apex Court ruled

that since his engagement was for a specific period and

specific work, relief granted to him by the Labour Court

can not be maintained.

33. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again

in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68) wherein an employee was

appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon

on daily wage basis from 8.1.88 to 29.2.88. His services

were extend from time to time and finally dispensed with in

June 1989. The Supreme Court ruled that engagement of

Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional.

His termination did not amount to retrenchment. His case

was found to be covered under exception contained in

sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. In Kishore

Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65), same view was maintained by

the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that the precedent in

S.M. Nilajkar [2003 (II) LLJ 359] has no application to the

controversy since it was ruled therein that mere mention

about the engagement being temporary without indication

of any period attracts section 25 F of the Act, if it is proved

that the concerned workman had worked continuously for

more than 240 days. Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan

Chand Samal were found to be relating to fixed term of

appointment.

1634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

34. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144)

Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89,

initially for a period of three months as a daily wager. His

term of appointment was extended up to 20.9.90. No further

extension was given and his services were dispensed with

on 20.9.90. On consideration of facts and law High Court

of Delhi has observed thus:

“…In the present case, the respondent was

appointed as a copyist for totaling the accounts of

ledger for the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88. His

initial appointment was for the period of three

months. It was extended from time to time and no

extension was given after 20^th September, 1990. He

was appointed without any regular process of

appointment, purely casual and on temporary basis

for specific work of totaling of ledger. When this

work was over, no extension was given. I consider

that appointment as that of the respondent is

squarely covered under section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act.

Giving of non extension did not amount to

termination of service, it was not a case of

retrenchment”.

35. Precedents, handed down by Allahabad High

Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla (supra), Bombay High

Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (supra) castrate sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates

statutory provisions of sub-clause (bb) of section 2 (oo)

of the Act without even discussing the legality or

constitutional validity of the clause. On the other hand

the Apex Court in C.M. Venugopal (supra), Morinda Co-

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), Anil Bapurao Kanase

(supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra), Batala Coop. Sugar

Mills Ltd. (supra), Darbara Singh (supra) and Kishore

Chand Samal (supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES

Yamuna Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee,

appointed for a specific period which was extended from

time to time, would be covered by the exception contained

in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in case his

services are dispensed with as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between him and his employer,

on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment

in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of

employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water

and would be applied to the case of the claimant.

36. Now, turning to facts, the claimant was engaged

in a few bathes when raining was imparted to teachers by

the Corporation. Her engagement for a specific period to

come to an end as and when training programme of a

particular batch stood concluded. She was engaged again

when next batch of teachers underwent training and so

on. Thus it is emerging over the record that the claimant

was engaged afresh as and when batch of teachers

underwent computer training. Her engagement was not

continuous. When training of last batch came to an end,

computer education training programme stood concluded

on 22.10.2009. Therefore, there was no occasion for the

Corporation to avail her services. Thus, services of the

claimant came to an end and her non-engagement by the

Corporation does not amount to retrenchment. The case

is covered by exception provided by sub-clause (bb) of

clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act. Thus, it is evident that

provisions of section 25F of the Act does not come into

play.

37. During the course of his arguments, claimant

places reliance on the precedent in S.M. Nilajkar (supra)

wherein termination of service of workman engaged in a

scheme or project was held not to amount to retrenchment

within the meaning of clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act,

subject to following conditions being specified:

(i)

that the workman was employed in a project or

scheme of temporary duration;

(ii)

the employment was on a contract, and not as

a daily-wager simpliciter, which provided inter

alia that the employment shall come to an end

on the expiry of the scheme or project; and

(iii)

the employment came to an end simultaneously

with the termination of the scheme or project

and consistently with the terms of the contract.

38. When facts of the present controversy were

scanned, as detailed above, it came to light that the claimant

was engaged for a specific period as and when a particular

batch of teachers was called for computer training by the

Corporation. Her contract of employment began when

training of a particular batch started and came to an end

when training programme of that batch concluded. She

was well aware that her services were availed of during

training programme of a particular batch of teachers. It

was well within her knowledge that her engagement would

come to an end simultaneously with the conclusion of the

training programme. Resultantly, it is evident that all

ingredients laid down by the Apex Court in S.M. Nilajkar

(supra) stood satisfied. Claimant cannot question

applicability of sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2

of the Act to the present controversy.

39. Since non-engagement of the claimant does not

amount to retrenchment, the Corporation was not under

an obligation to comply with the provisions of section

25F of the Act. Action of the Corporation in not engaging

services of the claimant with effect from 23.10.2009 is found

to be just, fair and legal. Claimant is not entitled to any

relief, muchless the relief of reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages. Her claim statement is

liable to be brushed aside. Accordingly, her claim

statement is discarded. An award is passed in favour of

the Corporation and against the claimant. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated:

21.01.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1635

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 589-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj izkstsDV

Mk;jsDVj] lkse blksyqd u g vksu VksYos izkbosV fyfeVsM] xqM+xkao

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

14@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 23&01&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@13@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2014

S.O. 589.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 14/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Project Director, Soma Isolux

NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

23.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/13/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1,

CHANDIGARH

Case No I.D. 14/2013

Sh. Jitender, S/o Late Sh. Ved Singh,

P.O. & Tehsil Gangana , Sonepat

...Applicant

Versus

The Project Director, Soma Isolux

NH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd Floor,

Block-2, Vatika Business Park,

Sector-49, Gurgaon-122101

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

None

For the management

Shri S.B.Tiwari.

AWARD

Passed on: 16.01.2014

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-42012/13/2013-

IR (DU) dated 10^th April, 2013 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s

Isolux, JH One Tollway Pvt. Ltd. in termination the

services of Shri Jitender S/o Late Shri Ved Singh,

Ex-PO w.e.f. 24.11.2011is justified or not ? If not,

what relief will be given to the workman and from

which date?”

2. Notices were issued to the parties for filling the

claim statement. Despite repeated adjournment for filling

the claim statement the workman did not file the claim

statement. The representative of the management

Sh. S.B.Tiwari appeared and filed written comments stating

therein that workman has already been paid his dues

outstanding with the company vide State Bank of India

demand draft no. 761915 dated 17.2.12 and no claim is left

with the company. Besides this, the management also

placed on record receipt –cum-no claim undertaking signed

by the workman Jitender.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case

particularly when the workman has not filed any claim

statement the workman is not entitled to any relief.

Therefore, the action of the management of M/s Isolux, JH

One Tollway Pvt. Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri

Jitender S/o Late Shri Ved Singh, Ex-PO w.e.f. 24.11.2011

is justified .

4. The reference is disposed off accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent

to the Central Govt. for further necessary action.

Chandigarh

16.01.2014

S.P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 590-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj xqMxkaok xzkeh.k

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&01&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@104@2002&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 590.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the management of

Gurgaon Gramin Bank and their workman, received by the

Central Government on 29.01.2014.

[No. L-12012/104/2002-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 7 of 2010

Reference No. L-12012/104/2002/IR(B-I) dated 15.06.2010

Kanhiya Lal, S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh,

Vill. Panhara Kalan, Fatehpur Billoch,

Tehsil-Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad

...Applicant

Versus

1. The Chairman, Gurgaon

Gramin Bank, Head Office,

2069, Sector-4, Gurgaon

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Shri Rohit Ahuja, Advocate

For the Management

None

AWARD

Passed on:- 17-01-2014

Central Govt. vide notification No. L-12012/104/2002-

IR(B-I)dated 15.06.2010 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference :

“Whether the action of the management of Gurgaon

Gramin Bank in terminating the services of Shri

Kanhiya Lal S/o Shri Bhopal Singh w.e.f. 26.09.2000

is legal and justified? If not, what relief he is entitled

to?”

2. As per the claim statement, the reference received

from the Ministry was registered at I.D. No.7/2010 and

notices were issued.

3. Workman filed his claim statement stating that

he was appointed by the management as Messenger-cum-

peon through respondent No.2 at branch office of

respondent No. 1 w.e.f. 02.01.2000 and the last drawn salary

of the claimant was Rs.2028 per month. The work and

conduct of the claimant during the course of his

employment remained unblemished and the entire

satisfaction of the superiors being a regular and confirmed

employee appointed against vacant post.

4. On 26.09.2000, workman was stopped to resume

his duty saying that the services of the workman had been

terminated and his services were no more required. Neither

any termination letter was issued to the workman nor any

reason was disclosed. The termination of the workman is

illegal, against the principles of natural justice and in utter

violation of provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act. Workman

was working against a permanent post and nature of his

job is permanent which is still in existence and the

management has been engaging other person from time to

time which amounts to unfair labour practice. After

termination of services of the workman by the management,

management appointed Sh. Jagat Singh in place of Kanhiya

Lal (workman) on the same terms and conditions. The

management might have changed the name of workman in

the records in view of its unfair labour practice. Workman

had not been given any appointment letter. Workman was

performing his duty from 10am to 5pm every day. After the

termination of the services of the workman, the

management notified and circulated 46 vacancies for the

post of messenger-cum-sweeper vide circulars dated

05.02.2007 and 06.02.2007 and it was also incorporated

that the persons who worked earlier in the bank may apply

for the above post if fulfill eligibility. The workman also

applied and got it forwarded through the Area Manager

on 26.02.2007, but the workman was not called for interview.

Workman since the date of termination till today is

unemployed and depending on his wife and other relatives.

Workman’s wife is agricultural labourer. Workman is

entitled to reinstated with full back wages and continuity

of service and all other benefits. Workman filed his affidavit

and other annexures i.e circular letter dated 05.02.2007,

06.02.2007 and photocopy of application form.

5. The management filed reply to the claim

statement. In reply, management submitted that the

workman has no cause of action to invoke the jurisdiction

of the tribunal. Workman was never appointed in the

service of the management bank. Workman has concealed

the relevant and material facts. Workman had also lodged

a demand notice dated 15.01.2001 with the labour officer-

cum-conciliation officer, Faridabad circle. Workman

withdrew his demand notice vide his letter dated 06.02.2001

wherein workman himself admitted that he had filed a case

for getting regularized in the service implying thereby that

he was not on the regular roll of the bank as claimed by

him. The bank circular no.24/PD/2007/06 dated 05.02.2007

shows that there was ban on fresh recruitment by Govt. of

India and the respondent bank could not make fresh

recruitment since 1992. Workman’s statement that he was

appointed by the respondent no. 1 w.e.f. 02.01.2000 falls

flat as there was complete ban on fresh recruitment since

1992. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, State

of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi & others has ruled

that unless the employment is in terms of the relevant

rules and after a proper competition among qualified

persons, the same would not confer any right on the

appointee. The bench has ruled that merely because a

temporary employee is continued for time beyond the terms

of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed

in regular service or made permanent merely on the strength

of such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made in terms of the relevant rules. Management also

alleged in his written reply that workman Kanhiya Lal was

engaged by branch offices at Mohna as casual basis @ 78

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1637

for full day and Rs. 39 for half day at intermittent intervals

as per the requirement from 14.03.2000 to 16.09.2000 and

not from 02.01.2000 to 26.01.2000 as claimed by workman.

Workman has not completed 240 days in any calendar

year and as such there is no violation of provisions of I.D.

Act. Workman had also filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3842/

2004 in the Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh. Respondent

no 2 had no power to give appointment to any person

including the workman. The workman was never appointed

in the services of the bank and was only engaged as a

casual worker. Workman vide his letter dated 12.03.2001

served a demand notice through the Assistant Labour

Commissioner, Faridabad. But the conciliation proceedings

ended in failure. Management also mentioned in his reply

that the Ministry of Labour vide letter no.L12012/104/2002

IR(B-I) dated 08.12.2002 addressed to the workman and

the management bank informed that the dispute is not fit

for adjudication for the reasons that the workman has not

completed 240 days of the services in a calendar year and

does not attract the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D.

Act. Workman has no right to claim regular appointment.

Management also submitted in his reply that the workman

was engaged only as a casual workman from time to time.

Management also submitted in his reply that the claim

statement of the workman is devoid of any merit and

deserve to be dismissed.

6. Workman was represented by Shri Rohit Ahuja

Advocate, but none appeared for management from last

many dates. So far oral evidence is concerned no witness

was examined on behalf of the workman. Workman

Kanhiya Lal filed his affidavit, duly certified by Oath

Commissioner. Workman also filed circular letter of the

management bank, application form. Besides this,

management along with his written reply, filed photocopies

of demand notice from Kanhiya Lal, photocopy of

attendance register. Rejection letter of Kanhiya Lal.

Workman also filed photocopies of personnel department

circular along with the workman’s affidavit.

7. Management filed affidavit of Shri Inderjit

working as Chairman, Gurgaon Gramin Bank. Although

this document has been titled as affidavit but it is pertinent

to mention that this so called affidavit has not been attested

or verified by the Oath Commissioner or Notary.

8. Workman has claimed in his claim statement that

he was appointed on 02.01.2000 and his services were

terminated on 26.09.2000. Management has refuted this

fact by stating that the workman was appointed as casual

labour on daily wages from 14.03.2000 to 16.09.2000, but

as stated above, management has not substantiated its

plea by any duly attested or verified affidavit. It appears

that the workman worked from 02.01.2000 upto 26.09.2000.

The workman was not appointed as per rules framed for

recruitment. Neither any appointment letter was issued to

the workman nor any termination letter was issued.

Vacancies were advertised, workman also applied but his

application form was rejected as the workman was not

found eligible.

9. Now even if the workman’s plea that the workman

has completed 240 days in a year is taken to be unrefuted,

even then, workman has not been in employment of the

management for one year. Section 25F of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 envisaged that the Section 25F

conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman- “No

workman employed in any industry who has been in

continuous service for not less than one year under an

employee shall be retrenched by that employer until

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;

b. the workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to fifteen day’s average pay [for

every completed year of continuous service]

or any part thereof in excess of six months.”

10. As the workman was in employment for less

than one year, Section 25F of ID Act does not attract, and

the provisions of this section are not applicable. Mere

completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year

cannot, by itself, form the basis for directing regularization

of service of workman as has been held in (Management

Divisional

Engineer

Telecommunication,

Mahaboobnagar Vs. Venkataiah, 2007 (112) FLR 24.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances of

the case, workman is not entitled to any relief.

12. Reference is answered accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent

to the Central Govt. for further necessary action.

Chandigarh

17-01-2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 591-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k]

ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 20@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41011@68@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 591.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Uttar Railway,

Uttar Railway Loco Running Shed and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 29.01.2014.

[No. L-41011/68/2008-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 20/2009

Ref. No. L-41011/68/2008-IR(B-I) dated 24.06.2009

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri,

Uttar Railway Karmachari Union

283/63KH(B) Ghari Kanora, Premvati Nagar

P.O. Manak Nagar,

Lucknow

AND

The Sr. DME (O&F)

Uttar Railway, Lucknow

Sr. Section Engineer (Loco)

Uttar Railway Loco Running Shed

Alambagh, Lucknow

AWARD

1. By order No. L-41011/68/2008-IR(B-I) dated

24.06.2009 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred

this industrial dispute between Mandal Sanghatan Mantri,

Uttar Railway Karmachari Union, 283/63KH(B) Ghari

Kanora, Premvati Nagar, PO Manak Nagar, Lucknow and

the Sr.DME(O&F) Uttar Railway, Lucknow and the Sr.

Section Engineer, Uttar Railway Loco Running Shed,

Alambagh Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of Uttar

Railway, Lucknow in transferring Sri Saidur Rehman,

Cleaner/Locoshed, from Lucknow to Varanasi during

the pendency of another industrial dispute before

the conciliation Officer caused to violation of the

provisions of I.D. Act, 1947, is fair and justified? If

not, to what relief is the applicant concerned

entitled?”

3. The order of reference was endorsed to the

Mandal Sanghatan Mantri Uttar Railway, Lucknow with

the direction to the party raising the dispute to filed the

statement of claim along with relevant documents, list of

reliance and witnesses with the Tribunal within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order of reference and also

forward a copy of such a statement to each one of the

opposite parties involved in this dispute under rule 10 (B)

of the Industrial Disputes (Central), Rules, 1957

4. In brief of the case that workman Saidur Rahman

who engaged in Railway as Casual Labour and he was

retrenched. The workman raised industrial dispute and

got an award in his favour on 24.04.87. The railway

Administration preferred a writ petition no. 17910/87 before

Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad. Hon’ble High Court

passed an Interim order directing the Railway to re-engage

to the workman. Sri Aaidur Rehman, Cleaner transferred to

Lucknow to Varanasi. Against this order workman filed

vide letter No. LKO-8(1-47)/2001(All File)/LKO-8(1-85)/

2008 dated 28.8.2008 which is pending before Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi.

5. The workman union stated that on 5.8.2008

workman transferred to Varanasi and change his post as

Box Porter. Union alleged that it is violation of I.D. Act.1947

33(2)(B) and also I.D.Act.1947 25(T) and 33(A) under unfair

labour practice so he punishable under 25(U), 33(i) and 34.

6. The workman union alleged that no post of Box

Porter available at Varanasi.

7. The written statement filed by the Railway stating

therein that Hon’ble High Court passed as interim order

directing the Railway to Re-engage to the workman. In

compliance of High Court order the workman was re-engage

on 22.4.88. Mr. Saidur Rahaman posted as box porter by

the railway administration on the basis of screening

committee report. On the basis of Screening Committee

Report and also in compliance of the award passed by this

Tribunal found workman fit for the post of Box Porter as

such he was transferred from Lucknow to Varanasi on the

post of Box Porter. It is also stated that workman is in the

habit of filing false claims to pressurize to Railway again

and again on the same issue. It is pertinent to mention that

workman always indulged in the court proceeding and

always disturbed the industrial harmony by his wrong act

and omissions it is not out of place to mention that the I. D

Case No. 78/;2000, 96/2003. 23/2003. 14/2003,9 20/2009 were

raised by the workman before the Tribunal. ID No.78/2000

was decided against the workman but he has not filed any

appeal against the award, hence binding upon the

workman. Railway administration have not violated by any

provision of the I.D. Act. So there is no question of

prosecution.

8. Rejoinder has been fined by the workman herein

no new plea was taken. Evidence on affidavit have been

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1639

filed by both the parties workman witness was cross

examined and the case was fixed for cross examination of

management witness.

9. At this stage, applicant moved an application

W-15 to the effect that the instant I.D. is against the transfer

order No. C22E 11-5/98 S Rahman dt 5.8.2008. Against the

aforesaid transfer order a writ no. 796(SB) 2009 is pending

before Hon’ble High Court hence the workman does not

want to persue the case.

10. Under the circumstances no relief is required to

be given to the workman concerned. The reference under

adjudication is answered as NO CLAIM AWARD

accordingly.

11. Award as above.

LUCKNOW

19.12.2013

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 592-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41011@57@2011&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 592.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Northen

Railway, Ferozpur Cantt., Northern Railway and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

29.01.2014.

[No. L-41011/57/2011-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 31 of 2011

Reference No. L-41011/57/2011/IR(B-I) dated 10.02.2012

Sh. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Ji Lal

C/o General Secretary, Northern Railway

Workers Union, 49/69, Harpal Nagar,

Ludhiana

...Applicant

Versus

1. Divisional Railway Manager,

Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt.

2. Section Engineer, Northern Railway,

Moga

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Workman

None

For the Management : Shri N.K Zakhmi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on:-07-01-2014

Central Govt. vide notification No.L-41011/57/2011/

IR(B-I)dated 10.02.2011 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the demand of the Union, Northern

Railway Worker’s Union, Ludhiana, for treating the

period of services of Sh. Ramesh Kumar from 7-03-

2007 to 12-06-2007 as duty and payment of full salary

for the said period with consequential benefits and

18% percent interest is legal and justified? To what

relief the union is entitled?”

2. Today the case was fixed for arguments as none

is appearing on behalf of the Union to pursue the reference.

Earlier Shri B.N Sehgal Advocate was appearing on behalf

of the workman and filed the claim statement and

management also placed on record the written statement.

3. The brief facts of the case as per Union is, that

one Ramesh Kumar joined the management in the year

1978 and while performing duty as a Gateman. Senior

Section Engineer directed him not to perform duty vide

order dated 07.03.2007 on the allegations that Shri Ramesh

Kumar refused to join inquiry. As per Union the fact was

that Ramesh Kumar had only requested that he be given

order in writing. Senior Section Engineer gave a letter to

Ramesh Kumar, but duty was not given to Ramesh Kumar

and the Senior Section Engineer refused him to allow duty

despite the representation dated 10.04.2007 and legal

notice 24.04.2007. Ramesh Kumar filed a case in the CAT,

Chandigarh, and Senior Section Engineer allowed him duty

on 13.06.2007. Senior Section Engineer passed the order

dated 03.07.2007 which according to the workman is illegal,

null and void as Ramesh Kumar had not absented from

duty and he was only allowed duty on 13.06.2007. The

order dated 07.03.2007 is against the rules and principles

of natural justice as Senior Section Engineers is not the

appointing authority of Shri Ramesh Kumar. As per the

workman, he is entitled to full salary and allowances for

the period 07.03.2007 to 12.06.2007 and the said period

1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

may be treated on duty. It is further pleaded that earlier the

workman filed a labour claim application in this Tribunal

and he withdrawn the same on 08.03.2010 with a liberty to

raise the dispute before appropriate forum. It is prayed by

the workman that he is entitled for salary from 07.03.2007

to 12.06.2007 along with interest @ 18% per annum for the

period of 07.03.2007 to 12.06.2007.

4. The management filed the written statement.

Preliminary objection has been taken that there was a

complaint received by the office of the management against

Ramesh Kumar, which was sent to SSE/W Kotkapura for

conducting inquiry into complaint. Vide order dated

02.03.2007, SSE/W asked Ramesh Kumar to attend the

inquiry proceeding, but Ramesh Kumar did not turn up.

Vide letter dated 05.03.2007, Sh. Shinderpal Singh delivered

railway pass to Ramesh Kumar, but Ramesh Kumar

returned the same. The management vide order dated

09.04.2007 asked Mr. Ramesh Kumar to explain as to why

he did not appear before the inquiry officer. But despite

that Ramesh Kumar did not turn up. He attended office

only on 12.06.2007. Ramesh Kumar unnecessarily indulge

in correspondence and never came personally to attend

his duty. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any

claim whatsoever as he remained absent their duty

unauthorizedly for the period from 07.03.2007 to 12.06.2007

and there is no order to treat him in duty for the period in

question.

5. As no evidence has been adduced nor any

affidavit has been filed on behalf of the workman to

corroborate or to substantiate his claim as mentioned in

the claim statement. Therefore, Ramesh Kumar by his

assertion in claim statement which has been totally denied

by the management in their written statement cannot be

taken as true. Therefore, Ramesh Kumar cannot be held to

be entitled the pay as demanded by the Union in his claim

statement. He cannot be held to be entitled only on the

basis of the claim statement particularly when Ramesh

Kumar failed to appear and to file any evidence in the

case. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case,

the demand of the Union Northern Railway Worker’s

Union, Ludhiana, for treating the period of service of Shri

Ramesh Kumar as duty and payment of full salary for the

said period with consequential benefits and 18% interest

is not legal and the same is not justified.

6. Reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt.

be informed. Soft copy as well as hard copy be sent to the

Central Govt. for further necessary action.

Chandigarh

6.01.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 593-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWiQ

chdkusj ,aM t;iqj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

20@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&1&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@60@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 593.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of Bikaner and Jaipur and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 29.01.2014.

[No. L-12012/60/2010-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present : Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 19th day of July, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. I.D.20/2011

Between :

Sri Abdul Aziz,

S/o A.K. Zillani,

D.No.26-1-21/1, Bowdara Road,

Visakhapatnam – 530 001.

...Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager,

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Tilak Marg, H.O.,

Jaipur (Rajasthan) – 303005

The Branch Manager,

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

D.No.12-1-22, Kannayyapeta,

Near Hotel Green Park,

Visakhapatnam – 530 002

...Respondents

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. D. Vilas, D. Sampath & V.

Vinod, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P. Viswajanani, K. Santosh

& K. Surya Sree, Advocates

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1641

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its

order No. L-12012/60/2010-IR(DU) dated 15.4.2011 referred

the following dispute between the management of State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 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 State

Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Visakhapatnam in

terminating the services of Shri Abdul Aziz S/o Sri

A.K. Zilani, Ex-Watchman-cum-Peon w.e.f. 23.6.2009,

is legal and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?”

2. The case stands posted for filing of claim

statement and documents. Petitioner 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 Petitioner is not interested

in the proceedings, petition is dismissed

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for the

for the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 594-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 76@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@114@2008&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 594.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 76/2008)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 29.01.2014.

[No. L-12012/114/2008-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, 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. 76/2008

Date of Passing Award – 18th February, 2013

Between :

The Asst. General Manager,

State Bank of India,

Bapujinagar Branch,

Dist. Khurda, Orissa,

Bhubaneswar, (Orissa)

...1st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman Sri Manas Chandra Das,

Qr. No. VR-5/1, Kharvela Nagar, Unit-3,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

Shri Alok Das,

...

For the 1^st Party-

Authorized Representative

Management

None.

...

For the 2^nd Party-

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred the present dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of

India and their workman under clause (d) of sub-section

(1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 vide Letter No. L-12012/114/2008 – IR(B-

I), dated 10.10.2008 to this Tribunal for adjudication to the

following effect:

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch in

terminating the services of Sri Manas Chandra Das,

ex-workman w.e.f. 30.9.2004 is, fair, legal and justified?

To what relief is the workman concerned entitled”?

2. The 2^nd Party-Workman has filed his statement of

claim alleging that he had joined his services as a

Messenger in July, 1990 after succeeding in interview. He

was assured to get permanent appointment order after

one year or on completion of 240 days’ work in a calendar

year, but despite completion of several years of continuous

1642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

satisfactory service and putting in more than 240 days’

work in each year he was not regularized, instead terminated

and refused employment from 30.9.2004 by the 1^st Party-

Management without any written communication or

payment of compensation. The 1^st Party-Management in

refusing employment to him violated all principles of natural

justice and mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He therefore brought the

matter into the notice of the C.G.M. and C.D.O. of the State

Bank of India, L.H.O., Bhubaneswar. But on hearing

nothing, he raised an industrial dispute before the Regional

Labour Commissioner (Central) vide his letter dated

29.10.2007. Conciliation proceedings were started, but

they failed and thereupon a failure report was submitted

to the Government and the Government made the present

reference. He is thus entitled to get full back wages and

reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from

30.9.2004.

3. The 1^st Party-Management in its reply through

written statement has stated that the present dispute is

misleading and misconceived in as much as the 2^nd Party-

workman had already raised a similar dispute along with

124 other workers through the State Bank of India

Temporary 4th Grade Employees Union before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar

challenging their alleged termination of service by the 1^st

Party-Management. In the said dispute the failure report

was sent by the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar to the Ministry of Labour who in turn referred

the matter to this Tribunal for adjudication and the same is

pending before this Tribunal being I.D. Case No. 7/2007.

The name of the 2^nd Party-workman is appearing at Sl. No.

