foÙk ea=ky;

¼foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 791.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k vkSj izdh.kZ micaè½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ vkSj ¼2½ ds lkFk

ifBr cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu vkSj varj.k½ vfèfu;e]

1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼p½ }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls

ijke'kZ ds i'pkr~ ,rn~}kjk] Jh ujsUnz ftojkt dksfV;kokyk ¼tUe

frfFk 05-04-1958½] ofj"B izca/kd] vksfj;aVy cSad vkQ dkelZ

dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds

fy, vFkok vksfj;aVy cSad vkQ dkelZ esa muds vf/kdkjh ds in ij

cus jgus rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks]

vksfj;aVy cSad vkQ dkelZ ds funs'kd e.My esa vf/kdkjh deZpkjh

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñ lañ 6@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 791.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (f) of sub-section 3 of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby

appoints Shri Narendra Jivaraj Kotiawala (DoB: 05.04.1958),

Senior Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, as Officer

Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Oriental

Bank of Commerce, for a period of three years, from the

date of notification of his appointment or until he ceases to

be an officer of the Oriental Bank of Commerce or until

further orders, whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 6/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

lkIrkfgd

WEEKLY

la- 10]

ubZ fnYyh, ekpZ 2—ekpZ 8] 2014] 'kfuokj@iQkYxqu 11—iQkYxqu 17] 1935

No. 10]

NEW DELHI, MARCH 2—MARCH 8, 2014, SATURDAY/PHALGUNA 11—PHALGUNA 17, 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)

763 GI/2014

(2155)

2156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 792.—dkfeZd ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx ds 30 tuojh]

2014 ds i= la[;k 27@4@2014&bZñvksñ ¼,l,e&I½ ds }kjk lwfpr

fu;qfDr laca/kh eaf=eaMyh; lfefr ds vuqeksnu ds vuqlj.k esa iatkc

,aM fla/k cSad ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd Jh nsosUnz iky flag]

Hkkñizñlsñ ¼;wih%80½ ¼tUe frfFk 04-01-1954½ dks 30 tuojh] 2014

ls muds laoxZ vFkkZr~ mÙkj izns'k ljdkj dks izR;kofrZr fd;k tkrk gSA

[Qkñlañ 13@21@2011&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 792.—Shri Devinder Pal Singh, IAS

(UP:80)(DoB: 04.01.1954), Chairman and Managing Director,

Punjab & Sind Bank is repatriated to his cadre i.e.

Government of Uttar Pradesh w.e.f. 30th January, 2014 in

pursuance of approval of the Appointments Committee of

the Cabinet conveyed by Department of Personnel &

Training vide communication No. 27/4/2014-EO(SM.I) dated

30th January, 2014.

[F.No. 13/21/2011-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 793.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k ,oa izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi[kaM ¼1½] [kaM 5] [kaM 6] [kaM 7

vkSj [kaM 8 ds mi[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh ¼miØeksa

dk vtZu ,oa varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kkjk 9 dh mi/

kkjk ¼3½ ds [kaM ¼d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh tfrUnj chj flag] vkbZ,,l¼,,e%83½¼tUe

frfFk 12-12-1957½ dks 01-02-2014 dks vFkok mlds ckn muds

inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls 31-12-2017 rd vFkkZr~ muds

vfèof"kZrk dh vk;q izkIr djus dh rkjh[k rd vFkok vxys vkns'kksa

rd] tks Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM fla/k cSad ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k

funs'kd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 4@7@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 793.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section(3) of section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/80 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3, clause 5, clause

6, clause 7 and sub-clause (1) of clause 8 of the Nationalized

Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provision)

Scheme, 1970/80, the Central Government, hereby appoints

Shri Jatinder Bir Singh, IAS(AM:83) (DoB: 12.12.1957), as

Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank from

the date of taking over charge of the post on or after

01.02.2014 upto 31.12.2017 i.e. the date of his attaining the

age of superannuation or until further orders, whichever is

earlier.

[F.No. 4/7/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 30 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 794.—jk"Vªh;d`r cSad ¼izca/k vkSj izdh.kZ mica/k½

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 3 ds mi&[kaM ¼1½ ds lkFk ifBr cSaddkjh

daiuh ¼miØeksa dk vtZu vkSj varj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1970@1980 dh

/kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk 3¼t½ vkSj ¼3&d½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jherh vfurk djukoj

¼tUe frfFk% 09-10-1957½ dks mudh fu;qfDr dh vf/klwpuk dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] iatkc ,aM fla/k cSad ds funs'kd e.My esa va'k&dkfyd

xSj&ljdkjh funs'kd ukfer djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 6@56@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2014

S.O. 794.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section 3(h) and (3-A) of Section 9 of The Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act,