28 in Annexure-A to the said reference. Thus, raising a

common dispute for same cause of action and again raising

individual dispute for same relief is nothing but an abuse

of the process of law and amounts to multiplicity of

litigation. The Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) while

conciliating the individual disputes disregarded the

direction of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner

(Central) not to take any further action on the separate

disputes raised by the same workers for the same cause of

action. The allegation of the 2^nd Party-workman that he

had joined the Bank in July, 1990 and he was discontinued

from service on 30.9.2004 is not correct. He was engaged

intermittently on temporary/daily wage basis due to

exigencies of work. When his services were no more

required he was not engaged further. It is further denied

that he was performing his duties with all sincerity and

honesty and to the best of satisfaction of the Authority.

The 2^nd Party-workman has neither completed several years

of continuous service in the Bank nor he has completed

240 days of continuous service in any calendar year

preceding the date of his alleged termination. In order to

give an opportunity for permanent absorption to the ex-

temporary employees/daily wagers in the Bank in view of

the various settlements entered into between the All India

State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management

of the State Bank of India all eligible persons were called

for interview. The 2^nd Party-workman was also called for

interview in the year 1993. But he was not found successful

hence could not be appointed in the Bank. The Union or

the 2^nd Party-workman has never challenged the

implementation of the settlement which has now gained

finality. It is further submitted that some of the wait-listed

candidates, who could not be absorbed in the Bank’s

service due to expiry of the panel on 31^st March, 1997, filed

Writ Petitions before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa.

But the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa by a common order

dated 15.5.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 2787/1997 dismissed

a batch of Writ Petitions and upheld the action of the

Management of the Bank. This order of the Hon’ble High

Court was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in S.L.P. No. CC - 3082/1999. Hence the above matter

has attained finality and cannot be re-agitated. Since the

services of Sri Das had allegedly been terminated in

February, 1992 his claim has become stale by raising the

dispute after fifteen years. It is a settled principle of law

that delay destroys the right to remedy. Thus the present

dispute is liable to be rejected on the above grounds.

4. On the pleadings of the parties following issues

were framed:-

ISSUES

1. Whether the present reference of the

individual workman during the pendency of

the I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal

on the same issue is legal and justified?

2. Whether the workman proves that he has

worked for more than 240 days as enumerated

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act?

3. Whether the action of the Management of

State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch

in terminating services of Shri Manas Chandra

Das ex-workman with effect from 30.9.2004 is

fair, legal and justified?

4. To what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?

5. The 2nd Party-workman despite giving sufficient

opportunity did not adduce any evidence either oral or

documentary in support of his claim and willingly kept

himself out of the proceedings at the stage of evidence by

absenting himself or his Union representative.

6. The 1^st Party-Management has adduced the oral

evidence of Shri Abhay Kumar Das as M.W.-1 and filed

documents marked as Ext.-A to Ext.-J in refutation of the

claim of the 2nd Party-workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1643

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. A specific plea has been raised by the 1^st Party-

Management that a group of 125 employees including the

2^nd Party-workman had already raised a similar dispute in

I.D. Case No. 7/2007 before this Tribunal for the same

relief which is pending for adjudication. The dispute as

referred to in I.D. Case No. 7/2007 is given below for

comparison with the dispute in the present case—

Whether the action of the Management of State Bank

of India, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar in not

considering the case of 125 workmen whose details

are in Annexure-A for re-employment as per Section

25(H) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and

justified? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled

to?

8. The name of the 2^nd party-workman appears at Sl.

No. 28 in Annexure-A to the above reference. In both the

cases the matter of disengagement or so called

retrenchment is involved to be considered in one or the

other way and the relief claimed is with regard to re-

employment. But challenge has been made more

specifically against the termination of service of the 2^nd

Party-workman in the present case while in I.D. Case No.

7/2007 prayer has been made with regard to consideration

of the case of 125 workmen for re-employment as per

Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In fact,

in the latter case the workmen have submitted or virtually

surrendered to their cessation of employment or alleged

termination, whereas in the present case they have

challenged their termination on facts and law. Virtually in

the present case validity and legality of the alleged

termination has to be tested at the alter of facts and legal

propositions. Therefore it cannot be said that the issues

involved in both the cases are same. This case can proceed

despite pendency of I.D. Case No. 7/2007 and the present

reference by the individual workman pending for

adjudication is maintainable being legal and justified. This

issue is therefore decided in the affirmative and against

the 1^st Party-Management.

ISSUE NO. 2

9. The onus to prove that the 2^nd Party-workman

has completed one year or 240 days of continuous service

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his alleged termination or disengagement from service

lies on him, but the 2^nd Party-workman has not adduced

any evidence either oral or documentary in support of his

contention. He has only alleged in his statement of claim

that he had joined the service in July, 1990 and worked till

30.9.2004 on temporary/casual/daily wage basis, but he

has not filed any certificate or reliable document showing

the break-up of year-wise service rendered by him under

the 1^st Party-Management during the above period. The

1^st Party-Management, on the other hand, has alleged that

the 2^nd Party-workman was engaged intermittently on

temporary/daily wage basis due to exigencies of work and

he had never completed 240 days continuous service in a

calendar year. M.W.-1 Shri Abhay Kumar Das in his

statement before the Court has stated that “The disputant

was working intermittently for few days in our Branch on

daily wage basis in exigencies.………. He had not

completed 240 days of continuous and uninterrupted

service preceding the alleged date of the termination”. He

has denied the allegation that the workman was

discontinued from service with effect from 30.9.2004, but

has stated that “In fact the workman left working in the

Branch since February, 1992.”. The 2^nd Party-workman

has to disprove the evidence led by the 1^st Party-

Management, but he has not come before the Court to

give evidence. A temporary or daily wage worker has no

right to claim reinstatement and particularly when such an

employee had not worked for 240 days continuously

during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date

of his so-called termination. Thus he is not entitled to get

benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. This issue is hereby decided against the 2^nd Party-

workman for failing to prove that he had worked for 240

days continuously during a period of 12 calendar months

preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination from service.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. Since the 2^nd Party-workman could not prove

that he had rendered 240 days continuous service under

the 1^st Party-Management during a period of 12 calendar

months preceding the date of his disengagement or alleged

termination, he is not entitled for re-employment even in

case of his alleged illegal and arbitrary termination.

Moreover, he was a temporary/casual/daily wage

employee. His services can be terminated at any time

without assigning any cause by the 1^st Party-Management.

He has no legal right to be retained in service for the

extended period, if he was appointed for a certain period

or when no time is specified. The 2^nd Party-workman has

not filed any letter of appointment or proof of having

rendered service under the 1^st Party-Management for a

specified period against a regular post. The 1^st Party-

Management has further alleged that in time of exigencies

only the 2^nd Party-workman was employed. It means that

with the end of exigencies his job also came to an end. In

view of the matter the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Main Branch in terminating

the services of Sri Manas Chandra Das with effect from

30.9.2004 his termination is fair, legal and justified. This

issue is accordingly decided in the affirmative and against

the 2^nd Party-workman.

1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ISSUE NO. 4

11. In view of the findings recorded above under

Issues No. 2 and 3, the 2^nd Party-workman is not entitled

to any relief whatsoever claimed.

12. Reference is answered accordingly.

JITENDRA SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 595-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 297@2000) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@194@2000&vkbZvkj (ch&I)]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 595.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 297/

2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of State Bank

of India, Region-V, Zonal Office and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 29.01.2014.

[No. L-12012/194/2000-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/297/2000

Date: 15.07.2013

Party No.1

Shri Prakash Dhakate,

Near Balaji Mandir, Babupeth,

Ward No.1, Chandrapur, Tah. &

Distt. Chandrapur (MS).

Party No.2

The Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Region-II,

Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg,

PO Box No. 37, Nagpur- 440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 15th July, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of State Bank of India and their workman,

Shri Prakash Dhakate, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

12012/194/2000-IR (B-I) dated 27.09.2000, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India, Region-II, Zonal Office, Nagpur,

terminating Shri Prakash Gangadhar Dhakate, Ex-

Peon, State Bank of India, Br. Industrial Estate,

Chandrapur is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Prakash

Dhakate, (‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of State Bank of India, (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed on 10.02.1996

in the Industrial Estate Branch, Chandrapur of party no.1

as per the provisions of the Regulations meant for

appointment of sub-staff and he worked on the post of

peon and messenger honestly and to the entire satisfaction

of the employer till 05.04.1997 and he completed 240 days

of continuous service and was a protected employee and

his services were governed by the provisions of bipartite

settlements, Standing Order, Sastry Award and such other

provisions of law and on 31.03.1997, a telegram was

received by the Industrial Estate branch, Chandrapur about

expiry of the panel of temporary employees on 31.03.1997

and thereafter, his services were terminated orally at the

closure of the business hours on 05.04.1997 and before

termination of his services, neither any notice nor any

letter of termination was served on him and he had worked

for 328 days from February, 1996 to April, 1997 and he had

worked for 263 days from May, 1996 to April, 1997 and by

virtue of working for more than 240 days continuously, he

had acquired the status of a permanent employee.

The further case of the workman is that before

termination of his services, the mandatory provisions of

section 25-F of the Act were not complied with by party

no.1 and he was not paid either the pay in lieu of the

notice or the retrenchment compensation and as such, his

termination prima-facie is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted

and without any genuine reason and after his illegal

termination, the party no.1 at first appointed

Shri Rebhankar and thereafter appointed Shri Kulkarni and

when he raised objection to such appointments, both of

them were removed by party no.1 and the wages paid to

them were shown as expenses towards hamali and such

other miscellaneous expenses and such conduct of party

no.1 clearly shows that work was and is available for him

in the said branch and the work performed by him is not

only regular, but also, perennial in nature and his

appointment as per letter by party no.1 was out of necessity

and exigency of work and as party no.1 did not follow the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1645

principles of natural justice, before termination of his

services, there was miscarriage of justice and party no.1

acted in utter disregard of the provisions as Sastry Award

and on that count also, the order of termination is illegal

and is liable to be quashed.

It is further pleaded by the workman that he issued

a notice to party no.1 through his advocate on 17.04.1997

and party no.1 in its reply dated 06.05.1997 wrongly

mentioned about his receiving retrenchment

compensation, through infact, he did not receive any

compensation and due to his illegal termination, he was

thrown to the street and he became ineligible to get any

fresh job or service due to age bar for new appointment

and he is a member of schedule tribe community and his

appointment was as a backward candidate to fill up the

back log and his termination was against the guidelines

and instructions issued by the Government from time to

time and on this count also, his termination is illegal and is

liable to be quashed.

The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the

order of his termination dated 06.04.1997 and reinstate him

in service with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no.1 in the written statement has

pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged in purely

temporary capacity on daily wages basis intermittently

without continuity, for doing sundry work i.e. cleaning of

branch premises, hamali work, arrangement of record and

stationary etc. at the Industrial Estate branch, Chandrapur,

due to administrative exigencies and sometime he worked

for full day and sometime for part of the day and the

termination of the workman was done due to its policy

decision and it had entered into settlements with the

recognized union of the bank, which had taken up the

cause of all such temporary employees, on 17.11.87, which

was modified/clarified vide settlements dated 16.07.1988,

27.10.1988, 09.01.1991 and 13.07.1996 and in terms of the

said settlements, it was agreed that temporary employees

and casual labourers would be given one time opportunity

to be absorbed, under certain norms and for that purpose,

panels would be prepared for filling up the vacancies as

per the norms agreed upon, under those settlements and

the panel for absorption would be kept alive upto

31.03.1997, after which, the same would be lapsed and the

said settlements are settlements within the meaning of

section 2 (p) and section 18 (1) of the Act read with Rule 58

of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957 (“the Rules”

in short) and are binding on the parties and in response to

the said settlement, it (bank) gave an advertisement in the

newspapers calling upon all the eligible temporary

employees to apply for permanent appointment in the sub-

ordinate cadre subject to certain norms as contained in

the settlement and the panel prepared in pursuance to the

settlement, stood lapsed on 31.03.1997 in accordance with

the terms of settlement and therefore, after 31.03.1997, no

temporary employee could be engaged by it and the entire

temporary employees in the waiting list had to be

disengaged from 01.04.1997 and clause 10 of the settlement

dated 17.11.1987 inter-alia states that hence forth, there

will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate

cadre, except for the post of sweeper and watchman and

the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of

Economic Affairs/Banking Division vide letter no.

16.08.1990 directed to stop temporary appointment and in

such situations, if it allows such temporary employees,

then it would be violation of said settlement attracting

penal provisions against the bank under section 29 of the

Act and violation of the Government of India directions.

The further case of party no.1 is that the workman

was engaged purely by the branch on temporary basis,

intermittently, whenever there were exigencies of work and

there is no post of Peon in the Bank and the workman was

not a protected workman as defined in the Act and the

appointment of the workman was never as per the

provisions of the Regulations meant for sub-staff and the

workman did not work for 240 days in the 12 months

preceding the date of termination and as the services of

the workman were not needed and there were no exigencies

of services, the workman was disengaged, hence there

was no question of giving any letter or notice before his

disengagement and there was no question of payment of

retrenchment compensation or pay in lieu of notice to the

workman and the workman was discontinued due to lapse

of the settlement and suitable reply was given by it to the

notice given by the workman and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention that

on 18.07.2002, award had been passed by the Tribunal

directing payment of compensation to the workman as

provided under section 25-F of the Act. Being aggrieved

by the award, the workman had approached the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench,

Nagpur in writ petition no. 4374 of 2002 for redress. The

Hon’ble High Court by order dated 26.09.2012 were pleased

to quash and set aside the award dated 18.07.2002 and to

remand the reference for disposal afresh in accordance

with law.

5. After remand of the reference, the workman made

amendment of the statement of claim and pleaded further

that he was appointed by the Branch Manager of

Chandrapur Branch of SBI w.e.f. 16.04.2003 and he worked

till 02.08.2003 and his appointment was made after obtaining

of his medical examination report and also his character

report from the Suptd. of Police, Chandrapur and such

fact shows that the branch manager is competent and

empowered to appoint him and the work performed by him

is of permanent and regular in nature and thus his

termination from services w.e.f. 06.04.1997 was illegal and

in breach of the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of

1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Act and Rule 81 of the Rules, as no seniority list was

prepared and published before his termination and right

from the date of termination i.e. 06.04.1997 to 16.04.1997

and from 03.08.2003, he was and is out of job and not in

gainful employment and as such, he is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages

and all consequential benefits.

6. Such pleadings of the workman in the statement

of claim by way of amendment has been denied by the

party no.1 in the written statement by making necessary

amendment.

7. In order to substantiate his claim, the workman

has examined himself as a witness, besides placing reliance

on documentary evidence. No evidence has been adduced

on behalf of the party no.1.

8. In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit,

the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim. However, in his cross-examination,

the workman has admitted that the bank had not given

any advertisement before his appointment and his name

was not sponsored by the employment exchange and he

was called by the Manager and there was no written

examination and he was also not medically examined. The

workman in the cross-examination has further admitted

that he had not submitted any application for his service

and no written appointment order was given to him and he

was being called for duty as and when required and he did

not work on any Sunday and on the basis of the work

being done by him, he was being paid Rs. 25 at times and

sometimes at the rate of Rs. 20.

The workman has further admitted that on 10.02.1996,

he was engaged by the bank temporally and in the

document, Ext. W-II, it has been clearly mentioned that his

appointment was for a period of 90 days and after working

for a period of 90 days, his services were terminated by

the Bank again, after payment of retrenchment

compensation and he did not raise any industrial dispute

for his retrenchment in the year 2003. The workman has

also admitted that he uses to work as a daily wage earner,

as and when he uses to get work.

9. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that it is clear from the

evidence adduced by the workman that he had worked for

more than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months

of the date of termination and the party no.1 in their reply

submitted in writ petition no. 1737/97 before the Hon’ble

High Court have admitted that the workman had worked

for 275 days from February, 1996 to March, 1997 and this

fact was considered by the Tribunal in the earlier award

dated 18.07.2002 and thus, the workman has proved that

he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages. It was further submitted that the

Branch Manager is empowered to appoint an employee

and the same has been sufficiently proved by the

document, Ext. W-II. It was further submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that the plea taken by

the party no.1 that the services of the workman were

terminated due to the terms of the settlements reached

between the bank and the recognized union of the bank

and expiry of the panel of temporary employees on

31.03.1997 cannot be sustained, as such settlements are

not binding on the workman and the same also cannot

override the provisions of sections 25-F and section 25-G

of the Act and Rule-81 of the Rules and any union is not

entitled to execute any settlement in respect of the

termination of the services of individual workman, in view

of the restrictions imposed on the union under section 18

of the Act and therefore, the reason for termination of the

services of the workman is totally illegal and the party

no.1 has appointed new employees and retained junior

employees and there was no compliance of mandatory

provisions by the party no.1 before termination of the

workman from services and the workman is unemployed

and not in gainful employment till date, except for the

period from 17.04.2003 to 02.08.2003 and as such, the

workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 1998 LAB I.C. 159 (M.Rajaiah Vs. Bank of India), (2010),

5 SCC-497 (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public

Health Division no.1, Panipat (Haryana), 2011-I-LLJ-403

(Raj) (UCO Bank & others Vs. Jagdish Narain Purviya).

10. In reply, it was contended by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged

purely in temporary capacity, intermittently for doing

sundry work, due to administrative exigency and the

workman was engaged by the branches, who had no

authority to engage any person and the engagement was

illegal and impermissible and such illegality cannot be

perpetuated for indefinite period and the workman in his

cross-examination has admitted such facts. It was further

contented that the Bank had admitted in its reply before

the Hon’ble High Court that the workman had completed

240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar months

from the date of his disengagement from services and no

retrenchment compensation and one month’s notice or

one month’s wages in lieu of such notice were given to

him, but in view of the fact that the appointment of the

workman was illegal and void, he is not entitled to any

relief as per the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the decision reported in AIR 2006 SC-1806

(Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi).

It was also submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no.1 that the workman in his cross-examination

has admitted that he uses to work as a daily wage earner

as and when he gets work and as such, it can be held that

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1647

he is gainfully employed and as such, without prejudice

to the bank at the most, the workman is entitled for the

amount of retrenchment compensation and one month’s

wages as provided under section 25 of the Act, in view of

the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2007)

9 SCC-748 (Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs.

Tribhuwan) and (2006) 5 SCC-173 (Municipal Council,

Sujanpur Vs. Surinder Kumar and in view of the facts of

the case and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the workman is not entitled to any relief and the

decisions cited by the workman are not applicable in the

facts and circumstances of the present reference.

11. On perusal of the evidence on record, both oral

and documentary and taking into consideration the

submissions made by the learned advocates of the parties

and the pleadings of the parties, it is found that the

appointment of the workman from 10.02.1996 to 05.04.1997

was purely in temporary capacity intermittently on daily

wages basis by the branch manager of the industrial estate

branch, Chandrapur. It is also found that the appointment

of the workman was not in accordance with the Rules of

appointment of sub-staff of party no.1.

It is admitted by party no.1 that the workman had

worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the

date of the termination of his services and before

termination of his services, neither one month’s notice

nor one month’s wages in lieu of notice or retrenchment

compensation was given to him.

12. Though party no.1 has taken the stand that in

view of the lapse of the panel of temporary employees as

prepared on the basis of the settlement reached between

it and the union on 17.11.1987 and modified from time to

time, on 31.03.1997, the workman was disengaged, it was

never pleaded by party no.1 that the name of the workman

was included in the panel of temporary employees, which

was prepared on the basis of the settlement and as he was

not absorbed on permanent basis prior to 31.03.1997, he

was terminated from service. The appointment of the

workman on temporary basis was much later than the

settlement dated 11.11.1987 and modification dated

16.07.1988, 27.10.1988 and 09.01.1991, such appointment

of the workman was in violation of the clause 10 of the

settlement dated 17.11.1987 and the directives of

government of India issued vide letter dated 16.08.1990.

Hence, the submission made by the learned advocate for

the party no.1 in regard to the termination of the services

of the workman due to lapse of the panel cannot be

sustained.

13. As it is the admitted case of party no.1 that the

workman had completed 240 days of work in the preceding

12 months of the date of termination of the services of the

workman and before the termination, the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F of the Act were not complied

with, the termination amounts to retrenchment and the

same is illegal.

14. Now, the question remains for consideration is

as to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled to.

Though the workman has pleaded that there was

violation of section 25-G of the Act and Rule 81 of the

Rules, there is no legal evidence on record in support of

such claim. The workman has not proved that except

himself, anybody else was working in the said branch and

after his disengagement, party no.1 engaged juniors in his

place. Hence, the contention raised in this respect by the

learned advocate for the workman cannot be sustained.

15. The learned advocate for the workman relying

on the decision reported in (2010) 5 SCC-497 (Supra) which

was decided on 09.04.2010 submitted that the workman is

entitled for reinstatement with continuity and full back

wages.

With respect, I am of the view that the decision cited

by the learned advocate for the workman can be

distinguished and has no clear application to the present

reference. In the case referred by the Hon’ble Apex Court,

there was no pleading that the initial engagement was not

legal, whereas, in the present case, it is pleaded by party

no.1 that the initial engagement of the workman was illegal.

Moreover, at this juncture, I think it proper to refer

to the later decision of a coordinate Bench of the Hon’ble

Apex Court decided on 31.08.2010 and is to be followed as

per the judicial precedent, as reported in 2010(8) SCALE

(Incharge Officer and another Vs. Shankar Shetty).

In the said decision, Hon’ble Apex Court have held

that, “Industrial Disputes Act 1947/Section 25F/Daily

wager / Termination of service in violation of section 25(F)/

Award of monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement/

Respondent was initially engaged as daily wager by

appellants in 1978/His engagement continued for about 7

years intermittently up to 06.09.85/ Respondent raised

industrial dispute relating to his retrenchment alleging

violation of procedure prescribed in sec. 25(F) of the Act/

Labour court rejected respondents claim: holding that

section 25(F) of the Act was not attracted since the

workman failed to prove that he had worked continuously

for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination

06.09.85. On appeal, High Court directed reinstatement of

Respondent into service holding that termination of

respondent was illegal-Whether an order of reinstatement

will automatically follow in a case where engagement of a

daily wager has been brought to an end in violation of

section 25(F) of the Act-Allowing the appeal-held:

The High Court erred in granting relief of

reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent was

engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his engagement

continued for about 7 years intermittently up to September

6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In a case such as the

present one it appears to us that relief of reinstatement

cannot be justified and instead monetary compensation

1648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

would meet the ends of justice. In our considered opinion

the compensation of rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) in lieu

of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable”.

The principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex

Court as mentioned above are squarely applicable to the

present case at hand. In this case, the workman was

engaged as daily wager on temporary basis by party no.1

on 10.02.1996. His engagement continued intermittently

up to 05.04.1997. So, applying the said principles, it appears

to me that a relief of reinstatement is not justified in this

case and instead monetary compensation would meet the

ends of justice. In my considered opinion compensation

of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) in lieu of

reinstatement shall be appropriate, just an equitable.

Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of State Bank of India,

Region-II, Zonal Office, Nagpur, terminating Shri Prakash

Gangadhar Dhakate, Ex-Peon, State Bank of India, Br.

Industrial Estate, Chandrapur is unjustified.

The workman is entitled for monetary compensation

of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) in lieu of

reinstatement. He is not entitled for any other relief.

The party no.1 is directed to pay the compensation

of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the workman

within one month from the date of Publication of the award

in the Official Gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 596-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj]

VsfydkWe] c¯BMk ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 268@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@431@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 596.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 268/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The General Manager, Telecom,

Bathinda and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-40012/431/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH.

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 268/2005

Registered on 20.9.2005

Sh. Anjay Singh, S/o Sh. Roop Singh,

C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President,

Telecom Labour Union,

Mohalla Hari Nagar,

Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bathinda (Punjab)

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom,

Bathinda(Punjab) 151001

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.1.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

431/99-IR(DU) Dated 16.2.2000, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Ferozepur in terminating the

services of Sh. Anjay Singh S/o Sh. Roop Singh is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled and from which date?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

serving as Gateman in the Office of SDOP Cantt., Ferozepur

on a permanent job w.e.f. 1.7.1996 drawing the salary of

Rs. 2138 per month. His services were terminated on

5.3.1999 without serving any notice, charge-sheet or

inquiry. Even he has not been paid any compensation.

That the persons junior to him were retained in service

and even some persons were employed after his

termination. Thus his termination is against the provisions

of the Act and he is liable to be reinstated with all the

benefits.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1649

Respondent management filed written reply

controverting the averments and denied the relationship.

It is further pleaded that the respondent management has

entered into contract with Bakshish Singh for providing

labour for performing emergency work and the management

did not maintain any service record of the labour supplied

by the contractor. That the claimant may have been

engaged by the contractor. That the workman was not an

employee of the respondent management. Further

objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

the present petition was also taken.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and examined P.S. Hanspal.

Workman filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

Sh. P.S. Hanspal is the SDO of the respondent

management and was summoned to produce the record.

He has stated that the record pertaining to casual labour

is not maintained by the management.

The workman was proceeded against ex parte vide

order dated 24.5.2011.

I have heard Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

It is the case of the workman that he was employed

by the respondent management as Gateman and he worked

from 1.7.1996 to 5.3.1999. Respondent management is a

statutory body and is governed by certain Rules and

Regulations in making the appointments. It is nowhere

the case of the workman that any procedure was followed

when he was recruited in service. Even no appointment

letter was issued to him nor the same is proved on the file.

Even no record has come on the file to show that he was

ever paid any salary by the respondent management. Thus

it can be said that he was appointed as Gateman and he

was an employee of the respondent management.

It is the definite case of the management that it has

given the contract for providing labour for emergency

needs and if the workman worked with the contractor, he

cannot claim that he was an employee of the respondent

management. Though P.S. Hanspal was summoned by

the workman to prove the record, he has specifically stated

that no record is maintained by the management of the

casual labour as the same is provided by the contractor.

In the circumstances, the only conclusion is that

workman has failed to prove that he was an employee of

the respondent management and his services were

terminated and he is not entitled for any relief. The reference

is accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard

and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 597-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,XthD;wfVo

bathfu;j] lsaVªy ifCyd oDlZ fMikVZesaV lsaVªy fMohtu&2] paMhx<+

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1083@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@185@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 597.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1083/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Executive Engineer, CPWD,

Central Division-II, Chandigarh and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/185/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1083/2005

Registered on 21.9.2005

Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o

Sh. Balak Ram, House No.627-B,

Kumhar Colony, Sector 25,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

Executive Engineer, CPWD,

Central Division-II,

Kendriya Sadan,

Sector 9, Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Sh. Subhash Talwar, A.R.

For the Management :

Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on 10.1.2014

1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

185/99/IR(DU) Dated 29.5.2000, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Executive Engineer,

Central Division, CPWD, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of Sh. Ravinder Kumar S/o Sh. Balak

Ram w.e.f. 29/12/98 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted claim statement pleading that he was

appointed on 5.6.1997 as Safai Karamchari after conducting

his interview and his services were illegally terminated on

28.12.1998. That the respondent management has control

over his work and he could be removed by it. That on

24.12.1998 LEO (Central) Chandigarh inspected the spot

and recorded statements including that of the workman.

That on 28.12.1998, workman was asked not to attend his

duty w.e.f. 29.12.1998. He has completed more than 240

days of service which has been terminated in violation of

Section 25F, G and H of the Act. He is liable to be reinstated

with full back wages.

Respondent management filed written reply denying

the relationship and pleaded that workman was never

appointed by it. That the management requisitioned the

labour from a contractor for petty jobs. Management had

no control over the workman. That the management was

not aware about the prohibition of law for engaging

persons for sweeping jobs and the contractor was asked

to stop supply of labour for the said purpose. Since the

workman was not an employee of the management, there

is no question of violation of any provision of the law.

In support of his case workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand respondent management examined

Sh. D.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer who filed his affidavit

reiterating the stand taken by he respondent management

in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Subhash Talwar, A.R of the workman

and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the management.

It was argued by A.R. of the workman that workman

was employed on 5.6.1997 which stands proved from the

statement of the workman as well from the fact that the

management has not examined the contractor nor produced

the record maintained by it; and it also did not produce

the record relating to payment of wages to the contractor

and the inference be drawn that the workman was

employed by the management. An argument was also

raised to criticize the statement of Sh. D.K. Gupta examined

by the respondent and submitted that he did not know

about the employment of the workman and further

submitted that LEO (Central) Chandigarh visited the site

on 24.12.1998 and recorded the statement of the workers

including the applicant and when objection was raised

that temporary employee cannot be employed for sweeping

jobs, the services of the workman were arbitrarily

terminated.

I have considered the contentions.

It is the definite case of the workman that he was

appointed by the respondent management after

conducting an interview on 5.6.1997 and he did remain in

the employment up to 28.12.1998. The respondent

management is a government agency and is governed by

certain Rules and regulations for recruiting its employees

but nothing has been shown that any procedure was

followed prior to the conduct of the interview of the

workman or any appointment letter was issued to him.

Workman while appearing in the witness box had admitted

that no appointment letter or termination order was issued

to him. No record has been produced to show that he

attended the office of the respondent management ever

as its employee. If the respondent management did not

examine any contractor through whom, if the workman

was employed, or his records were not summoned, the

same do not affect the respondent management rather it

was for the workman to establish clearly on the file that he

was employed by the respondent management and he

worked there for more than 240 days. Even no record has

been produced to establish that the workman has drawn

salary from the department at any point of time. Since no

documentary evidence has come on the file to establish

the said fact, it cannot be said from the bare statement of

the workman that he was employed by the respondent

management, as much as it is the definite stand of the

management that it has given contract for providing labour

for petty jobs.

There is no denial of the fact that LEO (Central)

Chandigarh visited the site on 24.12.1998 and raised some

objection regarding employing temporary workers for

sweeping jobs and as per the stand of the management

contractor was asked not to supply the labour for the said

purpose. But this fact again do not show that the worker

was an employee of the management.

In the circumstances it is held that workman has

failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondent

management and it cannot be said that his services were

terminated by it. Accordingly, the reference is answered

against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1651

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 598-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,XthD;wfVo

bathfu;j] lsaVªy ifCyd oDlZ fMikVisaV lsaVªy fMohtu&2] paMhx<+

ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1082@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@184@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 598.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 1082/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Executive Engineer, CPWD,

Central Division-II, Chandigarh and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/184/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1082/2005

Registered on 21.9.2005

Sh. Jai Karan S/o Sh. Jaggu,

House No. 212, Janta Colony,

Sector 25, Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

Executive Engineer, CPWD,

Central Division-II, Kendriya Sadan,

Sector 9, Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Sh. Subhash Talwar, A.R.

For the Management

: Sh. Anish Babbar, Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 10.1.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42012/

184/99/IR(DU) Dated 27.1.2000, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the Executive Engineer,

Central Division, CPWD, Chandigarh in terminating

the services of their workman Sh. Jai Karan S/o Jaggu

w.e.f. 29/12/98 is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled?”

In response to the notice the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed by the respondent management as Safai

Karamchari on 5.6.1997 and his services were illegally

terminated on 28.12.1998. That the respondent

management has total control on the workman’s

employment who was liable to be removed from service

on account of unsatisfactory work by the respondent

management. That on 24.12.1998 LEO (Central) Chandigarh

inspected the spot and made some inquiries from the

workers including the applicant. He was asked not to

attend the duties on 28.12.1998 w.e.f. 29.12.1998. That he

worked for more than 240 days and his services have been

terminated without serving any notice and payment of

retrenchment compensation and in violation of Section

25F, G and H of the Act. That he be reinstated in service

with full back wages.

Respondent management filed written reply denying

the relationship and pleaded that workman was never

appointed by it. That the management requisitioned the

labour from a contractor for petty jobs. Management had

no control over the workman. That the management was

not aware about the prohibition of law for engaging

persons for sweeping jobs and the contractor was asked

to stop supply of labour for the said purpose. Since the

workman was not an employee of the management, there

is no question of violation of any provision of the law.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand the management examined Sh.

D.K. Gupta, Executive Engineer who filed his affidavit

reiterating the averments as contained in the written

statement.

I have heard Sh. Subhash Talwar, A.R of the workman

and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the management.

It was argued by A.R. of the workman that workman

was employed on 5.6.1997 which stands proved from the

statement of the workman as well from the fact that the

management has not examined the contractor nor produced

the record maintained by it; and it also did not produce

the record relating to payment of wages to the contractor

and the inference be drawn that the workman was

employed by the management. An argument was also

raised to criticize the statement of Sh. D.K. Gupta examined

by the respondent and submitted that he did not know

about the employment of the workman and further

1652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

submitted that LEO (Central) Chandigarh visited the site

on 24.12.1998 and recorded the statement of the workers

including the applicant and when objection was raised

that temporary employee cannot be employed for sweeping

jobs, the services of the workman were arbitrarily

terminated.

I have considered the contentions.

It is the definite case of the workman that he was

appointed by the respondent management after

conducting an interview on 5.6.1997 and he did remain in

the employment up to 28.12.1998. The respondent

management is a government agency and is governed by

certain Rules and regulations for recruiting its employees

but nothing has been shown that any procedure was

followed prior to the conduct of the interview of the

workman or any appointment letter was issued to him.

Workman while appearing in the witness box had admitted

that no appointment letter or termination order was issued

to him. No record has been produced to show that he

attended the office of the respondent management ever

as its employee. If the respondent management did not

examine any contractor through whom, if the workman

was employed, or his records were not summoned the

same do not affect the respondent management rather it

was for the workman to establish clearly on the file that he

was employed by the respondent management and he

worked there for more than 240 days. Even no record has

been produced to establish that the workman has drawn

salary from the department at any point of time. Since no

documentary evidence has come on the file to establish

the said fact, it cannot be said from the bare statement of

the workman that he was employed by the respondent

management, as much as it is the definite stand of the

management that it has given contract for providing labour

for petty jobs.

There is no denial of the fact that LEO (Central)

Chandigarh visited the site on 24.12.1998 and raised some

objection regarding employing temporary workers for

sweeping jobs and as per the stand of the management

contractor was asked not to supply the labour for the said

purpose. But this fact again do not show that the worker

was an employee of the management.

In the circumstances it is held that workman has

failed to prove that he was an employee of the respondent

management and it cannot be said that his services were

terminated by it. Accordingly the reference is answered

against the workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award

be sent to the Central Government for further necessary

action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 599-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

(izkstsDV~l)] viQdkWUl baizQkLVªDpj fyfeVsM] tEew ds izcaèkra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 289@2013) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@92@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 599.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 289/

2013) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The General Manager (Projects),

Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Jammu and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

24.01.2014.

[No. L-42011/92/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. No. 289/2013

Registered on 18.9.2013

The President Bhartiya Mazdoor

Sangh(J&K) Parade, Jammu,

Jammu

...Petitioner

Versus

1. The General Manager(Projects),

M/s. Afcons Infrastructure, Ltd.,

Jammu-Udhampur, NHIA Road

Project, By Pass Road, AT/PO

Panjgrain, Nagrota-181221,

Jammu

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Ex parte.

For the Management

: Sh. Ajit Kumar for

respondent No. 2

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1653

AWARD

Passed on- 23.12.2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-42011/

92/2013-IR(DU) Dated 9.9.2013, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Afcons Infrastructure Limited, Jammu-Udhampur,

NHIA Road Project in not accepting the demands of

union is justified? To what relief the workmen are

entitled to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, Sh. Ajit Kumar appeared

on behalf of respondent No.2. The workman-Union was

proceeding against ex parte vide separate order of today.

Since the workman-Union have been proceeded

against ex parte and no statement of claim has been

submitted and as such it is to be held that the workman-

Union is not entitled to any relief. Therefore the reference

is accordingly answered against the workman-Union. Let

hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 600-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj

tujy] lsaVªy ikWoj fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] cSaxyksj ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 01@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January, 2014

S.O. 600.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 01/2013)

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 Director General, Central Power

Research Institute, Bangalore and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24.01.2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIUBNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT“SHRAM SADAN”, G. G. PALYA, TUMKUR

ROAD, YESWANTHPUR, BANGALORE – 560 022

Dated : 15th JULY 2013

PRESENT : Shri S N NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

Complaint No. 01/2013

Complainant

Respondent

The General Secretary,

The Director General, Central

Central Power Research

Power Research Institute,

Institute Employees Union, Prof. Sir C. V. Raman Road,

No. 822, 1^st Main Road,

Sadashivnagar, P B No. 8066,

Yeswanthpura,

Bangaore-560 080.

Bangaore-560 022.

Complaint No. 02/2013

Complainant

Respondent

1. Sh. N K Ousef, No. 4,

The Chief Administrative

GEO House, 1^st A Cross,

Officer, Central Power

Nagaraj Layout,

Research Institute, Prof. Sir

Kavalbyrasandra, R T

C V Raman Road,

Nagar, Bangalore-32.

Sadashivnagar, P B No. 8066,

Bangalore-560 080.

2. Sh. Govinda Raju H V,

S/o Late Mr. Venkatappa,

No. 82, Vinayakanagara,

Hesarghatta,

Bangaore-560 088.

Complaint No. 03/2013

Complainant

Respondent

1. Sh. K Channaiah,

The Additional Director

Qrt. No. 8, Type II,

& Disciplinary Authority,

CPRI Colony, New

Central Power Research

BEL Road, Bangalore-12.

Institute, Prof. Sir C V Raman

Road, Sadashivnagar, P B No.

8066, Bangalore-560 088.

2. Sh. K John, Qrt. No. 10,

Type II, CPRI Colony,

New BEL Road, Bangalore-12.

APPEARANCES :

I Party

: Shri T. Anantharam,

Authoirsed Representative

II Party

: Shri M. R. C., Advocate

COMMON ORDER ON APLICATION OF

RESPONDENT FILED UNDER SECTION 11 OF I. D.

ACT DATED 05.06.2013

1. In these complaints filed by the employees and

members of CPRI Employees Union under Section 33 A of

1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the Industrial Disputes Act for change in their Service

Conditions without approval of this Tribunal as required

under Section 33 (2) (b) wherein the reference raised by

the CPRI Employees Union for adjudication on their

demands was pending in C R 54/2007 on the file of this

tribunal, the present applications are filed by the

Respondent under Section 11 of the ID Act to dismiss the

complaints as not maintainable and also to recall and set

aside the interim orders passed in respective complaints

since they have become void-abintio in view of this tribunal

rejecting the Reference in C R No. 54/2007 by Award dated

25.02.2013 (notification dated 11.03.2013) holding that

Respondent is not an Industry as defined under Section

2(j) of ID Act to come under the perview of the ID Act and

the jurisdiction of this tribunal/Court. In all these

applications it is stated that on the specific contention of

the Respondent in the reference that it is not an industry

as defined under Section 2(j) of ID Act, this tribunal while

upholding the said contention rejected the reference by

award dated 25.02.2013 holding that it is not an industry

and thereby this tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

on the demands covered in the reference, these complaints

do not survive/not maintainable and all the interim orders

passed have become void-abintio and non-est in the eyes

of law.

2. These applications are opposed by the

complainants contending that at the time of change in

their service conditions the valid reference made by the

Central Government for adjudication on the demands was

being pending before this tribunal/Court, it was mandatory

on the part of the Respondent to seek permission of this

tribunal under Section 33 (3) as far as the complainants in

Complaint No. 01/2012 and 02/2012 and under Section

33(4) as far as Complainants in Complaint No. 03/2012 who

were declared as protected workmen by the competent

authority and as admittedly no such applications were

filed before this tribunal/court seeking permission they

having approached with these complaints they have to be

adjudicated upon as if they were a dispute referred to this

tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the act and

submit the award to the appropriate government and

cannot dismiss on such applications filed by the

Respondent.

3. I have heard the arguments addressed by the

Authorised Representative of the Complainants and

learned advocate appearing for the Respondents and

carefully gone through all the citations referred to by them.

The learned authorised representative of the complainants

urged that admittedly when the impugned actions touching

the service conditions of the complainants in the

respective complaints were effected during the pendency

of the reference made by the Central Government for

adjudication on the demands of the Employees of the

Respondent on a dispute raised by its Employees union

in C R 54/2007 on the file of this tribunal/Court it was

mandatory on the part of Respondent as contemplated

Under Section 33(3) in respect of Complainants in

Complaint No. 01/2012 and 02/2012 and Section 33(4) in

respect of Complainants in Complaint No. 03/2012 who

were declared as protected workmen by the competent

authority and when this court passed interim orders in the

respective complaints they cannot be said to be void-

abintio (without jurisdiction) and the court has to pass an

award treating the complaints as if they are reference by

the competent authority under section 10 of the ID Act

and cannot dismiss on such applications filed by the

Respondents. In support of his contention/arguments he

cited the following decisions :

The Bhavnagar Municipality vs. Alibhai

Karimbhai and others reported in 1977 SCC

(L&S) 264 (SC).

Order dated 28th Day of May 2010 of Hon’ble

High Court of Karnataka in W P No. 8576/2008

in the case of M/s Madhura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

The workmen of Madura Coats.

Gujarath Agricultural University vs. All Gujarat

Kamdar Karmachari Union, reported in 2009

(IV) LLJ 38L (SC).

Jaipur Jilla Sahakara Bhoomi vs. Vikas Bank

Ltd., reporte din 2202 (1) LLJ 834 (SC).

Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Sanjeev

Kumar, reported in 2012 (II) LLJ 629 (Delhi).

Yellapa B vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

reported in 2203 (III) LLJ 1056 (Calcutta).

Statesman Ltd vs. First Industrial Tribunal

West Bengal reported in 2012 (II) LLJ 577

(Calcutta)DB.

Top Security vs. Subhash Chandra reported in

2012 (IV) LLJ. 542 Delhi (DB).

Order dated 12th day of March 2013 passed by

Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka Division

bench in the case of The Chief Traffic Manager

vs. M Narayana Reddy BMTC in Writ Appeal

No. 5738/2012 (L).

10.

Arasu Virivu Pokkuvara Thu Cozhiyar Sangam

vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.,

Chennai and others reported in 2006 (III) LLJ

245 (madras) DB.

11.

Bharatiya Employees Mazdor Sangha vs.

Industrial Tribunal, Chennai reported in 2012

(II) LLJ. 716 (Madras).

12.

BPL Ltd., vs. R Sudhakar reported in 2004 (II)

LLJ 834 (SC).

13.

Karnataka State Road Transport vs. Asgar

Pasha, reported in 1998 (II) LLJ. 61 (Karnataka).

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1655

14.

Ranger Breweries vs. State of Himachal

Pradesh reported in 1998 (III) LLJ (Supp) 321

(HP) DB.

15.

Portected Workmen : For full year from date of

decision Batra Hospital & Medical Research

Centre vs. Batra Hospital Employees Union

reported in 2013 (II) LLJ. 132 (Delhi).

16.

Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. CGIT 1981 SCC (L&S)

309 SC.

4. Interalia, the learned advocate appearing for the

Respondent urged that the Interim orders in the respective

complaints were passed by this tribunal to maintain status

quo on the ground that whether CPRI is an Industry is yet

to be adjudicated in C R 54/2007 and now this tribunal

having passed an award holding that the CPRI/

Respondent is not an industry and consequently does

not come under the perview of the ID Act and jurisdiction

of this tribunal the very reference made by the Central

Government being held as had the present complaints do

not survive and are liable to be rejected in limine. He also

urged that in Writ Petition No. 14313/2012 (L_RES) in which

the Order of Assistant labour Commissioner dated

18.04.2012 declaring the complainants in Complaint No.

03/2012 and others as protected workmen the Hon’ble High

Court having disposed off that Writ Petition observing

the said order being subject to the outcome of the

proceedings before this tribunal in the pending reference

i.e.. C R 54/2007 in view of this court holding in C R 54/

2007 respondent being not an industry and rejecting the

reference that order passed by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner also do not come to the help of the

complainant in Complaint No. 03/2012 and urged to allow

his applications and to dismiss the complaints.

5. There cannot be any dispute that pending a valid

reference the management in order to effect any change in

the Service Condition of the workmen covered in such

reference has to seek permission of the tribunal where the

reference is pending and there cannot also be a dispute as

to the decisions relied upon by the learned authorised

representative of the complainants that the complaints

filed under Section 33 A have to be treated as reference

under Section 10 of the ID Act and conclude the same

with Award. But only on receipt of a reference for

adjudication it cannot be said it is a valid reference and it

is left open to the adjudicating forum to decide having

regard to the contention taken by the parties to decide

whether it is a valid reference. In the instant case the

mother dispute covered in C R 54/2007 is rejected coming

to a conclusion that the Respondent is not an industry

and do not come under the perview of the industrial dispute

act and jurisdiction of this tribunal/court upholding the

contention of the Respondent in the Reference that it is

not an industry and fall under the perview of the industrial

dispute act it is a determination that the reference is not

valid as such there is no meaning in proceeding with these

complaints on merits as urged by the learned advocate

appearing for the Respondent. It is seen from the Order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W P

No. 2604-2605/2013 (L-TER) wherein the interim order

passed by this tribunal in Complaint No. 03/2012 under

which direction was given to the Respondent to pay the

complainants wages @ last payment made to them before

the impugned order of termination from service from the

date of complainant i.e. 25.06.2012 till the final adjudication

of the complaint and also to allow the complainants to

stay in the quarters in their occupation while holding that

the tribunal which is yet to decide its jurisdiction in the

matter ought not to have passed such a interim order

directing the Respondent to pay the last wages drawn is

wholly inappropriate and so far as the interim order

directing the complainants is concerned is to be sustained

makes it clear that the maintainability of these complaints

depends upon the determination by this tribunal regarding

jurisdiction to try or adjudicate the demands raised in C R

54/2007. Therefore, now in view of this tribunal’s/court’s

determination that CPRI/Respondent is not an Industry

and consequentially does not fall under the perview of

the ID Act and jurisdiction of this tribunal/court these

complainants cannot get adjudicated their grievances

raised in these complaints under the hands of this tribunal/

court. Under the circumstances, as rightly urged on behalf

of the Respondents in my considered view all the three

complaints deserves to be dismissed. In view of the catena

of decisions relied upon by the Authorised Representative

of the Complainants such an application under Section 33

A has to be ended with Award this very Order can be

treated as Award in the respective complaints and has to

be sent for publication to the Government which made the

reference in C R 54/2007. In the result, I pass the following

ORDER

The three separate applications filed by the

Respondent in Complaint Nos. 01/2012, 02/2012 and

03/2012 dated 05.06.2013 are Allowed and

consequently in view of the Award passed in C R

54/2007 holding that CPRI/Respondent is not an

Industry coming under the perview of the ID Act

and the jurisdiction of this tribunal/court the

complaints are Dismissed and the interim orders

passed in the respective complaints are vacated.

This Order shall be treated as an Award in complaint

No. 01/2012, 02/2012 and 03/2012 and will come into

effect from the date of notification from the Ministry

and shall be sent to Ministry of Labour and

Employment for publication in the gazette. No order

as to cost under the circumstances.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 29 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 601.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj

VsfydkWe] duZy ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 450@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@76@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th January , 2014

S.O. 601.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 450/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. II, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The General Manager ,Telecom,

Karnal and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 24-01-2014.

[No. L-40012/76/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present :

Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I.D. 450/2005

Registered on 19.8.2005

Sh. Lallan Singh, S/o Sh. Ghamri Singh,

C/o Baba Nath Ram, Gali No. l0,

Braham Nagar, Hansi Road, Karnal

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager,

Telecom, Department of Telecom,

Karnal - 132001

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman Sh. J.K. Kamboj Advocate.

For the Management Sh. Anish Babbar Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on : 15-1-2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

76/2003 (IR(DU) Dated 31.7.2003, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as 'Act') has referred the following Industrial

Dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of

BSNL,Karnal in terminating the services of

Sh. Lallan Singh, S/o Sh. Ghamri Singh, a worker

w.e.f. 1.3.2001 is just and legal? If not to what relief

he is entitled to?"

In response to the notice, the workman appeared

and submitted statement of claim pleading that he was

appointed as daily paid worker by the management in

November 1982 and continuously worked with SDO,

Telephones up to 31.6.1993. Workman remained on leave

from 1.7.1984 to 1.12.1991 and thereafter worked up to

28.2.2001. His work and conduct remained satisfactory.

However his services were terminated on 1.3.2001 in

violation of the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the

Act as no notice was issued to him prior to his termination

and no retrenchment compensation was paid. That the

persons junior to him were retained in service and the

management also made fresh recruitments after terminating

his services. That his termination is liable to be set aside

with all the benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

denying the relationship and pleaded that the workman

worked only as a petty contractor on a negotiated amount

and he was never given any appointment by the

management. He was paid Rs.2000 on 30.7.1999, Rs.1950

on 8.8.1999 and Rs.1365 on 10.8.1999 for the work

performed by him. He was not paid any salary. Since he

was not an employee of the management, there is no

violation of any provision of the Act.

In support of its case the workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating his case as

set out in the claim petition.

On the other hand respondent has examined Sh.

H.K. Aggarwal who filed his affidavit supporting the case

of the management.

It was argued by the learned counsel for the workman

that workman continuously worked from November 1982,

though he remained on medical leave from 1.7.1984 to

1.12.1991 and his services were arbitrarily terminated on

1.3.2001 in violation of the provisions of the Act and he is

entitled to be reinstated in service with all the benefits.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is the definite case of the workman that he was

appointed as daily paid worker by the management during

November 1982. But no record has come on the file to

establish that he has ever drawn any salary from the

department. It is the definite case of the management that

petty work was given to him as contract on 'need basis'

and the workman while appearing in the witness box

identified his signatures on bills Mark 'A', Mark 'B' and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1657

Mark 'C' showing that payment was made to him for the

work done by him as contractor. Though the workman

pleaded that he was employed as daily paid worker but he

did not specify the job for which he was employed. In

the circumstances, it cannot be said that he was ever

employed by the management as daily wager and being

so, he cannot claim that he was an employee of the

management and his services were erminated.

In result, it is held that the workman is not entitled

to any relief and the reference is accordingly answered

against him. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent

to the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 602-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj yklsZu ,aM Vwczks

fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@

2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29011@53@99&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 602.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/ 2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Larsen and Toubro Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-29011/53/99-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/24/2000

Date: 07-05-2013

Party No. l

Vice President,

Larsen & Toubro Ltd,

Now- Ultratech Cement, Awarpur Cement

Works, Post-Awarpur, Tah, Kopana,

Chandrapur(MS)

Versus

Party No. 2

The General Secretary,

Larsen & Toubro Ltd Cement Kamgar

Sangh, Post: Awarpur, Tah: Kopana,

Chandrapur(MS) .

AWARD

(Dated: 7th May, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub- section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of L&T Ltd. now Ultratech Cement, and their

union., "Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Cement Kamgar Sangh", for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-29011/53/99-IR (M) dated

02.02.2000, with the following schedule:-

"Whether the action of the management of Larsen &

Toubro Ltd. in not paying increase of Rs. 890/- as per

2nd national settlement, by and for the cement

workers, is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the

workmen are entitled and from which date? What

other directions are necessary in the matter?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, "Larsen & Toubro

Ltd. Cement Kamgar Sangh" ('the union" in short), filed

the statement of claim and the management of Larsen &

Toubro /Ultratech Cement Ltd., ("Party No. I" in short)

filed its written statement.

The case of the union as projected in the statement

of claim is that it (the union) is a registered trade union and

the National level workers federation of cement employees,

known as "Indian National Cement workers Federation,

Mumbai entered into an agreement with the cement

manufacturs Association, in respect of revision of wages,

before the commissioner of Labour at New Delhi on

12.07.1996 and the said settlement was made effective from

01.04.1996 and as per the said settlement, the association

of management agreed to increase the house rent allowance

at the rate of Rs. 75 per month and total pay packet of

wages at the rate of Rs. 890 per month and no condition

was laid down in the said settlement to deduct house rent

of Rs. 75 per month, from the employees, whom

accommodation was provided by the respective

management, but the party no. 1 started deducting of

Rs. 75, the amount of HRA from the monthly wages of the

employees w.e.f. 01.04.1996 and it (union) raised objection

and requested the party no. 1 not to deduct the amount of

HRA of Rs. 75/ and after several discussions, during the

meeting dated 09.04.1999, party no. 1 agreed to refer the

dispute to the conciliation officer-Cum-Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central), Chandrapur and accordingly the

1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

matter was referred to the ALC (C), Chandrapur, but on

failure of the conciliation, failure report was submitted by

the ALC to the Central Government and the Central

Government referred the dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication. It is further pleaded by the union that the

deduction of the HRA by the party no.1 was contrary to

the terms of settlement and the employees are entitled for

the full wages of Rs. 890 per month, as per the said

settlement and the action of party no. 1 is totally illegal and

unjustified and the same is liable to be quashed and set

aside. It is also pleaded by the union that other

managements of the Cement Industry paid the full wages

as per agreement dated 12.07.1996, without effecting any

deduction of HRA of Rs. 75 from their employees, even

though they had provided quarters to their employees.

The union has prayed to declare the action of party

no. 1 as illegal and unjustified and to direct the party no. 1

to pay the increased amountof wages of Rs. 890 w.e.f.

01.04.1996 with interest of 18%, without deduction of HRA

of Rs. 75 per month.