1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of The

Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government

hereby nominates Smt. Anita Karnavar (DoB: 09.10.1957)

as Part-time Non-official Director on the Board of Directors

of Punjab & Sind Bank for a period of three years, from the

date of notification of her appointment or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 6/56/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 795.—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/kfu;e] 1981

¼1981 dk 28½ dh /kkjk 5 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 6

dh mi&/kkjk 1¼d½ vkSj mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] jktLFkku foÙk fuxe ds v/;{k

,oa izca/k funs'kd Jh ;nqosUnz ekFkqj] vkbZ,,l ¼jktLFkku% 86½

¼tUe frfFk% 09-11-1959½ dks in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh

rkjh[k ls rhu o"kZ dh vof/k ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh

igys gks] Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad ds v/;{k ,oa izca/k funs'kd ds

in ij izfrfu;qfDr vk/kkj ij fu;qDr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ 7@5@2013&chvks&I]

fot; eYgks=k] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 795.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1)(a) and sub-section (2) of Section 6 read

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2157

with sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Export-Import Bank of

India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), the Central Government hereby

appoints Shri Yaduvendra Mathur IAS (RJ: 86) (DoB:

09.11.1959), Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan

Financial Corporation, on deputation as Chairman &

Managing Director Export-Import Bank of India (Exim Bank),

for a period of three years from the date of his taking over the

charge of the post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 7/5/2013-BO-I]

VIJAY MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 796.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa vkdk'kok.kh egkfuns'kky;] izlkj Hkkjrh ¼lwpuk

vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;½ ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy;] vkdk'kok.kh] f='kwj

ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fganh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@6@2012&fganh]

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 796.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

All India Radio, Thrissur under Directorate General of All

India Radio, Prasar Bharti (Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F. No. E-11017/6/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 797.—dsUnz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e ¼4½

ds vuqlj.k esa vkdk'kok.kh egkfuns'kky;] izlkj Hkkjrh ¼lwpuk

vkSj izlkj.k ea=ky;½ ds v/khuLFk dk;kZy;] vkdk'kok.kh] f='kwj

ftlds 80% ls vf/kd deZpkjho`Un us fagUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/klwfpr djrh gSA

[Qkñlañ bZ&11017@6@2012&fganh]

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd ¼jktHkk"kk½

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 797.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10

of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the

Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies

All India Radio, Thrissur under Directorate General of All

India Radio, Prasar Bharti (Ministry of Information and

Broadcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi.

[F.No. E-11017/6/2012-Hindi]

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O.L.)

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

¼miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx½

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 29 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 798.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e 1988 ds fofu;e 6 ds mifofu;e ¼3½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, mRiknksa dh eqgjkadu 'kqYd vf/klwfpr djrk gS%

vuqlwph

Hkkjrh; Hkkx vuq o"kZ

mRikn

bdkbZ U;wure eqgjkadu 'kqYd ¼`½bdkbZ nj LySc esa 'ks"k izpkyu frfFk

ekud

cM+s iSekus NksVs iSekus LySc 1

bdkbZ;ka

la[;k

¼`½

335

& 1993 u;s fo|qr jks/ku rsy

1 fdyks fyVj

74000

63000

8-70

lHkh

12-02-2013

1626

& 1994 ,LcsLVkWl lhesaV ds Hkou fuekZ.k

,d Vu

34000

29000

lHkh

12-02-2013

ikbIl rFkk ikbi fQfVaXl] xVj]

xVj fQfVaXl rFkk Nr fuekZ.k

Hkkx&3 Nr fuekZ.k fQfVax

4989

& 2006 vfXu 'keu ds fy, ;kaf=d >kx

1 fyVj

34000

29000

0-2

lHkh

12-02-2013

mRiUu djus gsrq >kx lkanz

2158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6452

& 1989 lajpukRed mi;ksx ds fy, mPp

,d Vu

44000

38000

4-00

lHkh

& rqjUr izHkko ls

,yqfeuk lhesaV

7834

& 1987 ty vkiwfrZ gsrq bUtsD'ku ekWfYMM 100 ihl

34000

29000

8-65

lHkh

12-02-2013

ihohlh lkWdsV fQfVax lfgr lkWYosaV

lhesaV ds tksM+ Hkkx 3&90 fMxzh

,Ycks gsrq fo'ks"k vis{kk,a

15500

& 2004 xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds gFk&

100 ihl

34000

29000

` 13-9

12-02-2013

cjes&?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj

(Fig. 5-5]

Hkkx 5&dkLV vk;ju

5-6½

` 10-4

(Fig. 5-4½

` 17-3& (Fig.

5-1] 5-2] 5-3½

15500

& 2004 xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds gFk&

100 ihl

34000

29000 ` 8-7 (Fig.