3. The party no. 1 in their written statement have

pleaded inter-alia that the employees, whose names have

been enlisted in the schedule to the statement of claim are

provided with residential accommodation in the well

maintained colony situated in the vicinity of their

establishment and as such, the claim staked-up by the

union for payment of house rent allowance to the said

employees cannot be acceded to, as the claim is untenable

and the claim made by the union is misconceived and the

same is founded on erroneous interpretation of the

settlement and the claim for house rent allowance and the

total pay packet as claimed does not tally with the terms

and conditions regulating the subject in the settlement

and the union has wrongly claimed house rent allowance

and the total pay packet and they implemented the mandate

of the settlement with regard to payment of house rent

allowance to all workers, who are not provided with

residential accommodation effective from 01.04.1996 and

the very concept of payment of house rent allowance

emerge only in the cases of employees, who are not

provided with residential accommodation, which is in the

nature of a subsidy to compensate to certain extend the

liability of rental for acquiring residential accommodations

from the' open market and they did not commit of any wrong

in absorbing Rs. 75 per month provided as house rent

allowance from the employees, who were provided with

accommodation, while implementing the settlement and the

demand made by the union is unjust and opposed to the

spirit of the settlement. The party no.1 have 'further pleaded

that the reference is totally vague and the Central

Government has enlarged the scope of the dispute under

misconception and non-application of mind into the details

of the case, as because, out of the total increase of Rs. 890

per month, as stipulated in the settlement, one of the items

was in regard to payment of enhanced house rent allowance

at the rate of Rs. 75 per month, payable from 01.04.1996

and house rent allowance was not admissible to the

workers, who were provided with residential

accommodation and the only dispute raise by the union

before the conciliation officer was in regard to payment of

house rent allowance of Rs. 75 per month also to the

employees, who had been provided with residential

accommodation, but the schedule to the order of reference

is something entirely different than the dispute agitated by

the union and from the schedule of reference, it appears

that as if, none of the workers employed in their

establishment have been paid the amount of Rs. 890 per

month in compliance of the settlement and the demand

made by the union for payment of house rent allowance to

those workers provided with residential accommodation is

unjust and opposed to the spirit of the settlement and their

refusal to concede the demand for payment of house rent

allowance to the employees who are provided with

residential accommodation is correct and perfectly legal

and on a reference by them, the cement manufacturers

association clarified that the agreement dated 12.07.1996 is

subject to Arbitration Award of 1983 and all the existing

service conditions of the agreement shall continue to remain

in force till revised and unless modified by another

settlement, the present practice and method of recovery of

house rent allowance prevailing in each cement unit will

continue and the said clarification issued by the cement

manufacturers association at the instance of the workers

federation put at rest the controversy in the matter and

nothing remains to be adjudicated.

Party no. 1 has further pleaded that the claim of the

union that other managements of the cement industries

have implemented the settlement dated 12.07.1996 with

appropriating the house rent allowance in respect of those

workers, who are provided with residential accommodation

is distorted, misleading and incorrect and the cement

companies, namely, Ambuja Cement, Rajshree Cement,

Dalmia Cement, Century Cement, India Cement, Shree

Digvijay Cement, Andha Cement, Zuri Cement, J.K. Cement,

Mysore Cement, Maihav Cement and Jaypee Rewa Cement

etc have implemented the settlement in question with

specific reference to payment of house rent allowance in

similar and same manner as implemented by them and the

union has failed to justify the claim with regard to the

workers in the list and the claim does not stand to reason

and. the issue of payment of house rent allowance of

Rs. 75 per month to the employees, who are provided with

housing accommodation has not been made out a subject

matter in the schedule of reference and as the claim made

by the union is untenable, the reference is liable to be

answered in the negative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1659

4. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention

some important facts relating to the reference, which are as

follows:-

The party no. 1 nominated one Mr. C.V. Pavaskar, a

member of the Central Executive Committee of the

federation to represent them before this Tribunal. The union

raised objection to the appearance of Shri Pavaskar by

filing an application. Vide order dated 30.07.2001, this

Tribunal disallowed the appearance of Shri Pavaskar on

the ground that he is a practicing advocate. Being aggrieved

by the order dated 30.07.2001, the party no.1 filed writ

petition no. 3259/2002, before the Hon'ble High Court,

Nagpur Bench, Nagpur for redress. The Hon'ble High Court

by an interim order dated 16.12.2002, permitted Shri C.V.

Pavaskar to represent the party no. 1 before this Tribunal.

The writ petition was finally disposed of by the Hon 'ble

High Court on 11.11.2011, upholding the interim order dated

16.12.2002. It is also necessary to mention that the further

proceedings of the reference had been stayed by the

Hon 'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition and such

stay was vacated due to the final disposal of the writ

application on 11.11.2011.

After receipt of the order passed by the Hon 'ble

High Court in writ petition no. 3259/2002 dated 11.11.2011,

both the parties were noticed to appear before this Tribunal

to proceed further in the reference. In response to such

notice, both parties appeared on 13.04.2012. On 13.04.2012,

in presence of both the parties, order was passed for the

cross- examination of the witness for the petitioner (union)

fixing the case to 11.05.2012. On 11.05.2012, though the

management appeared none appeared on behalf of the

union. On 29.08.2012, 08.10.2012, 02.11.2012, 20.12.2012,

24.01.2013, 11.03.2013, 03.04.2013 and 12.04.2013 both the

parties remained absent.

The respective witnesses for the parties, whose

evidence were filed on affidavit also did not appear for

their cross- examination, inspite of giving of sufficient

opportunity to the parties to produce their respective

witness. Hence, the evidence was closed after expunging

their evidence. No argument was also made by the parties.

Hence, the reference was posted for award.

5. Perused the pleadings of the parties and the

available documents on record. Even though, the Central

Government has referred the dispute for adjudication with

the schedule as to whether the action of the party no. 1 in

not paying the increase amount of Rs. 890 to the cement

workers as per 2nd National settlement is legal and

justified, it is found from the claim made by the union in

the statement of claim that the dispute is only regarding

non-payment of house rent allowance of Rs. 75 to the

workers (as per list attached to the statement of claim),

who have been given residential accommodation by party

'no. 1. The demand of payment of house rent allowance of

Rs. 75 per month to the workers, who have been allotted

residential accommodation was not been included in the

reference. From the above mentioned facts, it appears that

the schedule of reference is not proper.

6. Perused the materials on record. It is the admitted

case of the parties that the 383 workers, who had not been

paid house rent allowance of Rs. 75 per month had been

allotted with residential accommodation by party no. 1.

There is no dispute that the very concept of payment of

house rent allowance emerges only in the case of the

employees, who have not been given residential

accommodation by the employer. So, the workers, who have

been provided with residential accommodation are not

entitled to claim house rent allowance. Hence, the claim of

the union for payment of house rent allowance to those

workers is not tenable. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Larsen & Toubro

Ltd in not paying the entire increased amount of Rs. 890 as

per 2nd national settlement, by and for the cement workers,

to the 383 workmen (as per list furnished with the statement

of claim) is legal & justified. The workers are not entitled to

any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 603-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯gnqLrku isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 81@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@75@2001&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 603.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 81/ 2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-30011/75/2001-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/81/2001

Date: 30-12-2013

Party No. l :

The General Manager(WZ),

Byculle, Hindustan Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd., West Zone, J.J.Rd

Mumbai-400008.

The Regional Office,

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.

Ltd., Regional Office, Oriental

Building, 2nd Floor, S.V. Patel

Marg, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The Dy. General Secretary,

Petroleum Worker's Union

(WZ), POI Depot, HPCL,

Khapri, Nagpur- 441108.

AWARD

(Dated: 30th December, 2013)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of HPCL and their workman, Shri Surendra

Yadav, for adjudication, as per letter No.L-30011/75/2001-

IR (M) dated 15.10.2001, with the following scheduler—

"Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., imposing the

punishment of reduction of lower stage in scale to

Sh. Surendra Pilluram Yadav w.e.f. 19.12.97 is justified?

If not, to what relief is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, in response to which, the workman Shri Surendra

Yadav, ("the workman" in short) through his union, "The

Petroleum Worker's Union," ("the union" in short) filed the

statement of claim and the management of HPCL, ("party

no. 1" in short) filed the written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the workman after obtaining

heavy driving licence, came to be appointed as a heavy

vehicle driver w.e.f. 29.11.1978 by party no.1 in its POI

Depot, Khapri, Nagpur and the workman is in continuous

service of party no.1 from the date of his initial appointment

with clean and excellent service record and it (union) is a

registered trade union, under the Trade Unions Act, 1926

and the workman is its member and because of the union

activities, the party no.1 held grudge against its members

and the party no.1 is an industry and is governed by the

provisions of the Act and the provisions of Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to

party no.1 and have got over riding effect.

The further case as presented by the union is that

on 30.01.1995, the workman was served with a charge sheet

containing several false charges against him and the

submission of the charge sheet itself was illegal and the

workman denied the charges by submitting a detailed reply

dated 17.02.1995 and an enquiry was conducted against

the workman in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and the

enquiry officer and the presenting officer were well

educated and fully conversant with the law and the request

of the workman to allow him to engage an advocate to

defend him in the enquiry was rejected and permission to

engage an employee of other department situated at Nagpur

was also rejected by the enquiry officer and the same was

violative of the principles of natural justice and the workman

demanded various documents on the basis of which

charges were framed against him, but the enquiry officer

refused to supply any document and the refusal of

permission to engage an advocate and to supply of

documents caused serious prejudice to the workman and

he could not able to cross-examine the well educated

prosecution witnesses and one Shri Harishankar Meshram,

a co-driver of the workman had consented to represent the

workman in the departmental enquiry, but he also backed

out under the threat of the Depot Manager, Shri Parihar

and the same rendered the. enquiry one sided against the

workman and the workman was not asked by the enquiry

officer as to whether he wanted to cross-examine the

witnesses for the management or to adduce any evidence

and the order of punishment of reversion of the workman

on the basis of the ex parte enquiry and the reversion of

the workman from heavy vehicle driver to the post of general

mazdoor resulted in loss of Rs.500 in his basic pay, as it

was brought down to Rs.3300 from Rs.3800 and being

aggrieved by the punishment imposed against him, the

workrdan preferred on appeal dated 28.04.1997 before the

appellate authority on the ground that the entire enquiry

proceeding was illegal and the punishment of reversion

could not have been imposed upon him, as he was directly

on the post of heavy vehicle driver Grade-I and the appellate

authority by its order dated 19.12.1997 modified the

punishment from reversion to lower cadre to one of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1661

"reduction to lower stage in scale" and the modified

punishment is also illegal as the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, which is applicable to the party

No.1 does not provide for withholding of increments as

punishment and in view of the same, the order of

punishment passed by the appellate authority dated

19.12.1997 deserves to be set aside and quashed.

It is also pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workman that the workman approached the Hon'ble High

Court by filing writ petition no. 1998 of 1998, against the

order of the appellate authority and the Hon'ble High Court,

however, directed to approach the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), being the appropriate forum for

redressal of his grievance, so the workman approached the

ALC accordingly, but the conciliation proceedings failed,

leading to the reference of the dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication and the entire action of the party no.1 is illegal,

arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice

and the same is liable to be quashed.

Prayer has been made to hold the punishment

imposed against the workman to be illegal and to set aside

the same and to restore all financial benefits to the workman.

3. The party no.1 in the written statement admitting

the recruitment of the workman as a heavy vehicle driver

on 29.11.1978 and denying all other allegations, has pleaded

inter-alia that during the tenure of service of the workman,

he was counseled on several occasions for his indisciplined

behaviour and he was also charge sheeted during March,

1987, for his doubtful integrity and on his written request,

a lenient view was taken at that time, by issuing him a

warning letter on 06.10.1987, but even thereafter, there was

no improvement in his conduct and behaviour and reports

were received against the workman that on or about

05.09.1994, 14.09.1994 and 16.11.1994, because of his late

submission of the demand drafts received by him from the

customers, execution of the indent was delayed and on

24.09.1994, he refused to carry out the lawful, reasonable

orders of the operations officer, behaved in an indiscipline

manner with the Depot In-charge and also behaved in a

riotous, disorderly and undisciplined manner with the

Depot Superintendent and report was also received against

him that on 24.09.1994, by parking his motor cycle in front

of the Tank truck, he not only obstructed another heavy

vehicle driver to proceed to Katol to deliver the product,

but also, he abused the other driver and threatened to kill

him and all these reported acts and omissions on the part

of the workman constituted misconduct as specified in its

own certified standing orders, which govern and regulate

the conditions of service of its employees, so the charge

sheet dated 30.01.1995 was issued to the workman leveling

four charges as detailed in the charge sheet and as the

reply of the workman dated l7.02.1995 was found to be

unsatisfactory, it was decided to hold a domestic enquiry

against him and Shri G.S.V. Prasad, the then Deputy

Manager (operations), Nagpur Regional Office and

Shri Amitab Dhar, the then Senior Operations Officer,

Chandrapur, LPG Plant, who were basically operations

people and were not legally trained persons were appointed

as the enquiry officer and presenting officer respectively

and the request of the workman to allow him to be

represented by an advocate was rightly rejected by the

enquiry officer, since there was no such provision in the

certified standing orders and the workman did not have

any legal right to seek permission to utilize the services of

a lawyer or an employee of other department situated at

Nagpur and in the enquiry, witnesses were examined in

presence of the workman and he was given due

opportunities to cross-examine them, but the workman by

adopting an uncooperative attitude and to delay the

proceedings did not utilize the opportunities and time and

again, he was informed that he could be allowed to be

represented and defended by a representative as has been

provided in the certified standing orders and despite the

same, the workman was harping every now and then on

his request to engage an outsider or an advocate to defend

him in the enquiry and the enquiry officer could not wait

indefinitely and having found the workman mis-utilising

the opportunities given to him to cross-examine the

witnesses and was not willing to produce his witnesses

and documents in his defence, concluded the enquiry and

on the request of the workman, the enquiry was conducted

in Hindi and the copies of the proceedings of the enquiry,

which was conducted in English were translated in Hindi

and handed over to the workman and the enquiry officer,

on the basis of the evidence and materials on record,

recorded his findings and came to the conclusion that the

charges levelled against the workman to have been proved

and the enquiry officer submitted his report and the record

of the enquiry to the General Manager, West Zone of the

corporation and a copy of the report of the enquiry was

sent to the workman under letter dated 18.02.1997 and he

was called upon to submit his reply within 15 days of the

date of receipt of said letter and the workman submitted his

reply on 18.03.1997 and the disciplinary authority after

examining the record of enquiry and applying independent

mind and taking into consideration the reply submitted by

the workman, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer

and though the disciplinary authority found the charges

proved against the workman were quite serious, warranting

the major punishment of dismissal, to give an opportunity

to the workman to reform himself, imposed the lenient

punishment of demotion of the workman to general mazdoor

in grade (M-03), without reduction in his salary, by order

dated 31.03.1997 and the appellate authority after

1662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

consideration of the appeal preferred by the workman

modified the punishment and imposed the punishment of

reduction to lower stage in scale as per clause 32 (d) of the

certified standing orders and its action is perfect, legal and

justified and cannot be faulted on any ground whatsoever

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. As this is a case of dismissal of the workman from

services, after holding a departmental enquiry, the validity

of the departmental enquiry was taken up as a preliminary

issue for consideration and by order dated 09.10.2013, the

departmental enquiry conducted against the workman was

held to be legal, proper and in accordance with the principles

of natural justice.

5. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the workman that a bare perusal of

the enquiry report dated 24.03.1995 submitted by the

enquiry officer would show that the findings are perverse

and in the case, the charge sheet was submitted after a

period of four months of the alleged commission of

misconducts by the workman and before issuing of the

charge sheet, no explanation was called for from the

workman and normally, in case of riotous or disorderly

behaviur, immediate action is taken to charge sheet the

workman, but the management in this instant case preferred

to wait for 4 months and this delay itself smacks of

vindictiveness and malafide intention on the part of some

officers of the management and no documents was

produced by the management during the course of the

departmental enquiry to prove the charges levelled against

the workman and in absence of any documentary evidence,

the charge is not sustainable and the findings of the enquiry

officer are perverse and the enquiry officer without

analyzing the evidence of the witnesses examined by the

management and without giving any reason, abruptly

concluded that the charges levelled against the workman

were proved and on that score also, the findings are

perverse and past record of the workman was not

considered by the disciplinary authority, while awarding

the penalty and the penalty of reduction of lower stage in

the scale imposed against the workman is harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct and the

punishment imposed is not prescribed in the model

standing orders and as such, the same is illegal and the

order of punishment imposed against the workman is

required to be quashed and set aside.

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 1963 II LLJ- 452 (Khardah & Co. Ltd. Vs. Workmen) of

AIR 1985 SC. 1121 (Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer).

6. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that by order

dated 09.10.2013, it has already been held by this Tribunal

that the departmental enquiry conducted against the

workman to be fair, proper and in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer in his

report dated 07.02.1997 has dealt with the charges levelled

against the workman point wise and in detail by referring

to various exhibited documents and the findings of the

enquiry officer are based on the oral and documentary

evidence that was placed before him during the enquiry

and the charges which were levelled and proved against

the workman were extremely serious and the disciplinary

authority taking into consideration all the pros and cons of

the matter, the charges of misconduct levelled against the

workman and the past service records of the workman and

all other aggravating and exenterating circumstances of

the case, came to a conclusion that it was a fit case, where

the workman deserved to be discharged/dismissed from

service, but to give one more opportunity to the workman

to reform himself, decided to impose the penalty of

demotion from the position of heavy vehicle driver grade

M-07 to the position of General worker grade M-03 at

Khapri LPG plant,without reduction in' his salary by order

dated 31.03.1997 and the workman approached the Appellate

Authority and the Appellant authority took a lenient view

in favour of the workman and modified the order of

punishment of demotion of the workman and imposed the

punishment of "reduction of lower stage in scale" as per

clause 32 (d) of certified standing orders applicable to the

workman.

It was further submitted by the learned advocate for

the party no.1 that in the entire statement of claim, the

workman has not challenged the perversity of the findings

of the enquiry officer and in absence of any pleading in the

statement of claim, it is not open for the workman to call in

question, the findings of the enquiry officer and the order

of punishment and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of the submissions, the learned advocate

for the party no.1 placed reliance on the decisions reported

in (1979) 3 SCC-371 (Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia

Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another), 2007 (1) Born LC-255 (SC)

(Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. ltd. Vs. N.K. Singh),

2007 (1) Born LC-315 (Born) (AFL Private Ltd Vs. S.J.

Rajappa), 2007 LLR-245 (Punjab & Haryana High Court)

(Jarnail Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala)

and 2006 (4) LLN 550 (Bombay) (Brihanmumbai Municipal

Corporation, Mumbai Vs. S.R. Mishra).

7. Before delving into the merit of the matters, I think

it proper to mention the principles enunciated by the

Hon 'ble Apex Court in the two decisions cited by the

learned advocate for the workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1663

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

1963 II LLJ-452 (Supra) have held that :—

"If industrial adjudication attaches importance to

domestic enquires and the conclusion reached at the end

of such enquires, that necessarily postulates that the

enquiry would be followed by a statement containing the

conclusions of the enquiry officer. It may be that the enquiry

officer need not write a very long or elaborate report, but

since his findings are likely to lead to the dismissal of the

employee, it is his duty to' record clearly and precisely his

conclusions and to indicate briefly his reasons for reaching

the said conclusion, unless such a course is adopted, it

would be difficult for the industrial tribunal to decide

whether the approach adopted by the enquiry officer was

basically erroneous or whether his conclusion were

perverse."

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in

AIR 1985 SC. 1121 (Supra) have held that :—"Disciplinary

enquiry-Report of enquiry officer must be a reasoned one."

So, keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions mentioned above, now,

the present case in hand is to be considered.

8. The first submission made by the learned advocate

for the Workman is that the findings of the enquiry officer

are perverse, as the enquiry officer without analyzing the

evidence of the witnesses examined in the enquiry and

without assigning any reason for reaching such

conclusions has given his findings.

However, on perusal of the materials on the record of

the departmental enquiry including the enquiry report

submitted by the enquiry officer, it is found that the findings

of the enquiry officer are not perverse. The enquiry officer

has dealt with the charges chronologically and has

referred to the evidence adduced in the enquiry. It is to be

mentioned here that the evidence of the witnesses

examined by the management in the departmental enquiry

was not challenged by the workman. Hence, I find no force

in the contention raised by the learned advocate for the

workman in this count.

9. The next contention raised by the learned advocate

for the workman that the punishment imposed against the

workman is not prescribed in the standing orders and as

such the same is illegal. It is to be mentioned that

punishment to "reduction to lower stage in scale" has been

imposed against the workman.

Clause 32 of the standing orders applicable to the

workman prescribes the punishment for misconduct and

clause 32(d) prescribes the punishment of "Reduction to a

lower stage in the Scale".

The Appellate authority, who modified the order of

punishment imposed against the workman by the

disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment of

"Reduction to a lower Stage in the scale", in the order itself

has mentioned the clause under which the punishment

was imposed. Hence, it is not correct to say that the

punishment imposed against the workman has not been

prescribed in the standing order.

10. So far the proportionality of punishment is

concerned, it is found that while imposing the punishment,

the past service record of the workman was considered. It

is also found that commission of grave misconducts has

been proved against the workman in a properly conducted

departmental enquiry. It is also found that the punishing

authority took a lenient view against the workman while

imposing the punishment . So, the punishment imposed

against the workman cannot be said to be shockingly

disproportionate. So, there is no scope to interfere with the

punishment. Hence, it is ordered:-—

ORDER

The action of the management of Hindustan

Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., imposing the punishment of

reduction of lower stage in scale to Sh. Surendra Pilluram

Yadav w.e.f. 19.12.97 is justified. The workman is not entitled

to any relief.

J. P. CH AND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 604-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 7@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@31@2010&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 604.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/ 2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-30012/31/2010-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 16th December, 2013

Present: K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 7/2012

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947), between

the Management of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Raveendran

: 1st Party/Petitioner Union

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager : 2nd Party/1st Respondent

(HRS) South M/s. Bharat Petroleum

Corpn. Ltd. No. 1, Ranganathan

Garden, Anna Nagar (W),

Chennai-40

2. The Personnel Manager : 2nd Party/2nd Respondent

BPCL, 7, Kodambakkam High Road

Chennai-600034

3. The Territory Manager

: 2nd Party/3rd Respondent

(LPG) : BPCL, Coimbatore.

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Sri G.B. Saravanabhavan,

Advocate

For the 1st Party/1st, 2nd : M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

& 3rd Respondent

Advocates

A.WARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-30012/31/2010-IR(M)

dated 16.01.20~2 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL in

terminating the services of Sri M. Raveendran w.e.f.

07.01.2013 is just and legal? To what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 7/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

3. The case that is put forth in the Claim Statement

by the petitioner in brief is this:

The petitioner was appointed as Sweeper-cum-

Scavenger in the LPG Plant of the Respondents at

Coimbatore in 1984. Later he was promoted as Operator

(F). The petitioner was doing his work diligently and

sincerely. On 26.02.2011, a Show Cause Notice was issued

to the petitioner asking him to show cause for unauthorized

absence from work. Though the petitioner had given an

explanation the Management was not satisfied with this

and had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner. On conduct of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer

has found that the charge against the petitioner is proved.

The petitioner had gone for treatment due to psychotic

problems at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital from

25.05.2002 to 03.06.2002. After this, he had attended the job

till the date of his dismissal. The petitioner had given a

letter to the Management requesting to reinstate him. He

has sent a petition for revocation of his termination also.

The petitioner had been undergoing treatment for mental

illness till 2009. Now he is cured of the illness. The delay in

raising the dispute is not willful. The termination of the

petitioner is illegal. In any case, the punishment imposed

on the petitioner is disproportionate. The petitioner is

entitled to be reinstated into service with full back wages,

continuity of service and all other benefits.

4. The Respondents have filed a joint Counter

Statement contending as follows.

The petitioner was terminated from service by order

dated 23.12.2002. He has accepted the order on 07.01.2003.

He has received his gratuity and also his group savings in

insurance. Having acquiesced with the cessation of his

employment, the petitioner is not entitled to question this.

Disciplinary action is usually initiated against a workman

in case of absence without leave. The petitioner was a

chronic absentee between 1989 and 1994. He was

unauthorizedly absent for several days. During this period

for several days. Since he was continuously absent in 1995

disciplinary action was taken against him and punishment

of demotion by one grade with reduction in salary in three

stages was imposed on him. He was unauthorizedly absent

for more than 287 days from 1996 to 1997 and he was again

given punishment of demotion from the post of Operator

(F) in Grade-II to the post of Operator-V in Grade-I with

reduction in salary in three stages. He had been

unauthorizedly absent between 1997 and 2000 also. Charge

Sheet was issued against him for his unauthorized absence

of 360 days. After enquiry the petitioner 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 documents marked

as Ex.W1 to Ex.W13 and Ex. M1 to Ex.M2.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1665

6. The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in

terminating the service of the petitioner has

any justification?

(ii)

What is the relief, if any, to which the petitioner

is entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner was admittedly an employee of the

Bharat Petroleum Ltd. and was working at its Coimbatore

LPG Plant Initially he was appointed as Sweeper-cum-

Scavenger, in 1984. At the time of his dismissal from service

he was working as Operator (F).

8. The Management had initiated proceedings

against the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from

work for 360.5 days between January 1998 and November

2001. On conducting the enquiry, the charge against the

petitioner was found established and it is accordingly the

petitioner was terminated from service.

9. There is no case for the petitioner that the enquiry

conducted against him by the Management was not in a

fair and proper manner. The documents pertaining to the

enquiry conducted against the petitioner are produced by

him itself. Ex.W6 is the Charge Sheet issued by the

Management stating that he was unauthorizedly remaining

absent for more than 350 days which amounts to

misconduct. Ex.W7 and Ex.W8 are the explanations

submitted by the petitioner. Ex.W9 is the proceedings of

the domestic enquiry. It could be seen from this that the

petitioner had participated in the enquiry and had pleaded

guilty of the charge. On pleading guilty, he has submitted

to the Enquiry Officer that in future he would not take a

single day's leave without permission and had sought to

be forgiven for his past misconduct. In enquiry the

Management has produced the caution letter sent to the

petitioner because of his unauthorized absence and advised

him to be regular in his duty. The Show Cause Notice that

has been issued for unauthorized absence during October

1997 to November 2000 also has been produced. On the

basis of the documents and on the basis of the admission

by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer has found the

petitioner guilty of the misconduct of unauthorized absence

and had given a report accordingly.

10. Even now there is no case for the petitioner that

the case of the Management that he was unauthorizedly

absent during the period mentioned in the Charge Sheet

served on him is not correct. What the petitioner has stated

in the affidavit filed by him is that he was mentally ill and

was undergoing treatment. It could be seen from the

documents produced by the Respondents that innumerable

letters were served on the petitioner because of his

unauthorized absence. Exs.M7 to Ex.M17 are all such letters

served on the petitioner during the period from 1998 to

2001. It could be seen that even by Ex.M6, the letter dated

18.08.2001, while reminding the petitioner of his absence

from 31.07.2001, the petitioner was asked to report for duty

immediately with a satisfactory explanation for the

unauthorized absence. There is no case for the petitioner

that these letters produced by the Respondents were not

served on him. In Ex.W13, the mercy petition given by the

petitioner to the Management after termination, the case of

the petitioner is that he happened to be addicted to alcohol

and it is because of this he was absent and that opportunity

should be given to him to correct and improve himself.

Thus, there is an admission by the petitioner himself that

he was ignoring his duty and was seeking to quench his

thirst for liquor even on duty days and this is why he

failed to attend duty. Though there is a case for the

petitioner that he was having mental illness this is not at

all sought to be established.

11. It is not for the first time that the petitioner was

unauthorizedly absent. He was a habitual absentee and

the Management had proceeded against him for this reason

earlier also on more than one occasion. As seen from

Ex.M19, by order dated 04.09.1997 he was awarded

punishment of demotion from Grade-III to Grade-II with

reduction in salary by three stages for unauthorized

absence for 84 days in the year 1995. As seen from Ex.M20,

in spite of his earlier punishment the petitioner had become

absent again unauthorizedly for 287 days in between

January 1996 and September 1997 and he was awarded

punishment of demotion from Grade-II to Grade-I with

reduction in salary by three stages. The Management had

given the petitioner sufficient opportunity earlier by issuing

several letters to him asking him to be punctual in duty and

subsequently by imposing not so severe punishments for

unauthorized absence. Yet the petitioner had not taken it

upon him to mend his ways and be regular in work. A worker

who is so irresponsible will certainly be a burden to the

establishment. It is only natural that the Management

thought it prudent to remove him from service. The counsel

for the Respondent has referred to the decision of the Apex

Court in L&T KOMATSU LTD. VS. N. UDAYA KUMAR

reported in 2008 I LLJ 849 where it was held that habitual

absenteeism is a gross violation of discipline. The Apex

Court had reversed the order of the Labour Court and the

High Court directing the reinstatement of the worker and

had restored the order of termination passed by the

disciplinary authority. Going by the above dictum of the

Supreme Court dismissal of the petitioner is in order.

12. I n the present case, there is one more reason for

rejecting the case of the petitioner. The termination of the

petitioner from service was on 23.12.2002. After receiving

the dismissal order he has collected his gratuity and also

his provident fund dues, as admitted by him during his

cross-examination. What he has stated in his proof affidavit

is that he was in mental agony for 5 years and was under

treatment and that is why there was delay in raising the

dispute. In fact the dispute is raised with a delay of more

1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

than 5 years. Ex. M31, the report by the Assistant Labour

Commissioner shows that the dispute was actually raised

on 12.10.2009. The case of the petitioner that he was

undergoing treatment for illness and was not in a position

to pursue the case and his own admission that he had

received gratuity and provident fund dues after termination

from service are contradictory. There is no acceptable

explanation for the delay in raising the dispute. The Apex

Court has held (2005 I LLJ 297) that even though no time

limit is prescribed for raising industrial dispute, the conduct

of the concerned worker in approaching the Labour Court

with huge delay is a factor to be taken into account while

considering the case. There was no justification for the

petitioner to wait for more than 5 years to raise the dispute.

This also disentitles him for any relief. I find that the

petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

In the result the reference is answered against the

petitioner.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 16th December, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, PresidingOfficer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : WW1. Sri M. Raveendran

For the 2nd Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

02.05.1984

Appointment order

Ex.W2

13.05.1985

Confirmation

Ex.W3

01.04.1992

Revised Salary

Ex.W4

26.02.2001

Letter

issued

the

Management

Ex.W5

01.03.2001

Explanation given by the

petitioner

Ex.W6

17.12.2001

Charge sheet issued by the

Management

Ex.W7

12.01.2002

Explanation submitted by the

petitioner

Ex.W8

14.02.2002

Explanation submitted by the

petitioner

Ex.W9

14.02.2002

Proceedings of the domestic

enquiry

Ex.W10

26.04.2002

Report of Enquiry Officer

Ex.W11

25.05.2002

Discharge summary

Ex.W12

18.12.2002

Dismissal Order

Ex.W13

27.05.2004

Mercy Petition

On the management's side :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

17.12.2001

Charge Sheet issued to the

petitioner

Ex.M2 12.01.2002

Examination of petitioner

Ex.M3

22.01.2002

Appointment of Enquiry

Officer

Ex.M4

22.01.2002

Appointment of Presenting

Officer

Ex.M5

29.08.2001

Letter from the Respondent of

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M6

18.08.2001

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence and

advising to report with his

explanation

Ex.M7

27.04.2001

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M8

16.02.1999

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M9

05.02.1999

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M10

05.11.1999

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M11

16.11.1998

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M12

28.10.1998

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence

Ex.M13

24.10.1998

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence and

advising to report for duty.

Ex.M14

16.10.1998

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence and

advising to report for duty etc.

Ex.M15

08.09.1998

Letter from the Respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence and

advising to report for duty etc.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1667

Ex.M16

10.09.1998

Letter from the respondent to

the petitioner regarding his

unauthorized absence and

advising him to submit his

explanation

Ex.M17

26.02.2001

Show Cause Notice for

unauthorized absence between

October 1997 to November 2002

- 287 days

Ex.M18

14.05.2001

"Cautioned" to be regular to

attend to work in respect of

Show Cause Notice dated

26.02.2001

Ex.M19

04.09.1997

Order awarding punishment of

demotion from Grade 3 to Grade

2 with reduction in salary by

three stages for unauthorized

absence of 84 days between

February 1995 and December

1995 in reference to Charge

Sheet dated 31.01.1960

Ex.M20

21.09.1998

Order awarding punishment of

demotion from Grade II to Grade

I with reduction in salary by

three stages for unauthorized

absence of 287 days between

January 1996 and September

1997 - in reference to charge

sheet dated 13.11.1997

Ex.M21

23.12.2002

Letter from respondent

enclosing

order

dated

18.12.2002 dismissing the

workman from employment

Ex.M22

24.02.2003

Internal Memo from Dy.

Manager

(ED)

(South)

enclosing Gratuity Receipt of

the petitioner

Ex.M23

23.01.2003

Letter from Dy. Manager (ED)

(South) enclosing Form 19

under EPF Act for settlement

of PF Account

Ex.M24

04.03.2003

Letter from Manager (Finance)

respondent

EPF

Organization enclosing Form

19, Form 3A to effect full and

final settlement of dues to the

petitioner

Ex.M25

25.02.2003

Letter from respondent to

petitioner enclosing Demand

Draft dated 21.02.2003 towards

settlement of leave encashment

Ex.M26

03.06.2003

Letter from respondent to

petitioner enclosing cheque

towards GSLI Final Settlement

Ex.M27

21.10.2009

Notice from Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central) to

parties enclosing 2A petition to

the petitioner

Ex.M28

17.11.2009

Reply of the respondent to

Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central) to the 2A petition to

the petitioner

Ex.M29

18.12.2009

Additional reply/submission of

the respondent to Asstt.

Labour

Commissioner

(Central), Chennai

Ex.M30

07.07.2010

Reply of respondent to Asstt.

Labour Commissioner (Central)

on the rejoinder of the

petitioner

Ex.M31

29.10.2010

Conciliation failure report of the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Madurai

Ex.M32 -

Standing Orders of the

Respondent.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 605-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fcgkj LVsV

feujy MsoyiesaV dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 1] /uckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@1992) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29012@80@91&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 605.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/ 1992)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bihar State Mineral Development

Corporation Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-29012/80/91-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 DHANBAD

Reference: No. 32/ 1992

In the matter of reference U/s l0(1) (d) (2A) of I.D.

Act, 1947.

Parties: Employer in relation to the management of

B.S.M.D.C

AND

Their workmen

Present: Sri R.K. Saran , Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman.

: None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal

Dated 16-12-2013

AWARD

By order No. L-29012/80/91-IR (Misc.) dated

07-04-92, 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 retirement of Shri Bidya Rai, W.W. I,

Pesra Mine and Shri Banarashi Tiwary, Mines

Manager, Suggi Mica Mine, w.e.f . 19.4.91 and 23.4.91

respectively by the management of M/s. Bihar State

mineral Dev. Corporation Ltd. Justified ?" If not, to

what relief both the workmen are entitled to?’’

2. After receipt of the reference both parties are

noticed. But appearing for certain dates, none appears

subsequently. Case remain pending. It is felt that the

disputes between the parties have been resolved in the

meantime. Hence pass a No disputed Award is passed.

Communicate to the Ministry.

R.K.SARAN , Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 606-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfj,.Vy

bU'kqjUl dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2] paMhx<+

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 1257@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&17012@12@2005&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 606.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1257/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Oriental Insurance

Corporation Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-17012/12/2005-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer.

Case No. I. D. No.1257 /2006

Registered on 14.3.2006

Sh. Jagir Singh, S/o Sh. Sampuran Singh,

R/o Village Ugara, P.O. Bada Tehsil,

Ambala. ....Petitioner

Versus

Senior General Secretary,

M/s Oriental Insurance Corporation Limited,

Divisional Office, Ambala Cantt,

Ambala. ...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Sh. R.P. Rana, Advocate

For the Management : Sh. N.K. Zakhmi, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 13 - 11- 2013

Central Government vide Notification No. L-17012/

12/2005-IR(M) Dated 27.2.2006, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

(2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as (Act) has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental

Insurance Co. Ambala in terminating the services of

Sh. Jagir Singh S/o Sh. Sampuran Singh, Ex-

Waterman-cum-Peon w.e.f. 28-12-2001 without any

notice and payment of retrenchment compensation

is illegal and unjustified? If so to what relief the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1669

concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?"

In response to the notice the workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he joined the service as

Waterman-cum-Peon with the respondent- management on

10.6.1998 who paid wages to him upto 28.12.2001. He

also worked in the month of January 2001 but was not paid

for this period. His services have been terminated without

complying the provisions of Section 25F, G and H of the

Act. That Jeet Singh who was junior to him was retained in

service whereas Jarnail Singh and Sohan Singh were

engaged after terminating his services. That his termination

being against the provisions of law is illegal and void, and

he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full back wages

and continuity of service.

Respondent-management filed written reply pleading

that the workman was engaged for a specific period and for

a specific work and on purely daily wage basis and after

the expiry of the contractual period, further contract was

not renewed. That he did not work continuously for 240

days and he worked as a Water Carrier from 10.6.1998 to

2.9.1998 for 85 days. He was again engaged in July 1999

when he worked for 8 days. His services were again utilized

from September 2001 to December 2001 for 58 days. Thus

he was engaged depending upnn the work. The provisions

of Section 25F, G and H are not applicable.

In support of his case workman appeared in the

witness-box and filed his affidavit.

On the other hand the management has examined

Sh. Anil Relhan who filed his affidavit reiterating the case

as stated in the written statement.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the file carefully.

It was argued by learned counsel for the workman

that workman was employed as Waterman-cum-Peon on

10.6.1998 and he worked with the management up to

28.12.2001 and his services were terminated without

issuance of any notice and payment of retrenchment

compensation, as well the persons were appointed after

the termination of service of workman and as such, there is

violation of Section 25F and 25G of the Act and workman is

entitled to be reinstated in service with all the benefits. He

further contended that certain record was summoned from

the management who failed to produce the same and

therefore adverse inference be taken against the

management to the effect that workman was in continuous

service of the management. I have considered the

contentions of the learned counsel for the workman.

It is the definite case of the workman that he joined

the service as Waterman on 10.6.1998 through Employment

Exchange. The respondent-management is an Insurance

Company and it cannot be said that they employed the

workman as its employee without following any procedure.

The workmen are employed in the statutory bodies by

following certain rules. It is nowhere the case of the workman

that there was any advertisement or interview conducted

and thereafter his selection was made. Again he did not

place on record any appointment letter on the file to show

the terms and conditions of service. It is the definite case

of the management that he was employed only for three

months and he worked from 10.6.1998 to 2.9.1998 and in

view of this stand, it was expected from the workman to

establish by leading cogent evidence that he was actually

employed on regular basis by the management. It is again

definite case of the management that workman was

employed for a specific period and for a specific work on

purely daily wage basis and he worked for 85 days from

10.6.1998 to 2.9.1998 and then for 8 days, in July 1999 and

then for 58 days from September 2001 to December 2001. It

has come in the cross-examination of the management-

witness Sh. Anil Relhan that no attendance register is

maintained regarding the daily wagers. When it is so, if the

management did not produce the record the same is of no

consequence. It was squarely on the workman to prove

that he cotinuously worked with the management from

10.6.1998 to 18.12.2001 which he failed to prove by leading

any cogent evidence on the file and in the circumstances it

cannot be said that any provision of the act has been

violated and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The

reference is decided against the workman. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 607-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¯gnqLrku isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] lkaxyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

02@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@2@2014&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2013

S.O. 607.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/ 2000)

of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Sangli now as

shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-15025/2/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR

COURT, AT SANGLI

(Presided over by Shri S. R. Navandar)

Reference (I.D.A.) No. 2/2000

Adjudication Between

The General Manager

West Zone, Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited, Richardon &

Cruddas Building, 2nd floor; Sir.J.J. Road,

Bhaikhala (Byculla) Mumbai.

...1st Party

And

Shri. Vasant Appasaheb Khandekar,

Age :- Major, Occu :- Now Nil,

R/o. Malgaon, Tal- Miraj, Dist- Sangli. ...2nd Party

CLAIM :-

Reinstatement with continuity of service and full back

wages of 2nd Party.

Shri. S.S. Shevade, Advocate for 1 st party.

Shri. K.D. Shinde, Advocate for 2nd Party .

AWARD

(Delivered on 12th day of February, 2013 )

This is a reference made under Section-10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act. (hereinafter referred to as the

"Act").

(2) Certain admitted facts are as follows :-—

2nd party workman Vasant Khandekar was serving

with the 1st party Company since 01/06/1988. He was

charge- sheeted for misconduct of habitual absenteeism

on 07/12/1993. On considering his explanation, dt. 16/12/1993

Domestic Enquiry was initiated against him and thereafter

he has been dismissed from service on 16/08/1994. After

dismissal the 2nd party workman had approached

Conciliation Officer claiming reinstatement and full back

wages. No settlement was arrived at in the conciliation

proceeding and hence the reference has been forwarded to

this court by Government.

(3) Brief facts of the case of the 2nd party workman

are as follows :—

In the statement of claim Exh. U-2 the 2nd party

workman has contended that the enquiry conducted

against him was not fair and proper. He was not given

sufficient opportunity to represent himself and to lead

evidence in the domestic enquiry. The enquiry officer

obtained his signature on already typed paper and treated

it as his confession and recorded affirmative findings

against the charges levelled against him. The 2nd party

workman does not know english language and still the

enquiry proceeding was held in english language.

Representative of the 2nd party workman was not allowed

to enter the premises where the enquiry was held and as

such grave prejudice has been caused to the 2nd party

workman.

(4) It is further alleged that the enquiry officer did

not refer the contents of charge-sheet, his reply and the

documents on record, that the documents which were not

filed on record were referred by the enquiry officer and on

that basis the findings were recorded which are perverse.

There was no evidence to mark affirmative findings to the

charges levelled in the enquiry and hence the enquiry as

well as the findings of enquiry officer need to be quashed.

(5) The 2nd party workman on each and every

incident of non-attendance had moved applications

alongwith medical certificates as he was not well. Despite

of that the period was treated as of unauthorized absence.

After completing farce of enquiry the 2nd party has been

dismissed from service for no good reasons. The number

of days shown in the dismissal order given on 16/08/1994

were not mentioned in the charge- sheet and as such the

dismissal order is illegal and bad in law. The punishment

awarded to the 2nd party workman is shockingly

disproportionate and unwarranted considering the alleged

misconduct. It is therefore the 2nd party has prayed for

reinstatement with continuity of service and full back

wages.

(6) The 1st party company has resisted the c1aim by

filing its Wri.tten Statement at Exh. C-2. It has specifically

denied that any illegality has been committed in holding

domestic enquiry of the 2nd party workman. It is further

denied that the findings of enquiry officer are perverse or

based on no evidence. According to the 1st party company

the 2nd party workman was a case of habitual absenteeism.

The enquiry was initiated against him on the report made

by his Superior Officer. It is contended that the 2nd party

workman was allowed representation through Union or

any co-worker. However, despite of that he had pleaded

guilty. As his plea was voluntary it was accept by the

enquiry officer. It is further contended that the findings of

enquiry officer are based firstly, upon the admission of

guilt by the 2nd party workman and secondly, on the record

available with the enquiry officer. It is further contended

that the past record of the 2nd party workman was poor as

he used to remain absent frequently without assigning

any reason. As such there is no illegality either in the

proceeding of enquiry or in the findings of the enquiry

officer.

(7) It is further contended that no leave applications

were submitted by the 2nd party workman nor any medical

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1671

certificate was produced by him to show that he was

suffering from any illness. It is further contended that there

was absolutely no reason for the 2nd party workman to

remain absent from duty. The statements made by the 2nd

party are thus contended to be false and frivolous. It is

further contended that the 2nd party workman is a public

undertaking and considering the nature of the duty of

2nd party it was expected on his part to be punctual in the

duty. The habitual absenteeism on the part of the 2nd party

workman is a serious misconduct for which the punishment

of dismissal can only be said to be justified and proper. It

cannot be said to be disproportionate or shockingly

disproportionate. Hence, the 1st party corporation has

prayed for dismissal of the reference.

(8) The preliminary issues of enquiry have been

decided by the judgment dt. 10108/2012. It is found that

the enquiry was proper and the findings of the enquiry

officer are not perverse. Now the remaining issues are taken

hereinafter for determination. I record my findings against

for the reasons to follow:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

(1)

Whether 2nd party entitled In the Negative

for reinstatement with

continuity of service and full

back wages? .

(2)

Does the 1st party prove the

In the

alleged misconduct of the 2nd

affirmative.

party ?

(3)

Is the 2nd party entitled for the In the negative.

relief claimed ?

(4)

What order?

As per final

order .

REASONS

(9) The parties have led no oral evidence after

decision on the preliminary issues of enquiry. They have

relied upon the enquiry papers filed on record.

(10) Heard learned advocate Mr. K. D. Shinde for the

2nd party workman and learned advocate Mr. S.S. Shevade

for the 1st party company.

(11) As to issue No. 2 :—

While deciding preliminary Issues it has been

observed that the findings of enquiry officer are legal and

proper. The enquiry officer has held that the charge of

willful absenteeism on the 2nd party workman has been

duly proved. As such the alleged misconduct on the part

of the 2nd party stand proved. The findings on the issues

are now settled and hence I answer the issue No. 2 in the

affirmative.

(12) As to issues No. 1 and 3 :—

As per Section-11-A of the Act this court is

empowered to interfere with the sentence awarded by the

Management if it is found that it is not just and proper

having regard to the gravity of misconduct of the 2nd party'

workman and other attending or mitigating circumstances.

Learned advocate Mr. K. D. Shinde has vehemently argued

that the 2nd party workman has been victimized by awarding

punishment of dismissal only because the 2nd party

was absent for some days that too due to illness. It is

argued that the workman was serving with the 1st party

corporation since year 1988 and his long standing service

was put to an end for no good reasons by 16-08-1994. It is

further argued that he must have given an opportunity by

proposing any other punishment, which can, have suffice

the purpose.

(13) In support of the contentions learned advocate

Mr. Shinde has cited following judgments :

(1) Syed Zaheer Hussain V/s. Union

: 1999 I, C.L.R.

of India and Others.

Page no.1014.

(2) Shri Rajendra B. Oza V/s. Air

: 2002 III, C.L.R.,

India.

Page no. 517.

(3) Ahmedabad Municipal

: 2004 LAB. IC.,

Transport Service V/s.

Page no. 3031.

Mohmad Salim J. Shaikh.

(4) Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. &

: 2008 LAB. IC.,

Another V/s. V. Surender.

Page no. 3588.

The crux of the above judgments is that when it is

found that the punishment awarded to the workman is

shockingly disproportionate or grossly disproportionate

the court is empowered to interfere with the same and to

direct giving lesser punishment.

(14) Learned advocate Mr. S.S Shevade for the 1st

party has argued that the misconduct of the 2nd party

workman is of serious and grave nature, that the 1 st party

is a public institute and when an employees of public

institute remain absent it not only hampers the work of the

institute but it affects economy of entire nation. He has

cited following judgments in support of his contentions :

(1)

Bharat Forge Company Ltd.,

: 2005 I C.L.R.,

V/s. Uttam Manohar Nakate.

Page no. 533.

S.C. .

(2)

Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., : 2005 (I) Bom.

V/s. N.B. Narawade.

LC. Page no.

733. S.C.

(3)

B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of : 1996 (72) F.L.R.

India and Others.

Page no. 316.

S.C.

1672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(4)

Damoh Panna Sagar Rural

: 2005 (104)

Regional Bank and Others

F.L.R. Page no.

V/s. Munna Lal Jain

291. S. C.

(5)

M. D. Kawade and Another

: 2005 (85) F.L.R.

V/s. Mahindra Engineering &

Page no. 217

Chemical Products Ltd., Pune

B.H.C.

and Another.

(6)

Ratnakar Samuel Gaikwad V/s. : 2002 I C.L.R.,

J. G. Glass Industries Ltd.,

Page no. 590

Pune and Another.

B.H.C.

(7)

Delhi Transport Corporation

: 2004 (102) F.L.R.

V/s. Sardar Singh

Page no. 1031.

S.C.

(8)

Larsen and Toubro Grahak

: 2006 (108)

Sahakari Sanstha Maryadeet,

F.L.R.,Page

Bombay V/s. Tanaji Kashinath

no. 367 B.H.C.

Vishwe and Others.

(9)

L & T Komatsu Ltd.

: 2008 I, C.L.R.,

V/s. N. Udaykumar.

Page no. 978.

S.C.

(10)

Union of India and Others

: (2010) 1 SCC

V/s. Bishamber Das Dogra.

(L&S) Page.

no. 212. S. C.

(11)

Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh

: 2008 III,

V/s. Management of Usha

C.L.R, Page

Breco Ltd. and Another

no. 85. S. C.

The sum and substance of the above judgments

is that the court has to act within four corners of the

provisions of the Act and when the punishment imposed

by the employer is proportionate to the proved misconduct,

there can be no interference by the court. In the judgment

of Bharat Forge Company Limited (cited supra) it is

observed that the court cannot interfere in punishment on

irrational or extraneous factors and certainly not on

compassionate ground. In case of M.D. Kawade (cited

supra) Hon'ble Bench of our High Court has observed that

a workman must be always "at work" and not "away from

work". The expectations of the Hon'ble Bench is noted in

the words that our culture should be "work culture" .

(15) In nutshell the court has to go through the facts

of the case and to see as to whether the misconduct of the

workman was of grave and serious nature and whether the

punishment awarded to him was justifiable or not. Unless

it is highly disproportionate or unjust, cannot be interfered

with.

(16) In the present case the 2nd party workman did

not attend duty for months of June and July-1993. Then

again he had not appeared in August, November and

December- 1993. He remained absent without prior

permission and even without information. Neither in the

enquiry nor during adjudication of the dispute before this

court he has put forth any reason, muchless plausible

reason, for such a long absenteeism though it is stated

that he was suffering from illness for some of that period

no evidence has been put forth about the same. No nature

of illness has been disclosed nor medical certificate has

been placed on record. As such the 2nd party workman is

having no explanation for his long absenteeism.

(17) When an employee remains absent

continuously for months together, he is a burden to the

establishment. Apart from that, the 1st party is a public

undertaking and therefore the employees of the public

undertaking are expected to be more conscious of their

duties. It is not only in the interest of the establishment but

in the interest of the nation discipline must be observed.

The case of 2nd party workman is of habitual absenteeism

for continuous long period. He was absent for 70 days in

year 1992 and more than that in the subsequent year. When

there is such a long absenteeism, the misconduct can be

said to be very serious nature. In case of serious and grave

nature of misconduct punishment of dismissal cannot be

said to be disproportionate or unjust. The employer is not

expected to continue such an employee on roll who avoids

duty for no good reason.

(18) From the above observations it is clear that

having regard to the misconduct. of the 2nd party workman

punishment of dismissal awarded to him cannot be said to

be unjust or disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

Hence, I find that this court has no scope to interfere with

the same. It is therefore I answer the issues No. 1 and 3 in

the negative and proceed to pass the following order.

O R D E R

1. The reference is hereby answered in the negative.

Sangli.

Date :-12-02-2013.

S. R. NAVANDAR, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 608-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p ch ih daiuh

fyfeVsM ,oa bafM;u vk;y dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] iq.ks ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 6@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@26@2007&vkbZ vkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1673

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 608.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 6/ 2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Pune now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of HBP Company Limited/Indian Oil

Corporation Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-30011/26/2007-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE

Reference (IT) No. 6/2007

1. IBP Company Limited

4, Aditi Commerce Centre,

5th Floor, 2406 East Street,

Pune-411 001

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited

Loni, Taluka Haveli,

Dist. Pune

... First Parties

Vs.

Shri Shivlingappa H. Roli

Atre Vasti, Loni Station

Pune, Solapur Road, Pune

... Second Party

CORAM : Shri. D..H. Deshmukh, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES:

Shri. Vaidya, Advocate for First Party.

Shri. Gopale, Advocate for Second Party.

AWARD

(Date : 17-07-2013)

This reference made by Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, is for the adjudication of the dispute

between Shri Shivlingappa H. Roli (the Second Party), and

Senior Divisional Manager, IBP Company Limited

(the First Party ernployer). The dispute pertains

to termination of services of the Second Party).

2. According to the Second Party, he was employed

with the First Party after an interview, as a helper in 1990.

The monthly wages were Rs. 6000. The First Party is'

engaged in the business of distribution of petroleum oil. It

is contended that the Second Party was not getting wages,

and other benefits including leave. The Second Party

demanded those benefits, which annoyed the Manager of

the First Party, and the Manager started harassing the

Second Party. The Second Party had allegedly met with an

accident while on duty, but no compensation was paid to

him. The Second Party was removed fron services orally

on 27.5.2000 without complying with the provisions of law.

It is contended that the Second Party had worked for 240

days. Inspite of continuous service, his services were

terminated. The First Party did not want to give to the

Second Party the benefits of permanent employment. The

Second Party now wants reinstatement with continuity of

service and full back wages ete. It is also contended that

the Second Party tried for alternative employment but could

not get any.

3. The First Party No. 2 has filed written statement at

Exh. C-4 resisting the claim. It is contended that the First

Party comes directly under the Ministry of Natural Gas and

Petroleum, and the rules and regulations framed by the

Government in respect of recruitment are binding on the

First Party. The First Party No. l merged with First Party no. 2

w.e.f. 2.5.2007, and therefore, according to First Party No. 2,

the First Party No. l does not exists. It is contended that the

Second Party was engaged by the erstwhile company as a

casual labour during September 1994 to May 2000, as and

when required. The First Party denied that the Second

Party was employed in accordance with the rules, or had

worked for 240 days•as alleged, It is contended that the

Second Party is not an employee appointed as per rules. It

is denied that the Second Party submitted an application

for continuation of the employment. He has never

completed 240 days. The ernployment of the Second Party

came to an end naturally due to casualness of the work.

4. The casual employment according to the First

Party, does not give any right. In May 2000, the Second

Party was engaged for 14 days as a cleaner on a lorry

driven by one Bhagwan Wagaskar. The lorry met with an

accidcnt on 27-5-2000, in which the driver died and the

Second Party sustained injuries. The First Party on

humanitarian grounds extended medical benefits. It is

contended that the lorry in question was damaged and it

was sent to another depot as there was no driver.