12-2-2013

cjes&?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj

6-16] 6-2

Hkkx 6&czkl@czksat ?kVd

6-15½

` 3-5 (Fig.

6-3] 6-9½

` 7-0

¼6-10] 6]12]

6-4½ ` 20-8

(Fig. 6-13)

` 5-3 (Fig.

6-5½

10-4

(Fig. 6.6)

` 15-6

(Fig. 6-8

` 13-9

(Fig. 6.7)

` 2-7

(Fig. 6.1.1)

` 17-3

(Fig. 6.14)

` 2-6

(Fig. 6.1)

15500

& 2004 xgjkbZ ls ikuh fudkyus ds gFk&

100 ihl

34000

29000

1-75

12-02-2013

cjes&?kVd vkSj fo'ks"k vkStkj

(Fig. 7-1]

Hkkx 7&jcM+ ds ?kVd

7-2½

` 3-5

(Fig. 7-6]

7-7] 9½

` 7 (Fig.

7-8] 7-5]

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2159

7-4] 7-12]

7-13] 7-14]

7-15½

10-4

(Fig. 7.3)

5-3

(Fig. 7.10,

7.11)

15787

& 2008 fLop lkWdsV vkmVysV~l ¼ukWu

100 ihl

34000

29000

3-50

lHkh

12-02-2013

baVjykWfdax Vkbi½

15884

& 2010 lfØ; ÅtkZ gsrq izR;korhZ /kkjk

,d ihl

3]20000

2]72000

3-00

lHkh

& rqjar izHkko ls

izR;{k tqM+s] LFkSfrd iwoZHkqxrku

okys ehVj ¼Js.kh 1 ,oa 2½

15905

& 2011 yksgs ds goySl] vidsUnzh <ys

,d Vu

51000

43000

9-00

lHkh

& rqjar izHkko ls

¼Liu½ ikbi] fQfVaxs vkSj

lgk;dkax½ & fLixV Js.kh

[lañ lh,eMh@13%10]

ihñdsñ xEHkhj] oSKkfud ^th* ,oa iz/kku ¼izek.ku½

MINISTRY OF CONSUMERS AFFAIRS FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2013

S.O. 798.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) of regulation 6 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the Marking fee for the products given in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

IS No.

Part Sec Year

Product Units

Minimum Marking Fee Unit Units in Remai

Effective

Large

Small

Rate

Slab-1

ning

Date

Scale

Slab 1

(in Rs.)

335

1993 New Insulating Oils

1 Kilo Litre 74000

63000

Rs. 8.70

All

12.02.2013

1626

1994 Asbestos Cement Building Pipes

1 Tonne

34000

29000 Rs. 21.00

All

12.02.2013

and Pipe Fittings, Gutters and

Gutter Fittings and Roofing

Fittings Part 3-Roofing Fittings

4989

2006 Foam Concentrate for Producing

1 Litre

34000

29000

Rs. 0.2

All

12.02.2013

Mechanical Foam for Fire Fighting

6452

1989 High Alumina Cement for

One

44000

38000

Rs. 4.00

All

With imme-

Structural Use

Tonne

diate effect

7834

1987 Injection moulded PVC socket

100

34000

29000

Rs. 8.65

All

12.02.2013

fitting with solvent cement joints

Pieces

for water supplies

Part 3- Specific requirements for

90 degree elbow

15500

2004 Deepwell Handpumps, Components

100

34000

29000

Rs. 13.9

12.02.2013

and Special Tools Part 5

Pieces

(Fig. 5.5

Cast Iron Components

5.6)

2160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Rs. 10.4

(Fig. 5.4)

Rs. 17.3

(Fig. 5.1, 5.2

5.3)

15500

2004 Deepwell Handpumps, Components

100

34000

29000

Rs. 8.7

12.02.2013

and Special Tools

Pieces

(Fig. 6.16

Part 6-Brass/Bronze

6.2, 6.15)

Components

Rs. 3.5

(Fig. 6.3,

6.9)

Rs. 7.0

(6.10, 6.12

6.4)

Rs. 20.8

Fig. 6.13

Rs. 5.3

(Fig. 6.5)

Rs. 10.4

(Fig. 6.6)

Rs. 15.6

(Fig. 6.8)

Rs. 13.9

(Fig. 6.7)

Rs. 2.7

(Fig. 6.1.1)

Rs. 17.3

(Fig. 6.14)

Rs. 2.6

(Fig. 6.1)

15500

2004 Deepwell Handpumps,

100

34000

29000

Rs. 1.75

12.02.2013

Components and Special

Pieces

(Fig. 7.1

Tools Part 7—Rubber

7.2)

Components

Rs. 3.5

(Fig. 7.6,

7.7, 7.9)