Consequently, the Second Party was also discontinued,

Denying all adverse allegations the First Party has prayed

for rejection of the claim.

5. The issues framed by my learned predecessor, and

my findings thereon are as under :

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Does the Second Party workman

Yes

proves that he had been in the

continuous employment of thc

First Party since 1990 as a "Helper"

on the last drawn monthly

salary of Rs. 6000 upto 27.5.2000 ,

and completed 240 days

continuous services in a calendar

year?

1674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Does the Second Party proves

Yes

that his services were orally

terminated by the First Party

w.e.f. 27-5-2000 and termination

of his services is unjustifed

and without following due

process of law?

Does the Second Party proves

Yes, partly

that he is entitled to the

relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service and

full back wages with attendent

benefits?

What award/order

As per final

order.

REASONS

6. ISSUES NO. 1 TO 3: Only the Second Party

workman has adduced oral evidence. The First Party has

been absent. The Second Party had called for certain

documents, and this Tribunal had directed the First Party

to produce the application for employment submitted by

the Second Party, and the attendance-cum-wage register

for the period from 1998 to 2000. The order further clarified

that if' the documents are not produced, an affidavit should

be filed stating the reasons for non-production. Needless

to mention that neither the documents are produced nor

any affidavit is filed by the First Party.

7. The Second party in his evidence has stated that

he joined the First Party No. l in 1990 as a helper, and he

worked continuously, having put in 240 days service in

each year. He was not given any benefits of permanancy or

overtime wages. He was also, not paid any compensation

for the injuries sustained during accident. The Ftrst Party

had 500 employees. The services were orally terminated on

27.5.2000 without giving any notice. The Second Party was

not paid legal dues or compensation. Juniors to the Second

Party were continued ill service. After the Second party

raised dispute, the First Party failed to settle the

same. The Second Party has stated that contents of

statment of claim are correct, but the contents of written

statement are wrong. It is also stated that after termination,

the Second Party tried for alternative employment; but he

could not get any job.

8. The entire evidence is unchallenged, as the First

Parties have been absent. The First Party has not led any

evidence.

9. Having regard to the unchallenged and

unrebutted evidence of the Second party, and considering

the submissions made by Mr. Gopale Advocate, I find that

the Second Party workman was working continuously from

1990 till 27.5.2000, and his services were orally terminated.

The services rendered by the Second Party were continu-

ous as contemplated under law. Before terminating the

services neither any notice was given, nor notice pay was

paid. Retrenchment compensation was also not paid. The

Second Party has also stated that he was removed

because he demanded certain benefits. Juniors were also

retained. All this clearly indicates that the termination was

in breach of provisions of section 25-F and 25-G of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The termination was illegaL

The termination was unjustified also.

10. The First Party No. 2 in its written statement has

stated that the ernployment of the Second Party was

purely casual, and lastly, his engagement was as a cleaner

for 14 days etc. The contentions in the written statement

have been denied by the Second Party, on oath, and the

First Parties have not substantiated those contentions.

The First Party no.1 is undisputedly merged in First Party

No. 2.

11. The Second Party wants reinstatement with all

consequential benefits. The reference was made by the

Government on 9.7.2007. It is not clear as to when the

dispute was raised. The termination was on 27.5.2000. It.

appears that the dispute was raised belatedly, There is

therefore, no justification in awarding back wages for'

the period from the date of termination till the date of

reference. Even for the subsequent period, back wages

should be granted, but not 100%. The Second Party has

stated that he is unemployed since the year 2000, and has

got no job despite efforts. It is improbable a person would

remain unemployed for more than 13 years.. The ends of

justice would be met if 50% back wages are awarded for the

period after 9.7.2007. The Second Party has stated that his

wages were Rs. 6000 per month. The back wages will have

to be worked out considering the wages as Rs. 6000 or the

minimum wages, whichever is higher. Hence, the following

order :

ORDER

1. The First Party No. 2 namely Indian Oil

Corporation Limited, shall reinstate Second Party -

Shri Shivalingappa H. Roli, in his usual position with

continuity of service from 27.5.2000. The said First Party

shall pay to the Second Party 50% of the back wages w.e.f

9.7.2007.

2. No order as to costs.

Pune

Date : 17.07.2013

D. H. DESHMUKH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1675

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 609.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ fVªfuVh

def'kZ;y izkbosV fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 39@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29012@11@2013&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January , 2014

S.O. 609.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s.Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-29012/11/2013-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 39/2013

No. L-29012/11/2013 - IR (M), dated 25.4.20l3

Date of Passing Order - 10th October, 2013

Between:

M/s. Trinity Commercial Pvt. Ltd.,

Contractor of M/s. Serajuddin & Co.

Balda Block Iron Mines,

At./Po. Baneikela, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha

....1st Party-Management

(And)

Smt. Radha Munda,

W/o. Kandra Munda,

At./Po. Basira, Via. Joda,

Dist. Keonjhar, Odisha

....2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

None

....For the 1st Party-

Management.

None

....For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. None of the parties has responded.

No statement of claim has been filed by the 2nd Party-

workman despite sending notices through ordinary as well

as registered post, which although have been received

back un-served, but the disputant-workman herself has

to take proper steps for further prosecution of her case.

She seems to have taken no care of her case despite four

dates having been fixed in the case. In expectation of filing

of statement of claim for further prosecuting the case no

further time can be allowed as there is no way left to search

out the 2nd Party-workman and persuade her to appear

and file her statement of claim.

Under these circumstances it will be a futile attempt

to keep the case pending for long. Therefore the reference

is liable to be returned to the Government of India in the

concerned Ministry for necessary action at its end.

The reference is returned to the Government for

necessary action at its end.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 610.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZLV

bafM;k feujYl fyfeVsM ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 14@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 27&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29024@1@2010&vkbZvkj (,e)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 610.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. East India Minerals Limited

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-1-2014.

[No. L-29024/1/2010-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

1676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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. 14/2010

Date of Passing Award - 27th November, 2013

Between:

1. M/s. Vauman Trading Company (P) Ltd.,

4 A, Indra Kumar Karnani Sarani,

Room No. 45, 2nd Floor, Kolkatta - 700 001.

2. M/s. East India Minerals Ltd.,

At. Barbil Trade Centre, 3rd Floor,

Main Road, Po. Barbil.

... 1 st Party-Managements

(And)

Their workmen represented through

Barbil Workers Union, At/Po. Bolani,

Dist. Keonjhar (Orissa).

... 2nd Party-Union

Appearances:

Shri P. K. Mahapatra, .....

For the 1st Party-

Advocate.

Management No.l and 2.

None.

..... For the 2nd Party-

Union.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has sent a reference under clause (d) of sub-section (l)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act for adjudication of an industrial dispute

existing between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. Vauman Trading Company (P) Limited/

M/s. East India Minerals Limited and their workmen vide

letter No. L- 29024/1/2010 - IR(M), dated 4.8.2010 .

2. The industrial dispute reads as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Vauman Trading Company (P) Ltd./M/s. East

India Minerals Limited in affecting retrenchment of

128 workmen w.e.f. 18.11.2009 is justified? What

relief the workmen concerned are entitled to from

M/s. Vauman Trading Company (P) Ltd. and

M/s. East India Minerals Limited."

3. The 2nd party-Union espousing the cause of the

workmen has filed statement of claim wherein it has been

stated that the 1st Party- Management No. 1 is a sub-

contractor appointed by the 1st Party- Management No. 2

in the establishment of Orissa Minerals Development

Corporation Limited. The 1 st Party-Management No. 1

appointed 128 piece rated workers along with supervising

staff on 15.l0.2008 for a period of two years i.e. up to

3.10.2010. The 1st Party- Management No. 1 was not paying

wages similar to the wages being paid by the principal

employer i.e. the Orissa Minerals Development Corporation

Limited to their workmen and contract workers engaged in

the same establishment for doing similar nature of work.

The concerned workmen disappointed with their

representative Union, namely, Champua Labour Union

resigned from the said Union and enrolled themselves

with the Barbil Workers Union. When the disputant

workmen raised the demand for similar wages through the

2nd Party- Union the l st Party-Management No. 1 and 2

became furious and threatened them to retrench, if they

do not desert the 2nd Party-Union. The workmen refused

to do so. Hence the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and 2

retrenched all the 128 workmen without complying with

the provisions of law under section 25-N of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The lst Party-Management No. 1

under the support of the lst Party-Management No. 2

illegally closed the mining operation with effect from

18.11.2009 without any notice to the workmen nor paid

any retrenchment compensation along with other dues

etc. Hence prayer has been made to reinstate the disputant

workmen with back wages.

4. The 1st Party-Management No. 1 and 2 have filed

identical written statement making allegations that the

President of the Barbil Workers Union Mr. Riaz Mahammad

Latif is not legally entitled to sue the Management as the

said Union is not a registered body. Its registration was

cancelled on 31.5.2003. The 1st Party-Management No. 1

is the Contractor-cum-Executing Agency of the 1 st Party-

Management No. 2, who is the principal employer in the

establishment of OMDC in their Iron Ore Mines at Roida

(South Top Section) at Bhadrasahi. It engaged 128 piece

rated workers on 15.10.2008 for a period of two years.

During continuance of the said mining work some financial

problem arose and the 1st Party-Management No. 1 being

unwilling to continue the contract of the 1st Party-

Management No. 2 started process of retrenchment by

serving three months prior notice to the workmen to stop

work and advised them to take their dues by 18.11.2009.

An application was also made by the lst Party-

Management No. 1 to the Secretary to the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi on 19.8.2009 thereby

seeking permission of retrenchment under clause (b) of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1677

sub-section (1) of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 with a copy to Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bhubaneswar; Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Rourkela; the L.E.O., Barbil; Senior General

Manager, East India Minerals Limited; General Secretary,

Champua Labour Union Joda and Employment Officer,

Joda Employment Exchange. On expiry of notice period

the Secretary of the Champua Labour Union checked the

statutory dues sheet and on being satisfied with the

provision made by the contractor i.e. the 1st Party-

Management No. 1 agreed to take the dues of the workmen

along with retrenchment benefits which were deposited

to the respective Saving Bank accounts of the workmen.

Some of the workmen directly received the payments made

in their favour. In the letter to the Regional Labour

Commissioner (Central) the Ist Party- Management No. 1

also categorically stated that they do not want to make

any settlement with the Barbil Workers Union since it is

not a recognized Union. Thus the 1st Party-Management

No. 1 after complying with all the necessary formalities

and the statutory provisions has not done any wrong or

injustice to the workmen in retrenching them. Therefore

all the allegations raised by the 2nd party- Union are

baseless and fictitious. The Labour Enforcement Officer

in his letter dated 19.1.2010 has reported that there is no

case/complaint pending against the 1st Party-

Management No. 1. Hence there is no cause of action to

initiate this case against the l st Party-Management No.l.

The I. D. Case deserves to be dismissed in toto.

5. After filing of the written statement by the 1st

Party-Management No. 1 and 2 there was no response

from the 2nd Party-Union. It appears from the order sheet

that the statement of claim was sent through post by the

President of the 2nd Party-Union and neither he nor his

authorized representative ever appeared in the case. Notice

issued to the 2nd Party-Union were received back with a

note of "left". Hence the case was set exparte against the

2nd Party-Union.

6. On behalf of the l st Party-Management No. 1 and

2 sworn affidavit of Shri Jiban Mohan Pany was filed along

with certain documents in the shape of xerox copies. The

deponent in his affidavit while proving the documents,

has stated that all necessary formalities and statutory

provisions of Section 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act

were followed in affecting retrenchment of 128 workmen

with effect from 18.11.2009 and necessary dues along

with retrenchment compensation were either paid to the

affected workmen or deposited in their Savings Bank

Account. The L.E.O. (C), Barbil vide his letter dated

19.1.2010 has reported that there is no case/complaint

pending in his office against the Ist Party-Management

No. 1 pertaining to the period from 15.10.2008 to 18.1l.2009.

The uncontroverted evidence of the 1st Party-

Management No. 1 and 2 cannot be disbelieved vis-a-vis

no evidence of the 2nd Party-Union. Hence it is to be held

that the Management of M/s. Vauman Trading Company

(P) Limited/M/s. East India Minerals Limited, while

affecting the retrenchment of 128 workmen with effect

from 18.11.2009 has committed no illegality and their action

is justified. The concerned workmen are not entitled to

any relief from the 1st Party-Management No. 1 and 2.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 611.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj funs'kd]

us'kuy lsÝVh dkSafly] uoh eqEcbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; &2] eqEcbZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2@55 of 2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@54@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st January , 2014

S.O. 611.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT-

2/55 of 2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No. II, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The Director, National

Safety Council, Navi Mumbai and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2014.

[No. L-42012/54/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Pesiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/55 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL

The Director,

National Safety Council,

Plot No.98-A, Institution Area,

Sector-15, CBD Belapur,

PO Konkan Bhavan ,

Navi Mumbai 400 614.

1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Darshan Pandurang Sakpal,

At Post Pangari,

Taluka Dapoli ,

Ratnagiri 415 711.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer :

Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate.

For the Workmen :

Mr. M.I. Ali,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 10th September 2013 .

AWARD PART-I

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L- 42012/54/2010-IR (DU),

dated 31.05.2010 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.

National Safety Council in terminating the services

of Shri Darshan Pandurang Sakpal w.e.f. 22-08-2005

is legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman

is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, second

party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-5.

According to him he was in the service of the first party as

Safaiwala-cum-Farash. He worked with the first party since

1994. His services were terminated by the first party

without any fault on his part. The action of termination of

his service is illegal, malafied and bad in law. The inquiry

conducted against the workman is not fair and proper and

it was only empty formality. The second party workman

was working with the first party sincerely and his service

record is unblemished. The first party has charge-sheeted

him for false and frivolous charges. The inquiry was not

conducted properly. He was not given sufficient

opportunity. There was violation of principles of natural

justice on the part of the Inquiry Officer. The findings of

the IO are perverse. In the year 2005 the workman had filed

appeal against the said order of IO. The same was kept in

abeyance till 2009 when they informed the second party

that it was rejected. The second party then raised industrial

dispute. As per the report of the ALC (C), the Labour

Ministry sent the reference to this Tribunal. According to

the workman the inquiry was not fair and proper and

findings of the IO are perverse. Therefore he prays that

the punishment of termination of his services be set aside

and he be reinstated with full back wages and also prays

for the cost of the reference.

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide'

their written statement at Ex-5. According to them it is a

registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1960

with the objective of building voluntary movement at the

national level on safety, health and environment for

preventing loss of life, limb, and economic losses and

providing support services to its members. It is an

independent and non-commercial, non-profit making, non-

political and autonomous society and it is not an industry

as defined under I. D. Act. This dispute cannot be called

industrial dispute as contemplated under I.D.Act.

Therefore, the reference is not maintainable.

4. According to them the workman was charge-

sheeted vide charge sheet dated 12-08-2004 for the

misconduct and inquiry was conducted by the Inquiry

Officer. The IO had explained the charges to the workman.

He was given full and fair opportunity to defend himself

in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The

IO found the workman guilty of the charges levelled against

him. Copy of inquiry report and findings of IO were given

to the second party with show cause notice.After going

through the inquiry proceedings, findings of IO and the

representation of the workman, the disciplinary authority

dismissed the second party as he was found guilty for

serious misconduct. His contention is false that he was

not given fair and proper opportunity to defend himself.

The IO had asked the workman that he can engage defence

representative to defend himself. However workman

refused to engage any defence representative and told

that he was competent to defend himself. All the witnesses

were examined in presence of the workman. He cross

examined them. The workman was also given an

opportunity to lead his evidence. Accordingly he examined

himself and after considering the evidence of both the

parties, the IO arrived at the conclusion that the workman

was guilty of misconduct. The IO has followed the due

procedure prescribed for the inquiry. There was no

violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The inquiry was

quite fair and proper and the findings of the IO are just

and proper and based on the evidence on record.

Therefore the first party prays that the reference be rejected

with cost.

5. Following are the preliminary issues for my

determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr. no.

Issues

Findings.

Whether the inquiry held

Yes.

against workman Shri Darshan

Pandurang Sapkal and findings

of IO are legal and proper?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1679

REASONS

Issue No. 1 :

6. In this respect the Ld. adv of the first party

submitted that there is no specific allegation as to how

inquiry was not fair and proper. There is also no specific

averment as to how there was violation of Principles of

Natural Justice. On the other-hand he pointed out that the

workman has admitted in his cross at Ex-10 that he had

received all the memos issued by the office from time to

time. He also admitted that he had received the charge

sheet. He further admitted that the IO had explained the

charge sheet to him in Marathi and he has replied the

same in Marathi. He also admitted in his cross that he told

the IO that he was able to defend himself and did not want

to engage a defence representative. He also admitted that

he had cross examined the witnesses in the inquiry

proceeding and he examined himself in the inquiry

proceeding and management cross examined him. He had

also admitted in his cross that copies of Inquiry

proceedings were handed over to him. In the

circumstances the Ld. adv. for the first party submitted

that fair and sufficient opportunity was given to the

workman to defend himself and there was no violation of

Principles of Natural Justice. On the point Apex Court

ruling can be resorted to in Sur Enamel and Stamping

Works Ltd. Vis. Their Workmen 1963 11 LLJ 367 wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the following

conditionsfor fair and proper domestic inquiry. They are:

(1) The employee proceeded against has been

informed clearly of the charges leveled against him.

(2) The witnesses are examined-ordinarily in the

presence of the employee in respect of the charges.

(3) The employee is given a fair opportunity to cross

examine witnesses.

(4) He is given a fair opportunity to examine

witnesses including himself in his defence if he so

wishes on any relevant matter; and

(5) The inquiry officer records his findings with

reasons for the same in his report.

7. In the light of guidelines of the Apex Court in the

inquiry herein all the points given above were complied

with. The IO has explained the charge to the workman in

Marathi. The inquiry was conducted in presence of the

workman. Copies of all the documents were given to him.

He was given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

He was also given an opportunity to examine himself and

lead his evidence. He was given full opportunity to defend

himself. It is vaguely contended that, the inquiry officer

has violated the principles of natural justice. However no

specific instance was given or pleaded as to how the IO

has violated the principles of natural justice. On the other

hand from the above referred facts it is clear that the IO

has given full and sufficient opportunity to the workman.to

defend himself. There was no violation of principles of

natural justice. In the circumstances I come to the

conclusion that the inquiry was fair and proper.

8. In respect of findings of Inquiry Officer according

to the second party they are perverse. In this respect the

Ld. adv for the first party submitted that the findings are

based on the evidence before the Inquiry Officer. Therefore

such findings cannot be called perverse. Ld. adv further

submitted that the jurisdiction and power of Industrial

Tribunal is limited to interfere with the findings of''domestic

inquiry when they are consistent with the evidence on

record. In support of his argument the Ld. adv. resorted to

Apex Court ruling in M/s. Banaras Electric Light and Power

Co. Ltd. V/s. The Labour Court II and Ors. 1972 II LLJ 328

wherein on the material point the Hon'ble Court observed

that;

‘‘.... this court had in several cases while dealing

with industrial disputes of this kind occasion to point

out that an industrial Tribunal would not be justified

in characterizing the findings recorded at the

domestic inquiry as perverse unless it can be shown

that such a finding is not supported by any evidence

or is entirely opposed to the whole body of evidence

adduced before it. In a domestic inquiry once

conclusion is deduced from the evidence, it is not

possible for some other authority to assail that

conclusion even though it is possible for some

authority to arrive at a different conclusion on the

same evidence.’’

9. The findings herein recorded by the IO are based

on the evidence on record and there is no reason to take

any different view than the findings recorded by the IO.

In the circumstances, I hold that the findings of the IO are

found to be fair and proper. Accordingly I decide this

preliminary issue in the affirmative and proceed to pass

the following order.

ORDER

(i)

The inquiry is held fair and proper.

(ii)

Findings of the Inquiry Officer are not

perverse.

(iii)

The parties are directed to arque/lead evidence

on the point of quantum of punishment.

Dated : 10.09.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 612.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy esustj]

e”kxkvksa MkWd fyfeVsM] eqEcbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; &2] eqEcbZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2@10 of 2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@25@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st January , 2014

S.O. 612.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT-

2/10 of 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court No.II, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The General Manager,

Mazgaon Dock Ltd, Mumbai and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2014.

[No. L-14012/25/2003-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 -2/10 of 2004

EMPLOYERS IN RELATlON TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF MAZGAON DOCK LTD.

The General Manager

M/s. Mazgaon Dock Ltd.

Dockyard Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai-400 010.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Vipin Yashwant Chavan

C/o. Mrs. M.V.Chavan

205, Tapasya Co-op. Housing Society Ltd.

2nd floor, Yashodhan

Lokmanya Nagar No.2

Thane (W).

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. R. S. Pai,

Advocate.

FOR THE WORKMEN

Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 21st December, 2012

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No.L-14012/25/2003-IR (DU),

dated 29.01.2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Mazgaon Dock Ltd. in terminating the services of

Shri. Vipin Yashwant Chavan w.e.f. 13-10-1990 is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled to?’’

2. After receipt of the reference both the parties

were served with notices. In response to the notice the

second party workman filed his statement of claim at Ex-5.

According to the workman he was serving with the first

party since August 1983 as tool room attendant. The

workman could not report his duty from 5-10-1989 to

15-12-1990 as he was taken ill. Meanwhile the first party

has terminated the service of the second party w.e.f.

13-09-1990 after holding a farce of inquiry which was

conducted exparte. Neither second party was served with

charge-sheet nor any notice of inquiry was served on him

and without hearing him the inquiry was concluded and

he was terminated from service. The first party made

application under Section 33 (2) (b) of I.D. Act, 1947 for

approval of the dismissal order. The Industrial Tribunal

rejected the approval application on 17/04/1997. The first

party challenged the said order in WP no.1838/1997 before

Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court remanded

the matter to Industrial Tribunal with a direction to give

opportunity to both the parties to lead their evidence. On

application of the first party the State Industrial Tribunal

has disposed of the said application no. 44 of 1990 saying

that it has no jurisdiction to try the matter as Central

Government was the appropriate Government. The first

party was supposed to file application before Central

Government Industrial Tribunal which was the proper

authority to grant approval to the dismissal order passed

by the first party. However first party failed to take an

approval. Therefore dismissal order is illegal.

3. According to the second party, he had

approached to ALC (C) for conciliation and demanded

reinstatement in service with full back wages. The

conciliation failed and on the report of ALC (C), the Labour

Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. According

to the second party, he had sent his leave application dt.

4/6/1990 by UCP i.e. some two months prior to the order of

dismissal. He has also sent medical certificate showing

that he was suffering from acute PID with sciatica pain

from 5/10/1989 to 15/12/1990. Inspite of that the first party

neither qranted him leave nor given him intimation of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1681

inquiry and conducted exparte inquiry arid dismissed him

from service. According to him the inquiry was illegal.

There was gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Therefore he prays that the order of dismissal be set aside

and first party be directed to reinstate him with full back

wages and continuity of service.

4. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

its written statement at Ex-8. According to them the

services of the workman was terminated w.e.f. 14/09/1990.

The present reference thus suffers from inordinate delay

and laches and not maintainable. According to them the

workman remained absent from duty from 11/10/1989

onwards without any permission or intimation to the

company. On 8/11/1989 company wrote advisory letter to

the workman at his address at Thane and he was asked to

resume duty within four days from the date of receipt of

letter and explain with documents the reasons for his

unauthorised absence. The workman neither resumed his

duty nor responded to the said letter. On the other hand

he continued to remain absent without permission. The

company therefore chargesheeted him vide charge-sheet

24/1/1990 for misconduct of absence without permission/

instruction for a period exceeding 10 consecutive days

and for commission of an act subversive of discipline of

the establishment under the standing orders 22(6) and

22(12) respectively. Chargesheet was sent to the workman

at his address at Thane as well as at his native place address

by RP AD. However envelopes containing copies of

chargesheets returned with remark "not claimed". The

inquiry was adjourned upto 16/04/1990 with further

intimation to the workman. As he failed to attend the

inquiry, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte. The I.O.

submitted his report on 4/6/1990 holding the workman

guilty of the charges levelled against him. The company

dismissed the workman from his services vide its order

dated 14/8/1990. The said order is legal and proper.

5. In the year 1990 as reference IT No. 24 of 1980 was

pending before the State Industrial Tribunal, the company

made an Approval Application U/s 33 (2)(b) of I.D. Act.

Against the order passed by the Tribunal, Company filed

Writ Petition No.1838/1997. Hon'ble High Court set aside

the order and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal

with a direction to dispose of the Approval Application

within six months. In the meantime Apex Court in the case

of Air India Statutory Authority reported in 1997 I CLR 292

rejected the Approval Application inter alia on the ground

that appropriate Government in respect of the company is

Central Government. Furthermore the said Tribunal also

dismissed the main reference No. 24/1980 on the ground

that the appropriate Government is Central Government.

In the circumstances said Approval Application also came

to be dismissed by State Tribunal on the ground that

appropriate Government was Central Government. At that

point of time no industrial dispute was pending, therefore

the company was not required to file Approval Application.

Though the approval application was dismissed by the

State Tribunal for want of jurisdiction, the workman did

not raise any industrial dispute for a considerable period

of time and there is in ordinate delay in filing the reference.

They denied that the workman is unemployed. They

denied that workman had sent leave application dated

4/6/1990 prior to his dismissal as has been alleged. They

also denied that workman remained absent on account of

sickness or ill health.

6. According to them intimation was issued to the

workman on 8/11/1989 advising him to report for work. As

he failed to join the duties, company issued charge sheet

dt.24/01/1990. The envelope returned with postal

endorsement 'not known and unclaimed'. Inspite of full

knowledge workman did not attend the Inquiry and inquiry

was concluded ex-parte. The workman was therefore,

dismissed from service by the order dt.13/08/1990. He was

also sent one month's wages in lieu of notice as required

under law. The workman deliberately remained absent and

did not attend the inquiry. Therefore inquiry cannot be

said to be not fair and proper. The findings of the inquiry

officer also cannot be called perverse. The order of

dismissal of worker is quite legal and proper. The workman

is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back-

wages as has been claimed. The first party therefore prays

that reference be dismissed with cost.

7. The second party filed his rejoinder at Ex-9. He

denied the allegations in the written statement and

reiterated his case in the statement of claim.

8. Initially the reference was filed before the State

Industrial Tribunal. While passing the part-I award the

State Industrial Tribunal held that, the inquiry was not fair

and proper and findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse.

The said findings of the State Industrial Tribunal were

approved by Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. Therefore

when this reference came before this Tribunal, my Ld.

Predecessor had taken into account all these facts and

held that there is no propriety of framing the issue of

fairness of inquiry and perversity of the findings as those

preliminary issues were already decided by the State

Industrial Tribunal. Therefore my Ld. Predecessor by his

order below Ex-18 framed the following issues for my

determination. I record my findings thereon for the reasons

to follow:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether first party proves the

Yes

charges levelled against second

party?

1682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether second party proves

Yes

termination is illegal?

What relief second party is

As per order

entitled to?

below.

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Issue no.1 :-

9. The charge against the second party workman

was that he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from

11.10.1989 till the date of issuing charge-sheet dated 24/

01/1990 and even thereafter. According to the first party

by memo dated 8/11/1989 they informed the second party

to resume his duty within four days and to explain the

reason of his absence without intimation. As no reply was

given by the second party, first party has issued charge

sheet dated 24/01/1990.

10. The State Industrial Tribunal has declared the

enquiry as unfair and improper and findings of the Inquiry

Officer were also declared as perverse. In this respect, Ld.

Adv. for the first party submitted that, the fact is not

disputed that the workman was absent from 11/10/1989.

According to him though a memo of advice was issued to

the workman dt. 8/11/1989 neither he reported to his duty

within time nor has explained the reasons of his absence

and continued to remain absent. Therefore, charge-sheet

dated 24/1/1990 was issued to the workman. In this respect

according to the workman he has sent application dated

4/6/1990 leave application to the concerned officer about

his illness and stating that he is under treatment of Dr. B.

S. Patil. The copy of the said application is on record with

list Ex-7/1. After perusing the application it is revealed

that, this application is not an application for leave. It is

only intimation of ill health of the second party and that

he was under treatment of Dr. B. S. Patil, Medical Officer,

Thane since 5/10/1989. This application was neither for

leave nor was accompanied with medical certificate. The

second party has also admitted in his cross at Ex-22 that

medical certificate was not sent by him along-with the

application dated 4/6/1990. The medical certificate is also

on record with list Ex-7/2. It was obtained on 15/12/1990.

Therefore it cannot be said that, any medical certificate

was sent by the second party alongwith his application.

Furthermore he has never sent any application for leave.

In short, the second party workman was unauthorisedly

absent. Neither he had applied for leave nor given prior

intimation to the company in respect of his leave. In the

circumstances conclusion can be arrived at that the charge

of unauthorised absence for more than 10 days is proved

by the first party against the workman. Accordingly I

decide this Issue no. 1 in the affirmative.

Issues nos. 2 & 3:-

11. In respect of this issue I would like to point out

that though the issue is framed in respect of legality of

termination, in the light of industrial dispute, it has to be

construed in its proper perspective. In short, the issue

has to be read as; "Whether the punishment of dismissal

is shockingly disproportionate? The same issue was before

the Tribunal and the evidence and case laws are also cited

thereon. Therefore without re-casting this issue I think it

proper to proceed to discuss the point in issue.

12. In this respect Ld. Advocate for the first party

submitted that as sick leave application was not

accompanied with medical certificate, therefore removal

from service of the employee is just and proper. In support

of his argument the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling

in New India Assurance Co. V/s. Bipin Biharilal Srivastava

2008 II LLJ 317 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Court held that,

sick leave application submitted by the respondents were

not supported by medical certificates from a registered

medical practitioner as required by the rules. In the

circumstances, the Hon'ble Court held that the punishment

of removal from service cannot be challenged.

13. However in that case the workman therein was

absent for more than 600 days. Whereas in the case at

hand the workman was absent from 11/10/1989 and charge

was framed against him on 24/01/1990. In short in the case

at hand workman was absent for one hundred and six

days when he was chargesheeted. The ratio laid down in

this ruling is mainly in respect of sick leave application

should be supported by medical certificate of a registered

medical practitioner. The facts in this ruling are totally

different. Therefore ratio laid down therein is not attracted

tothe set of facts of the case in hand.

14. In this respect Ld. Adv. for the first party further

submitted that Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or even

High Court cannot interfere unless punishment imposed

is found to be wholly shockingly disproportionate to the

decree of guilt of the workman. In support of his argument,

the Ld. Adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in L & T

Komatsu Ltd. V/s. N. Udaykumar 2008 I LLJ 849 (SC)

wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that ;

‘‘.....Habitual absenteeism is a gross violation of

discipline and the parameters for the exercise of

Section 11-A have not be kept in view by the Labour

Court and High Court. Unless the punishment was

shockingly disproportionate, quantum of

punishment could not be interfered with.’’

However this ruling is in respect of habitual absenteeism,

therefore ratio laid down therein is also not applicable to

the set of facts of the present case.

15. The Ld. Adv. for the first party on the point

resorted to another Apex Court ruling in North Eastern

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1683

Karnataka Road Transport Corporation V/s. Ashappa &

Anr. 2006 II LLJ 865 (SC) wherein Hon'ble Court in para 8

of the judgement observed that;

‘‘Remaining absent for a long time, in our opinion,

cannot be said to be a minor misconduct. The

Appellant runs a fleet of buses. It is a Statutory

Organisation. It has to provide public utility

services. For running the buses, the service of the

conductor is imperative. No employer running a fleet

of buses can allow an employee to remain absent

for a long time.’’

In this case a bus conductor was found absent for three

years. Furthermore after perusing his previous leave

record, the Hon'ble Court further observed that;

‘‘...... his leave records were seen and it was found

that he remained unauthorisely absent on several

occasions. In this view of the matter, it cannot be

said that the misconduct committed by the

respondent herein has to be treated lightly. "

16. In this case also the unauthorised absence was

of three years as well as previous leave record of the

conductor was indicating that he was unauthorisedly

absent on several occasions. Therefore Hon'ble Court held

that punishment of termination in that case was not

shockingly disproportionate. In the case at hand neither

period of unauthorised absence is so vast nor there is

previous record of unauthorised absence. Therefore the

ratio laid down in the above ruling is also not attracted to

the set of facts of the present case.

17. The workman herein remained absent from

11.10.1989 and he was chargesheeted on 24.01.1990.

Thereafter also the workman was absent. However

punishment is in respect of the charge mentioned in the

chargesheet which is for the period of three and half months

unauthorised absence. From the medical certificate with

list Ex-7/2 it is revealed that the workman was absent till

15.12.1990 and he has produced medical certificate from

the medical officer. Even considering the said period, his

period of absence is not more than 14 months. Furthermore

I would also like to point out that the workman was not

engaged to do any work of responsibility like any public

transport. On the other hand he was a Tool Room

Attendant. Furthermore according to the workman he had

sent apptication/letter of intimation to the first party that

he was seriously ill since 05.11.1989 and was under the

treatment of Medical Officer. He sent the said letter at a

late stage on 04/06/1990. The O/C of the said letter with

postal receipt Under Certificate of Posting is with list

Ex-7/1. It is a fact that he had not sent leave application. In

this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party rightly

pointed out that the workman is a rustic villager and not

much educated and was seriously ill. He was staying far

away from his family and there was no body to look after

him during his illness. Therefore he could not send leave

application. There was also nobody to guide or advise

him. In these circumstances the punishment appears very

harsh and disproportionate for the misconduct of three &

half months unauthorised absence. In my opinion in this

case, withholding an increment would have sufficed the

purpose. Accordingly hold that punishment of dismissal

is shockingly disproportionate and needs to be set aside

and the workman deserves to be reinstated.

18. In respect of back wages the Ld. Adv. for the

first party submitted that the second party has failed to

prove that since the date of dismissal he was not gainfully

employed. According to him the onus to plead and prove

the fact was on the workman and not on the employer. In

support of his argument, the Ld. Adv. for first party

resorted to Apex Court ruling in UP State Brassware

Corporation Ltd. & Anr. V.s. Uday Narayan Pandey (2006)

1 SCC 479 wherein on the point Hon'ble Court in para 61 of

the judgement observed that;

"It is now well settled by various decisions of this

Court that although earlier this Court insisted that it

was for the employer to raise the aforementioned

plea but having regard to the provisions of Section

106 of the Evidence Act or the provisions analogues

thereto such a plea should be raised by the

workman."

19. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the first party

further pointed out that back wages should not be granted

automatically or mechanically as termination is found to

be unjust. In support of his argument that Ld. Adv. resorted

to the above Apex Court ruling. In para 22 of the judgment

the Hon'ble Court in respect of back-wages observed that;

"No precise formula can be laid down as to under

what circumstance payment of back-wages should

be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. It would however

be not correct to contend that it is automatic. It

should not be granted mechanically only because

on technical grounds or otherwise an order of

termination is found to be in contravention of

Section 6 N of the UP Industrial Act."

In the same judgement in para 45 the Hon'ble Court

on the point further observed that;

"The Court therefore emphasised that while granting

relief, application of mind on the part of the Industrial

Court is imperative. Payment of full back-wages

therefore cannot be the natural consequence. "

20. In respect of the back wages the Ld. Adv.

submitted that if the punishment of dismissal is reduced

to some other punishment, the workman is not entitled to

any back-wages. In support of his argument the Ld. Adv.

resorted to Apex Court ruling in J. K. Synthetics Ltd. V/s.

1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

K.P. Aggrawal & Anr. (2007) 2 SCC 433 wherein on the

point of back wages the Hon'ble Court observed that;

"At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion

keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But

the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and

judicious manner. The reason for exercising

discretion must be cogent and convincing and must

appear on the face of the record. When it is said that

something is to be done with the discretion of the

authority that something is to be done according to

the rules of reasons and justice, according to law

and not humour. "

21. In the case at hand the fact is not disputed that

it was the workman who was at fault. At the same time I

would like to point out that the workman was dismissed

from service for unauthorised absence for the period of

3 1/2 months. The said punishment was found shockingly

disproportionate. The workman was taken ill and could

not submit leave application. Due to his illness and

ignorance he could not contact the authority. At the same

time I would like to point out that the workman has not at

all worked since 10/11/1989. 'No work no wages' is also

accepted principle. The workman has also not led any

evidence that he was not gainfully employed. On the

otherhand he has stated in his cross at Ex-22 that he was

engaged by his elder brother to help him in the house

work. He further says in his cross that he was attending

work of bringing material from market to meet the needs of

the family members for which his brother was maintaining

him. It shows that he was doing some work with his brother

at his native place. In the circumstances awarding full

wages would burden the first party unnecessarily. At the

same time it is also pertinent to note that the workman has

lost his wages since 1989 and not awarding any back wages

would amount to injustice to him. In this backdrop to meet

the ends of justice and after taking into account the facts

and circumstances of the case at hand I think it proper to

award 10% back wages and continuity of service.

Accordingly I decide the issue no. 2 in the affirmative and

issue no. 3 accordingly and proceed to pass the following

order :

ORDER

(1)

The reference is partly allowed.

(2)

The inquiry is held fair and proper. Findings of the

inquiry Officer are held not perverse.

(3)

The punishment of dismissal is declared shockingly

disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

(4)

The punishment of dismissal is set aside. Instead

of dismissal, punishment of withholding one

increment be imposed on the workman.

(5)

The workman be reinstated in service forthwith,

with 10% back wages from the date of dismissal till

the date of his reinstatement with continuity of

service.

Date: 21.12.2012

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dk-vk- 613.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esustj] us'kuy

Msjh MsoyiesaV cksMZ] eqEcbZ ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; &2] eqEcbZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh-2@5 of 2012) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

Delhi, the 31st January , 2014

S.O. 613.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGIT-2/5

of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.II, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Manager, National Dairy

Development Board, Mumbai and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 24-1-2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

MISCELLENEOUS APPLN. NO. CGIT -2/5 of 2012 IN

Ref. CGIT-2/21 of 2008

PARTIES:-

Shri Devraj Govind Swamy & Ors.

180-C, 1 st floor

J.J. Keni Lane

Dharavi Koliwada

Dharavi Road

Mumbai - 400 019.

Applicant

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1685

V/s.

The Manager

National Dairy Development Board

Western Express Highway

Goregaon (E)

Mumbai- 400 065.

Opposite Party

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE APPLICANT :

Mr. O. Mohan Das,

i/b M/s. Little & Co.

Advocates.

FOR THE OPPOSITE :

Ms. Pallavi Kulkarni,

PARTY

Representative.

Mumbai, dated the 22nd April, 2013

JUDGEMENT

The applicant i.e. second party union in Ref. CGIT-

2/21 of 2008 has filed this application for restoration of the

reference. According to theapplicant they had already

submitted the statement of claim but was not exhibited by

the Court Clerk. The first party did not file its written

statement and was delaying the matter. Applicants state

that they are the poorest of the poor workers who have

been pursuing this issue against the opposite party

company since years. It is a matter of their livelihood.

Therefore they pay that in the interest of justice order

dated 23.4.2012 be recalled and the reference may be

restored to proceed on merits. They also assured that they

would diligently follow this matter and remain present in

the proceeding.

2. The opposite party (first party in reference)

resisted the application by filing affidavit in reply of

Shri Dharmesh N. Thakkar, Dy. Manager (Legal Group) of

the opposite party. According to him the application is

not maintainable as the reference in question was filed by

the union and not by applicant, Mr. Devraj. According to

him the application is barred by limitation and therefore

deserves to be dismissed. The Opponent therefore prays

that the application be dismissed with costs.

4. Following are the points for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Points

Findings

1. Whether the reference can

be restored to its original file?

Yes.

2. What order ?

As per order below.

REASONS

Point no.1 :-

5. The applicants submitted that they had filed the

statement of claim on 06.01.2009 but was not exhibited. In

this respect on perusal of the record it was found that as

per the order of reference Shramik Mahasangh was

representing the concerned workmen whereas the claim

statement was filed by union named Krantikari Kamgar

Union. Application (Ex-8) for allowing Krantikari Kamgar

Union to represent the workmen was rejected as neither

the workmen nor their advocate was present. Therefore

the statement of claim filed by Krantikari Kamgar Union

was not taken on record. Infact there is no clerical error as

claimed by the applicants.

6. In respect of restoration of Ref.CGIT-2/21 of 2008

to its original file, applicants workmen state that their

advocate could not remain present on some dates due to

ill health and was under the impression that the matter

was fixed for filing written statement by the management

as they have already filed the statement of claim. It is well

settled principle of law that as far as possible every matter

should be decided on merits. In the light of the said principle

and in the interest of justice, I think it proper to set aside

the exparte award dated 23.04.2012 and restore Ref.CGIT-

2/21 of 2008 to its original file. Thus I proceed to pass the

following order ;

ORDER

(i) Application is allowed.

(ii) The earlier award dt. 23.04.2012 in Ref.CGIT-2/21

of 2008 is hereby set aside. Ref.CGIT-2/21 of 2008 is

restored to its original file.

Date: 22.04.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 614.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj iksLV ekLVj tujy]

fMikVZesaV vkWiQ iksLV~l] jktdksV ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh,-111@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@07@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3 rd February , 2014

S.O. 614.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGITA-

111/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Post Master General Department

of Posts, Rajkot and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 28-1-2014.

[No. L-40012/07/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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 23rd December, 2013

Reference (CGITA) No. 111/2010

Reference (ITC) No. 1679/2008 (old)

The Post Master General,

Department of Posts,

Head Post office,

Rajkot-360001

.... (Employer) lst party

And

Their Workman

Late Dinesh Jerambhai Baraiya

Smt. Sonaben Dineshbhai Baraiya (widow)

Opp. Bharat Bakery,

Thakkar Bapa Harijanwas,

Garbi Chowk, Rajkot

.... (workman) 2nd party

For the First Party :

Shri P.M. Rami, Advocate,

A.G.P. Labour Courts &

Industrial Court

For the Second Party :

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-40012/7/2008 IR(DU)) darted

02.06.2008 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the dispute to the

C.G.I.T.- cum-Labour Court. Ahmedabad for adjudication

on the terms of reference in the Schedule :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of the Post

Master General, D/o Post, Rajkot, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Dinesh Jerambhai

Baria w.e.f. 28.04.2005 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the legal representative of the workman

is entitled to?"

2. In response to notice though Smt. Sonaben the

deceased workman's widow appeared on 04.10.2010 and

executed power (Vakalatnama) in favour of Shri Harshad

L. Baraiya, Advocate, Rajkot. When the case record was

pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot vide Ext.4.

But thereafter She (the widow of workman) failed to appear

before this tribunal when the case record was received on

transfer by the order of MOL on 24.0l.2011, whereas the

1st party Lawyer filed pursises on 29.04.2011 (Ext.5),

19.07.2011 (Ext.6), 04.10.2011(Ext.7)·, 29.04.2013 (Ext.10) and

23.12.2013 (Ext.11) to the effect to close the right of filing

statement of claim and to dismiss the reference. In the

meantime, fresh notice was also issued by this tribunal to

Smt. Sonaben Dineshbhai Baraiya on her address vide

Ext.8 but this also went invain and the 2nd party failed to

appear as to file statement of claim.

3. So there is reason to believe that the 2nd party

has lost interest in this case. So in view of pursis (Ext.11)

of the 1st party following order is passed.

ORDER

Since the workman side (2nd party) failed to submit

statement of claim, so the terms of reference in the

Schedule is answered in favour of the management of the

Post Master General, D/o Post, Rajkot in terminating the

services of their workman Late Dinesh Jerambhai Baraiya

w.e.f. 28.04.2005 is justified.

The reference is accordingly dismissed. No order as

to any cost.

Let copy of award be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication under section 17 of the I.D.

Act.

B. K. SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 615.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj]

ch ,l ,u ,y ,aM vkFklZ] xqtjkr ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh,-920@ 2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@238@2002&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

Delhi, the 3rd February , 2014

S.O. 615.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGITA-

920/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1687

to the management of The General Manager, BSNL &

Others, Gujarat and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 28-1-2014.

[No. L-40012/238/2002-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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 23th September, 2013

Reference: (CGITA) No. 920/04

Reference (ITC) 5/03 (old)

1. The General Manager, BSNL

Vallabhnagar Telephone Exchange Building,

Pij Road,

Nadiad (Gujarat) 378002

2. The Sub Divisional Officer-Telecom, BSNL,

Anand Telephone Exchange,

Anand (Gujarat) -388002

And

Their Workman

Shri Fatesingh Dulabhai Bariya(Since dead)

(His widow Jantaben Fatesingh Bariya substituted)

C/o Shri J.K. Ved, Sinduri Mate Devasthan,

S.T. Nagar,

Godhara (Gujarat)-389001

For the 1st party:- Shri N.K. Trivedi, Advocate

For the 2nd party:- Shri J.K. Ved, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi, vide its Order No.-L-40012/238/2002 (IR(DU)) dated

17-4-2003 referred the dispute for adjudication to the

Industrial Tribunal Nadiad (Gujarat) under clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of section 10 of the

I.D. Act,1947 under the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, BSNL, Nadiad /SDOT, Anand in

terminating the services of Shri Fatesingh Dulabhai

Baria w.e.f. 1.10.94 without giving retrenchment

compensation and notice pay and absorbing juniors

overlooking his claim is justified? If not to what relief

the workman is entitled for ?’’

2. The facts of the case of the 2nd party as per

statement of claim (Ext-3) is that the deceased workman

Fatehsingh had performed his duty without break

continuously from 1990 to 01.10.1994 by doing works of

digging pits, erecting telephone pole installation and

telephone lines etc. The 1st party had given written notice

on 1.10.1994 to Fatesingh and relieved from his duty with

assurance that as and when need of works he will be

recalled. But Fatehsingh (now dead) was never recalled

for work and in the year 1995 Juniors to him were reengaged.

Fatesingh had put in service of more than 240 days in

calendar years. He was not paid retrenchment

compensation and notice pay etc. The 1st party should

have prepared seniority list division wise as per Rule-77

of Industrial Dispute Central Rule, 1977 and they have

violated Rule -78 and the provision of Section 25(G) of the

I.D. Act, 1947. In theconciliation preceding before ALC(c)

the 1st party in its reply admitted to have not given notice

pay to the workman Fatehsingh and thus 1st party has

violated the provision of section 25 F of the I. D. Act.

Further case is that the 1st party had assured to call him

when vacancy will fall and remained waiting and that

caused delay of seven years in raising dispute when also

came to know. On these scores prayer to declare null and

void the termination order of workman (Fatesingh) now

dead and for reinstatement and back wages.

3. As against this the case of the 1st party as per

w.s. Ext.6 is that the reference is not maintainable there is

no relation of master and servant between 1st part y and

the 2nd party. The 2nd party in his s/c has stated incorrect

facts as to his employment and working continuously in

the B.S.N.L Dept. which are against the actual state of

affairs, the allegation made para wise in S/c are denied.

The case of the 1st party is that the 2nd party Fatesingh

(now dead) was a casual labour and as and when works

required he was engaged for the works intermittently. He

was not appointed by the B.S.N.L., his name was not

sponsored through employment exchange. Fatesingh

started casual labour work from the year 1991 and in the

year 1993 from January to March and August to December

1993 he left the casual work and went elsewhere for work

to get better prospect and during that period he did not

do work with the 1st party. Fatehsingh never worked for

240 days in any calendar year. Thereafter the 1st party by

a written notice removed from the casual work w.e.f.

01.10.1994. It is denied that in the year 1995 ignoring

Fatesingh Jouniors were reengaged by the 1st party and

that the 1st party has not violated the provisions of section

2(G) of the I.D. Act. The 1st party, B.S.N.L. is PSU of

Government of India having distinct rules and regulation

1688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of appointment of regular staff in B.S.N.L. by publishing

advertisement regarding vacancies and calling for name

sponsored through employment exchange conducting

interview and then selecting deserving candidate etc. But

engagement of Fatesingh as casual labour was not

processed through rules and regulation of B.S.N.L. More

so, due to automation in B.S.N.L.'s prohibition started for

engagement since 1993 and thereafter the works to be

performed by casual labour were started to be performed

through contractor and there remains no requirement of

casual works to be performed by the 2nd party Fatesingh.

On these scores prayer is made to reject the reference

since the 2nd party is not entitled to get any relief.

4. In view of rival contentions of the parties in their

pleadings, the following issues are taken up for

determination and adjudication upon the terms of reference:

ISSUES

I. Whether the reference is maintainable?

II. Has the 2nd party any valid cause of action?

III. Whether the 2nd party (Fatesingh Dulabhai Bariya)

has completed 240 days of works in calendar vear

preceding termination w.e.f 01.10.1994 ?

IV. Whether the action of the management of the 1st

party is justified in terminating the services of the

Fatesingh w.e.f 01.10.1994 without giving

retrenchment compensation and notice pay ?

V. Whether the 1st party has absorbed juniors

overlooking the claim of Fatesingh?

VI. To what relief the 2nd party is entitled in this case?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO.III :- Both parties have adduced oral

and documentary evidence in this case. Ext.-7 is oral

deposition of Fatesingh (2nd party) and Ext.16 is oral

deposition of 1st party witness Hargovind Patel, AGM in

Telecome Nadiad. Ext.9 is termination letter of Fatesingh

dated 01.10.1994 issued by the 1st party that his service is

no more required from 01.11.1994 due to non-availability

of work. You will be engaged as and when required by the

department. Ext.l0 are certificates issued by the Telecom

Dept. regarding the days casual work done by Fatesingh

under S.D.O.T. Anand D. from January 91 to December,91

completing 395 days of work, from January 92 to December

92 under S.D.O. Telegraph, Anand completing 309 days;

from March 93 to July 93 for 137 days under S.D.O.T. Borsad

and from January 94 to October 94 for 298 days under

S.D.O.T., Borsad and Dakor . Ext. 10 go to prove that the

2nd party Fatehsingh had competed more than 240 days

of works in the calendar year preceding his termination

w.e.f. 1.11.1994 as he worked for whole month October for

31 days. Though Ext.9 the order regarding removal

termination is dated 1.10.1994 but the 2nd party actually

worked up to 31.10.1994. The evidence of the 1st party

witness vide Ext.16 has no leg to stand that Fatesingh has

not worked for 240 days in each year. More particularly in

the calendar year preceding his terminations vide Ext.9.

So the 2nd party has discharged the onus that Fatesingh

worked for 240 days in calendar preceding his termination.

The onus shifts upon the 1st party but could not disprove

that Fatesingh had not worked for 240 days preceding his

termination. The 1st party during cross-examination

admitted that neither witness notice nor notice pay nor

compassion for termination paid to Fatesingh.

6. As per discussion and consideration above, the

issue No.(III) is decided in favour of the 2nd party that

Fatesingh worked for more than 240 days in calendar

year, preceding his termination.

7. ISSUE NO.V:- workman Fatehsingh in his oral

evidence (Ext.7) vide para 4 deposed that I came to know

that Juniors to me have been recruited and I was also

assured to call upon for duties. During cross examination

by 1st party lawyer vide para 6 he stated that when I was

employed on work in 1991, than other persons were

working I was paid wages for the days I performed my

duties vide Para-7 though Fatesingh deposed it is not true

that those persons made permanent were workers engaged

earlier to me and senior to me. From among those made

permanent there were workers working with me as they

were outsiders. Vide para 8 he admitted that none of

workers of his village has been made permanent. But such

version of Fatesingh that Juniors were reengaged and

given ternporary status could not have been proved by

the 2nd party through any documentary evidence. Ext.ll

produced on behalf of 2nd .party are recommendation of

the committee regarding reengagement without requiring

condonation recommendation for reengagement with

condonation of 14 and 6 at category No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and

at category No. 5 not recommended due to continuous

break more than 365 days -73 persons and at category- 6

26 pending case. In none of the list of 6 categories the

name of Fatesingh find place. Ext.11 do not go to support

the oral version of Fatesingh that his Juniors were

reengaged and he was left. These recommendation are

concerning retrenched casual labourers of Kheda

Telecome District where as the 2nd party Fatesingh had

worked under Anand Telecome District at Anand, Borsad

and Dakor. So, Ext.11 are not relevant to support the case

of 2nd party. Exr.12 is reply of B.S.N.L. though sub

Divisional Engineer (legal) O/o G.M.T.D. Nadiad before

ALC (Central) where in it has been categorically accepted

that compensation and notice pay as per I. D. Act. At does

not appear to have been paid to Fatesingh erroneously by

this department. The 1st party has submitted with list

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1689

(Ext.20) 5 documents -(1) letter No. 269-4/93 STN 11 casual

labourer (Grant of Temporary status dated 17.12.1993

(2) letter No. E-298/V/179 dated 22.02.1995 (3)

Recommendation of the committee Annexure A to F which

are similar to that of Ex.11 submitted by the 2nd party. (4)

Regularisation of casual labour letter dated 30.08.1989 and

(5) list of casual labour regarding payment of compensation

by M.O. dated 19.12.1995. 1st document do not cover the

eligibility of Fatesingh as he was working as C/L from Jan

1991 and not from 31.03.1985 to 22.06.1988. So this was

reason that recommendation of committee was regarding

reengagement of workers senior to Fatesingh. From the

5th document which are list of bulk money order issued to

retrenched C/L there is no mention of name of Fatesingh.

The 1st party has emphatically denied that any Junior to

Fatesingh was reengaged and made regular.

8. As per discussion and consideration above, the

issue no-V is decided against the 2nd party and it is held

that the 1st party has not absorbed juniors overlooking

the claim of Fatesingh.

9. ISSUE NO IV:- As per findings to issue no III and

V in the foregoing paras I am of the clear opinion that the

1st party has clearly violated the provisions of section

25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 in not giving notice or notice pay

and retrenchment compensation to Fatesingh on his

termination though Fatesingh had completed 240days in

each calendar year of his engagement as casual labour

and had also completed 240 days in calendar year

preceding termination.

10. Now Fatesingh (Origianl 2nd party) is dead and

his widow substituted in his place. So there is no question

of reinstatement of Fatesingh Dulabhai Bariva. So, now

the question is to be-examined whether widow Jantaben

Fatesingh Bariya is entitled for back wages till the date of

death of her husband Fatesingh on 29.10.2007 as per death

certificate.

11. On behalf of the 2nd party case law of Anoop

Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division

No. 1 Panipat (Haryana) (2010) 2 S.C.C. (C&S) 63, Harjinder

Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corp. [2010(1) S.C.C.

(L&S)] 1146 and director Fisheries Terminal Dept. Vs.

Bhikhubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (2010) 1 S.C.C. (L&S) 1

in support of effect of violation of the provision of section

25F of the I.D. Act. One more case law has been filed

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mansigh (2012 LLR1 S.C.)

on the matter of awarding compensation instead of

reinstatement.

12. On the other hand the 1st party has relied upon

the case of Hamanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & other Vs. State

of Bihar [F.L.R. 1997(76)237 S.C]. On the point that service

of daily wages, a temporary employee is terminated, he

had no right to post, his dis engagement held not arbitrary.

His case cannot be treated under Industrial Disputes Act.

On this point another case law reported in A.I.R 1996 SC

1565 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kr. Verma and

another) has been relied termination of daily wage

employees due to coming to end of project, direction to

reengage them in any other work or appoint them against

existing vacancies cannot be given. The 1st party has also

cited case laws state of Maharstra Vs. Dattatraya Digamber

Birajdar (2007 LLR 1132 S.C.) on point of raising dispute

after eight years of dismissal being stale would not be

maintainable. Kendriaya Vidhyalaya Sangathan and Ans

Vs. S. C. Sharma 2005 LLR S.C. 275 on point of gainful

employment. The case law of secretary of state of

Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and others [2006 S.C.C.

(L&S) 753] and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Teja Singh

(Civil Application No. 292/2009 S.C.) These case law have

been relied on behalf of the 1st party in support of such

arguments that in spite of not giving notice pay and

retrenchment compensation to the 2nd party Fatesingh

on his termination, he or his heirs are not entitled' to either

reinstatement or back wages or even lumpsum

compensation. But on the other hand the relevant case

laws 2012 LLR 1 S.C. (Supra) relied upon by the 2nd party

certainly make out good case for the 2nd party for

lumpsum cornpensation on violation of the provision of

section 25F by the employer B.S.N.L 1st Party. More so,

the case law of senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic)

Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kumar seal and others [2010 (III)CLR

17S.C.] also held that instead of reinstatement and back

wages being in case of termination of workmen's service

found illegal relief of reinstatement with back wages is

not to be automatically granted. Rather grant of reasonable

monetary compensation would sub serve ends of justice.

13. This issue is, therefore, answered in negative

holding that the action of the management of 1st party is

not justified in terminating the service of Fatesingh

without giving retrenchment compensation and notice

pay.

14. ISSUE NO.I & II:- in view of the finding to issue

no. III, IV and V in the foregoings I further find and hold

that the reference is maintainable even raising dispute at

belated stage and that this reference is survived since the

2nd party Fatesingh during his lifetime till his death on

29.10.2007 and after that to his legal heir (widow)

substituted has got valid cause of action in this case.

15. ISSUE NO.VI:- The workman Fatesingh Dulabhai

Bariya had completed more than 240 days of works in

calendar year 1991, 1992, 1994 preceding termination so

the management of 1st party was required to follow the

mandatory provision of section 2SF of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 and the 1st party has admitted that

1690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

compliance of this provision was not made in case of

workmen Fatesingh Dulabhai Bariya. More so, the

workman Fatesingh died during pendency of the reference

on 29.10.2007 and his widow substituted as 2nd party. In

view of the case law reported in 2010 (III) CLR 17 S.C.

grant of reasonable monetary compensation is the only

remedy that would sub serve the ends of justice. There is

no contrary evidence on behalf of the 1st party that since

after termination Fatesingh Dulabhai Bariya was in gainful

employment. Where as evidence of Fatesingh at Ext.7

shows he remained unemployment so considering all the

facts and circumstances of the case a lump sum

compensation of Rs. 40,000 (Rupees Forty Thousand only)

is awarded to the 2nd party in this case against the 1st

party.

This reference case is allowed accordingly in part.

No order as to cost.

The management of B.S.N.L (1st party) are directed

to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.40,000 (Rupees

Forty Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from

the date of this award to the 2nd party Jantaben Fatesingh

Bariya through a cheque or Bank draft.

This is my award.

Let Two Copies of the award be sent for publication

u/ s 17 (1) of the I.D. Act.

B. K. SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 616.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lc fMfotuy

vkWfiQlj] VsyhxzkiQ fMikVZesaV ,aM vkFklZ] vgenkckn ds izcaèkra=k

ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh,-915@

2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&1&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@432@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February , 2014

S.O. 616.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGITA-

915/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The S.D.O., Telegraph

Department & Other, Ahmedabad and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 28-1-2014.

[No. L-40012/432/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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 15th October, 2013

Reference: (CGITA) No-915/2004

Reference (I.T.C.) No. 06/2002(old)

Reference (I.T.C.) No. 20/2009

The General Manager

Nagar Palika Building, Nadiad,

Dist. Kheda-387001

The S.D.O, Telegraph Department,

Behind S.T. Stand,

Nadiad, Dist: Kheda-387001

The S.I.T. Indian Post & Telegraph Dept.

Dakor Taluka: Thasra

.... First Party

And

Their Workman

Sh. Ranjansinh Motibhai Patel

Through The General Secretary,

All Gujarat Karmachari Union,

Ashapurinagar, Near Swastik char rasta,

Bhilwada Road, Amraiwadi,

Ahmedabad-3800026

.... Second Party

For the 1st party: Shri N.K. Trivedi, Advocate

For the 2nd party: Shri G.K. Parmar, Union General Secretary

AWARD

The Central Government/ Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide its order No. L-40012/432/2000-IR(DU) dated

12.02.2002 in exercise of power conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute

Act, 1947 , referred the dispute for adjudication on terms

of reference under the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of Sh. Ranjansinh Motibhai

Patel , a workman in the management of telecom for

reinstatement in his original post with full back

wages and with continuity of service and with all

consequential benefits including the benefits of

regularisation with arrears is just and legal? If so, to

what relief the workman is entitled?"

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1691

2. The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim (Ext.5) shortly sated is that he (Ranjan

Sinh) was engaged for work by the 1st party from

01.11.1984 and he continuously worked till 30.04.1985.

Thereafter from 01.08.1991 he was engaged for work at

S.I.T., Dakor and there he worked upto 30.04.1992 regularly

and continuously and has completed more than 240 days

of work. Thereafter he was removed/terminated from the

work w.e.f. 01.05.1992 by oral order without complying

with the provisions of I.D. Act. Then the 2nd party workman

also met officers of the 1st party for engaging him on

works and they only gave assurance that when need of

work will arise he will be reengaged. The 1st party kept/

engaged new person for work but he was ignored. The 1st

party has violated the provisions of sections 25F, 25G 25H

of the I.D. Act, 1947. His oral termination by the 1st party

is illegal and unjust. The workman through Union put

demand before the management of the 1st party for

reinstatement of workman with back wages but that went

invain. And so dispute was raised seeking for the relief of

reinstatement on the original post with back wages and

for regularisation and for cost of litigation.

3. As against this the contention of the 1st party as

per written statement Ext.12 is that the reference is not

maintainable and the 2nd party has no cause of action.

The 2nd party workman was engaged as casual labour in

need of work intermittently and he never completed 240

days of work. He was not appointed by the 1st party, his

name was not sponsored by the employment exchange

rather on need of works he was engaged as casual labourer.

Now the temporary works are being performed through

contractor. The 2nd party workman was a casual labour

and was not holding a post as that of regular employee.

The allegation in the statement of claim para wise has

been denied. On these scores, prayer is to dismiss the

reference since the workmen/2nd party is not entitled to

any relief.

4. In view of the rival contention of the parties in the

pleadings the following issues are taken up for

consideration and adjudication:

ISSUES

(I)

Is the reference maintainable?

(II)

Whether the 2nd party/workmen/union has valid

cause of action in raising the demand?

(III)

Whether the workman Ranjansinh Motibhai Patel

has completed 240 days of work in the calendar year

preceding his oral termination on 01.05.1992.?

(IV)

Whether the 2nd party Union/Workman is entitled

to the relief of reinstatement and back wages and for

regularising as per terms of reference?

(V)

What order are to be passed?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO.III:-The 2nd party has produced two

documents as per list Ext.13 on 11.07.2003 and marked

Ext.15 and 16 on 20.02.2004. Ext. 15 is certificate granted

by SDO phones Koyall. P.O. Jawahar Nagar, Baroda to

Shri Ranjansinh Motibhai regarding his working in

telephone cable party to Koyly with S.IP.N.S. Patel. This

certificate shows that he worked for 176 days from

November 1984 to April 1985. Ext. 16 is certificate of Indian

post and Telegraph Dept. granted to the concerned

workman Ranjansinh by S.D.O. Telegraph, Nadiad that

shows that from 01.08.1991 to 30.04.1992 he worked for

265 days. It is said that from 01.05.1992 he was orally

terminated from the casual work. Ext. 17 is oral deposition

of the workman Ranjansinh Patel. He was also cross

examined by the lawyer of the 1st party. The 1st party also

examined its witness Hargovindbhai, Asst. General

Manager, Telecom. He was also cross examined by the

2nd party Union representative.

6. Mr. N.K. Trivedi , learned counsel appearing for

the 1st party argued that the 2nd party Ranjansinh was a

casual labour engaged on need basis and so he has/had

no right to the post. Reliance has been placed upon the

case law of Himanshu Kumar Vidhyarthi Vs. State of Bihar

[FLR 1997(76) 327 SC] . It has been further argued that he

2nd party after his work from 01.11.1984 to 30.04.1985 for

176 days as per Ext.15 did not work and subsequently

after long gap he was engaged for work by the 1st party

from 01.08.1991 to 30.04.1992 for 265 days vide Ext. 16 and

thereafter he was disengaged w.e.f. 01.05.1992. Further

argument is that the 2nd party was not appointed and not

given appointment letter as that of regular/permanent

employee of the dept. his name was not sponsored by

employment exchange. The 1st party has also cited case

laws of state of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Suresh Kumar and

another. That appointment on daily wage basis is not

appointed to post according to rule. It has been further

argued that the 2nd party has raised dispute and put

demand through Union after eight years through a letter

dated 04.09.2002 and so the reference is barred by delay

and latches Reliance has been placed upon the case law of

state of Maharastra Vs. Dattatraya Digamber Birajdar (2009

LLR 1 132 S.C). Another case law of secretary state of

Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi (3) and others [2006

SCC (L&S) 753] and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs.

Teja Singh (Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 Supreme Court) have

been cited on the point that the workman (S.P) is not

entitled for reinstatement with back wages. It has been

also argued that even the 2nd party had worked for 240

day in Calendar year does not give right of permanent

status. Reliance has been pierced upon the case law of

Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemens Ltd. (2007 Lab I.C. 590).

Another case law of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs.

Mansingh and other [2010 STPL (web 966 S.C )] has been

cited on behalf of the 1st party on the point of violation of

1692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 where in their Lordships

held that this court in catena of decision has clearly laid

down that although an order of retrenchment passed in

violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act may be set aside

but an award of reinstatement should not be passed. This

court has distinguished between a daily wagers who does

not hold a post and a permanent employee and that instead

monetary compensation would meet the ends of Justice.

7. On the other hand without confronting with the

case laws cited on behalf of the 1st party, Shri G.K. Parmar

learned representative Union has based his arguments

that since the management of the 1st party has violated

the provision of section 25F of the I. D. Act whereas the

workman had completed 240 days of work in calendar year

preceding termination so he should be reinstated with full

back wages.

8. In the case of Senior Superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic) Bhopal Vs. Santosh Kr. Seal & others 2010 (III)

CLR.17 their Lordship of the Hon'ble Apex Court have

held that grant of reasonable compensation to the workman

instead of reinstatement and back wages in case the

termination of service is found illegal will sub serve the

ends of Justice.

9. From the discussion above, it is proved that the

workmen (the 2nd party) Shri Ranjansinh Motibhai Patel,

had completed more than 240 days of work in calendar

year preceding his termination on 01.05.1992. This issue

is, therefore, decided in favour of the 2nd party/Union.

10. ISSUE NO. IV:- In view of the findings to Issue

No. III and the relevant case laws of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the foregoings, it is now clear that in case of

violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act by the employer in

resorting to retrenchment of daily wagers as a matter of

right the concerned workman who completed 240 days of

work is not entitle for reinstatement and back wages rather

award of reasonable compensation will sub serve the ends

of Justice and that casual labour/daily rated wages does

not hold any post as that of regular employee. Accordingly,

this issue is decided against the 2nd party/Union.

11. ISSUE NO. I and 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/Union has valid cause of action to raise the dispute.

12. ISSUE NO.V:- Considering all the facts and

circumstances of the case a lumpsum compensation of

Rs. 20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) is awarded to

the 2nd party workman Shri Ranjansinh Motibhai Patel

which will sub serve the ends of Justice.

This reference is accordingly allowed in part. No

order as to cost. The 1st party are directed to pay the

amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the workman

(2nd party) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date

20.02.2004 (when the workman deposed in support of his

statement of claim).

This is my Award.

Let two copies of' the award be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication u/s 17 (1) of the

I. D. Act, 1947.

B. K. SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 617.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfotuy

jsyos esustj] vtesj ,aM vnlZ] ds izcaèkra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèkdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh,-971@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&1&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@24@93&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd February, 2014

S.O. 617.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. CGITA-

971/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad now as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The Divisional Railway

Manager, Ajmer & Others, and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 28-1-2014.

[No. L-41012/24/93-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, 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 26th November, 2013

Refernce: (CGITA) No. 971/2004

Reference (ITC) No. 22/1994 (Old)

1. Divisional Railway Manager,

(then) Western Railway,

Ajmer (Rajasthan)

2. Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Railway,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

..... First Party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1693

And

Their Workman

M.O. Vashishtha,

Through the President, Western Railway,

Kamdar Sangh, T.B. Z-17, Gandhidham,

Kutch-370201

... Second Party

For the First Party No. 1 : Shri Rakeshkumar P. Sharma

For the First Party No. 2: None

For the Second Party: Shri O.P. Vashishtha,

General Secretary,

(W.R.K.S.Union)

AWARD

The Central Government /Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide Order No. L- 41012/24/9-IR(DU)) dated nil in

exercise of the powers conferred under clause (d) of sub

section (1) of section (10) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947, referred the dispute for adjudication to Industrial

Tribunal, Rajkot on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the demand of the Western Railway

Kamdar Sangh, Gandhidham for fixing and notifying

the seniority position of Shri M.O. Vashishtha, Clerk

by the D.R.M. Western Railway, Ajmer with

consequential benefits of promotion is legal and

justified? If so, what relief is the said workman

entitled to?’’

2. The case of the 2nd Party (Union) as per statement

of claim (Ext.2) dated 23.10.1994 is that workman Shri M.O.

Vashitha was appointed as casual Labour under permanent

way Inspector (P.W.I.) B.G. construction, W. Rly,

Gandhidham on 21.05.1969. Then he was transferred under

Chief Signal Inspector, Gandhidham on 13.05.1974. He was

granted temporary status w.e.f. 21.01.1975 vide D.R.M.

Ajmer letter in the scale of Rs. 196—232. Then he was

promoted as Junior clerk in scale Rs. 225—308 vide D.R.M.

Ajmer letter dated 28.04.1979 and was posted under

Executive Engineer (C)/Xen (C) Ajmer. He joined as clerk

on 14.05.1979. The executive Engineer (C) Ajmer raised

objection for his seniority. Then workmen filed S.C.A. in

Gujarat High Court which was transferred to the CAT,

Ahmedabad as T.A. 11/86 and T.A. 11/86 was decided on

19.06.1987 directing the management to treat the

appointment of the workman as telly clerk w.e.f. 01.06.1980

instead of 14.05.1979. Thereafter the workman made

representations to the D.R.M., Ajmer and the General

Manager, W.Rly., Mumbai for fixing the seniority position

in Ajmer Division in the list of clerk scale 225—308/ 825—

1200 by taking his date of appointment as clerk on

01.06.1980. The D.R.M. Ajmer vide staff order No. 297 EID/

837/2 Vol II of 13.10.1980 notified the promotion of 45

persons with Shri Jagdishlal H. At Sl. No. 1 and Shri

Kalooram at S1. No. 45. The workman requested the

management to place his name in the seniority list of clerk

scale Rs. 225—308/825—1200 above Shri Jagdishlal H.

who was promoted after 01.06.1980. But the management

did not pay any heed to his request and thus the action of

the management head to his request and thus the action

of the management of D.R.M. Ajmer in not fixing the

workman's seniority position is illegal, unlawful and

unjustified. The workman through the Union raised dispute

before the conciliation officer A.L.C. (Central), Adipur but

on failure of conciliation, followed by the reference order

of the appropriate Govt. for adjudication. On denial of the

fixation of the seniority of workman, the management of

DRM Ajmer also denied the promotion to the workman

whereas his juniors have been promoted as clerk in scale

Rs.1400—2300. The 2nd party workman has been illegally

denied promotion in scale 1400—2300 and in the scale of

Rs. 1600—2600. On these scores prayer is to declare the

action on part of the management (1st party) illegal and

unjustified in not fixing and notifying the seniority position

and for his promotion in clerk grade in scale Rs. 1400—

2300 above Shri Jagdishlal H and Shankarlal P with all

consequential benefits and to grant other relief if any to

which he is found entitled with cost of reference.

3. As against this the contention of the 1st party

(D.R.M.), Ajmer as per written statement (Ext.4) is that the

reference is not maintainable. The demand of the Union

does not constitute any industrial dispute. The Railway

Establishment has got his own rules and regulations as

regards the selection post, the employee claiming the said

post, has to clear certain examination as prescribed. The

concerned workman M. O. Vashishtha without having

clear the prescribed examination claims the benefits for

the selection post to which he is not legally entitled. The

1st party has denied the averment in para 3, 5, 6, 7 of the

statement of claim specifically and with respect to para 2

of S/c it is contended that the workman was not having 3

years' service in class IV grade he was directed by XEN

(C)/Ajmer to his original post on Ajmer Div. Then as per

order dated 19.06.1987 of CAT, Ahmedabad in T.A. 11/86,

the workman was treated as Telly Clerk w.e.f. 01.06.1980

and thus he was continued to work in the post of telly

clerk under XEN (C), Ajmer and was posted at Chittorgarh.

On these scores contention of the 1st party is that the

workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed at para

8 of statement of claim and the reference is liable to be

dismissed.

4. The 2nd party also submitted rejoinder to the

statement of claim vide Ext.5 mostly reiterating the same

fact as that of statement of claim (Ext.2). However, adding

more to his case vide para 3(b) that the workman was put

to the selection of clerk scale Rs. 950—1500 by the

construction department where he was declared successful

as clerk Rs. 950—1500 under Order No. E/1026/2/2/ (S&C)

1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 15, 2014/MAGHA 26, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of 01.10.1987 and he was promoted as clerk scale 950—

1500 under Deputy (E)(C) Bhuj is continuing in the same

post till date. But his seniority was not maintained in the

clerk grade in scale Rs. 950—1500 and clerk scale 1200—

2040 till date which is violation of order of CAT,

Ahmedabad dated 19.06.1987. The selection exam passed

by workman in the construction dept. is valid and operative

on Ajmer Division also. But no seniority list as telly clerk

scale 225—308/825—1200 and clerk scale 950—1500 has

been maintained on Ajmer Division till date. Thus denying

all the contention of the 1st party as per w.s. (Ext.4) the

workman further claim that he is legally entitled for the

relief claimed.

5. This is pertinent to mention here that the workman

Shri M.O. Vashishtha was working at Ganghidham which

was coming under the Jurisdiction of D.R.M., Ajmer

(W.Rly) but w.e.f. 01.04.2003 Gandhidham Rly. came under

territorial jurisdiction of newly established D.R.M.

Ahmedabad. So as per order dated 20.01.2012 (Ext.42)

D.R.M., Ahmedabad has been also impleaded as the 1st

party and notice issued in this case.

6. In view of the rival contention of the parties in

their pleadings the following issues are taken up for

consideration and for adjudication to the term of reference.

ISSUES

(i)

Is the reference maintainable?

(ii)

Whether the 2nd party has got valid cause of action

to raise industrial dispute ?

(iii)

Whether the demand of the Union as per terms of

reference is legal, justified and proper?

(iv)

Whether the 2nd party is entitled to the relief as

claimed?

(v)

What order/Orders are to be passed?

FINDINGS

7. ISSUE NO. iii & iv : On behalf of the 2nd party 4

documents were produced as per list Ext.18 and have been

marked Ext.19 to 22. Ext.19 is copy of order dated 19.06.1987

passed in T.A. No. 11 of 1986 by the CAT, Ahmedabad

Bench, admittedly the appointment of workman M.O.

Vashishtha as telly clerk from 14.05.1979 was not accepted

and as per CAT's order his appointment as telly clerk was

found valid w.e.f. 01.06.1980. So, initially the promotion of

workman as Jr. Clerk scale 225-308 (Rs) has to be reckoned

form 01.06.1980. Ext. 21 is staff office order No 297 of

Mandal Karyalay, Ajmer through which 45 class iv staff

who have been placed on provisional panel for the post of

Jr. Clerk scale 225-308 ® were provisionally promoted to

officiate as Jr. Clerk scale Rs. 225-308 (R) and posted in the

offices as specified. The name of M.O. Vashishtha does

not find place in the list. The 2nd party claims that name of

M.O. Vashishtha should be above Sl. No. 1 Sh. Jagdish

Lal H. who was promoted after 01.06.1980. But from Ext.21

it is manifestly clear that Sl. No. 1 Sh. Jagdish Lal H. to SI.

No. 45 had been placed on provisional panel for the post

of junior clerk from before. But such is not case of the

workman M.O. Vashishtha since his appointment to telly

clerk was to be taken from 01.06.1980 and he had not been

placed on provisional panel for the post of junior clerk.

Ext.22 is representation of M.O. Vashishtha dated

12.01.1990 for fixation of his seniority position clerks scale

825-1200 & scale 950-1500 in Ajmer Division. The workman

has demanded for seniority and future promotion from

01.06.1980, on the basis of Apex Court order passed in writ

petition No. 648/2000 in the case of Indrapal Yadav Vs.

Union of India & others, the copy of which filed by the

2nd party with list Ext.27. But on careful, perusal of the

order it does not transpire that an employee while serving

in such project, they have been granted provisional

promotion in a particular corresponding scale of pay on

the basis of supplementary trade test held in the project

itself. It has been directed in the order also ..... "it is open

to the railway administration to utilise the service of the

petitioners in the open line, they must for the purpose of

determining efficiency and fitment take into account the

trade tests which may have been passed by the

petitioners ........’’

8. It has been argued on behalf of the 1st party that

the post of clerk, senior clerks and so on so are selection

grade post and for getting promotion in next higher scale

it is essential to appear in the test examination but the

concerned workman M.O. Vashishtha never appeared and

passed in the examination held by the Ajmer Division in

spite of notice and reminder to him. In support of such

argument, the 1st party has relied upon documents Ext. 9,

10, 11, 12 and 13 produced with list Ext. 8. Ext. 9 is office

order dated 25.11.1985 of Ajmer Division regarding holding

of examination on 01.12.1985 at 10:00 a.m. Ext.10 is office

order dated 10.12.1985 of Ajmer Division W.Rly regarding

selection of Group D employee in junior clerk mention the

name of 12 persons calling them for written exam at 10 a.m.

in meeting hall at Ajmer. The name of M.O. Vashishtha is

at Sl. No. 11 (X-EN (C) Jamnagar) Ext. 11 is attendance

sheet of examination in view of Ext. 10 which go to show

that M.O. Vashishtha besides 5 others out of 12 did not

appear in the examination and remained absent. On the

other hand the claim of the 2nd party is that the workman

M.O. Vashishtha since had passed the written suitability

test for promotion as clerk scale Rs. 950-1500 (RP) held on

02.08.1988 at Mumbai and his name was interpolated at Sl.

No. 9A i.e. between Shri H.P. Bhatt and K. Shrinivasan of

the panel issued vide memorandum C.E(S&C)'s office

Churchgate, Mumbai Ext.23) so the workman was not

required to again appear in the written test/trade test for

getting promotion in higher scale in the Ajmer Division.

Such contention of the 2nd party does not appear to be

convincing. Because the concerned workman M.O.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % iQjojh 15] 2014@ek?k 26] 1935

1695

Vashishtha without further clearing the prescribed

examination held in Ajmer Division cannot claim benefits

for the selection post of clerk in the scale Rs. 1400-2300

and above in the scale Rs. 1600- 2660. The argument of the

1st party is convincing that the length of service is not

criterion for getting promotion in next higher scale

automatically without clearing departmental exam held in

the Ajmer Division where the workman was working. He

cannot get the benefit all along in perpetuity by virtue of

Ext.23.

9. The concerned workman Shri M.O. Vashishtha in

his oral evidence vide Ext.14 could not have been able to

substantiates his claim of seniority and due promotion as

claimed as per statement of claim. On the other hand, the

oral evidence of the 1st party witness Gopal is acceptable

that without appearing in selection grade examination M.O.

Vashishtha cannot claim automatic promotion in higher

scales and that if his juniors cleared the selection exam

then certainly juniors will get benefit of promotion then

M.O. Vashishtha who did not appear in selection exam for

higher scales. The 2nd party has heavily relied upon the

order of the Apex Court passed in Indrapal Yadav & others

Vs. Union of India & others. But in true sense the concern

workman cannot get benefit of higher scales of Rs. 1400-

2300/1600-2660 or its corresponding scales without clearing

stage to stage trade test/written examination.

10. Thus, on consideration of the oral and

documentary evidence discussed above, I am of the

considered view that the demand of the Union (Western

Railway Kararnchari Sangh, Gandhidham) for fixing and

notifying the seniorty position of Shri M.O. Vashishtha,

clerk by D.R. M., the then western railway, Ajmer or by

D.R.M. western Railway, Ahmedabad with consequential

or benefits of promotion is not legal and unjustified and

so the 2nd party/ workman Shri M.O. Vashishtha is not

entitled to the relief as claimed. These issues are decided

against the 2nd party.

l1. ISSUE NO. I, ii, & v:- In view of findings given to

issue No. iii & iv in the foregoing paras, I further find and

hold that the reference is not maintainable and the 2nd

party/Union has no cause of action to raise dispute.

As a result the reference is dismissed. No order of

any cost.

Let two copies of the award be sent for publication

u/s. 17 of the I. D. Act to the appropriate Government.

B. K. SINHA, 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.