Rs. 7

(Fig. 7.8,

7.5, 7.4

7.12, 7.13

7.14, 7.15)

Rs. 10.4

(Fig. 7.3)

Rs. 5.3

(Fig. 7.10

7.11)

15787

2008 Switch-Socket outlets (Non-

100

34000

29000

Rs. 3.50

All

12.02.2013

interlocking type)

Pieces

15884

2010 Alternating Current Direct

One

3,20,000

2,72,000 Rs. 3.00

All

With

Connected Static Prepayment

Piece

immediate

Meters for Active Energy

effect

(Class 1&2)

15905

2011 Hubless Centrifugally Cast

One

51000

43000

Rs. 9.00

All

With

(Spun) Iron Pipes, Fittings and

Tonne

immediate

Accessories—Spigot Series

effect

[No. CMD/13:10]

P.K. GAMBHIR, Scientist 'G' & Chief (Certification)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2161

ubZ fnYyh] 15 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 799.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e ¼1½ ds [kaM ¼[k½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ,rn~ }kjk

vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu Hkkjrh; ekudksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa os LFkkfir gks x;s gSaA

vuqlwph

Øe

LFkkfir Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½

LFkkfir

Hkkjrh; ekud ¼dksa½ tks

jí gksus dh

la[;k

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

frfFk

fd jí gksus gS] vxj gS]

frfFk

dh la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

vkbZ ,l 770% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 770%2013

15 Qjojh

Hkkjrh; dks;yk] fyXukbV rFkk

2014

Hkkjrh; dks;yk] fyXukbV

2014

lseh&vaFkzklkbV dk

rFkk lseh&vaFkzklkbV dk

oxhZdj.k vkSj dksMhfQds'ku

oxhZdj.k vkSj

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

dksMhfQds'ku ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 2152% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 2152%1972

15 Qjojh

i'kq/ku vkgkj ?kVd ds :i esa

2014

edbZ XywVu Hkj.k ds

2014

eDdk XywVsu —

fy, fof'kf"V ¼igyk

fof'kf"V ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 2491% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 2491%1998

15 Qjojh

[kk| LoPNrk — lkekU;

2014

[kk| LoPNrk —

2014

fl)kar — jhfr lafgrk

lkekU; fl)kar — jhfr

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

lafgrk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 3074% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 3074%2005

15 Qjojh

eksVj okgu gsrq bLikr

2014

eksVj okgu gsrq bLikr

2014

ufydk,W & fof'kf"V ¼rhljk

ufydk,¡ & fof'kf"V

iqujh{k.k½

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4046 ¼Hkkx 1½% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 4046 ¼Hkkx 1½%

15 Qjojh

oL=kfn — iq:"kksa ds fy, lwrh

2014

1981 iq#"kksa ds fy, lwrh

2014

p<~<h — fof'kf"V Hkkx 11

dkWVu /kkjhnkj cqus gq,

1 fjc cquh ¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

czhQ dh fof'kf"V Hkkx 1

2 IykbZ /kkjhnkj —

cquk gqvk ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 4046 ¼Hkkx 2½% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 4046 ¼Hkkx 2½%

15 Qjojh

oL=kfn — iq#"kksa ds fy, lwrh

2014

1996 oL=kfn — iq#"kksa

2014

p<~<h — fof'k"V Hkkx 2 lknh

ds fy, lwrh p<~<h &

cquh ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V Hkkx 2 lknh cquh

vkbZ ,l 4376% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 4376% 2013

15 Qjojh

oL=kfn & iq#"kksa ds fy,

2014

oL=kfn & iq#"kksa ds

2014

NksVs lwrh tkWf?k, ¼Vªad½ —

fy, NksVs lwrh tkWf?k,

fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

¼Vªad½ — fof'kf"V

vkbZ ,l 5429% 2013

15 Qjojh

vkbZ ,l 5429% 2013

15 Qjojh

eksVj okgu gsrq bLikr

2014

eksVj okgu gsrq bLikr

2014

2162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ufydkvksa ds vk;ke —

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

vkbZ ,l 6313 ¼Hkkx 2½%

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 6313 ¼Hkkx 2½%

15 Qjojh] 2014

2013 Hkouksa esa nhed—

2014

2001 Hkouksa esa nhed—

vojks/kd mipkj gsrq jhfr

vojks/kd mipkj gsrq

lafgrk Hkkx 2 fuekZ.k ls iwoZ

jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 2

jklk;fud mipkj

fuekZ.k ls iwoZ

¼rhljk iqujh{k.k½

jklk;fud mipkj ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

10-

vkbZ ,l 6313 ¼Hkkx 3½%

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 6313 ¼Hkkx 3½%

15 Qjojh]

2013 Hkouksa esa nhed&

2014

2001 Hkouksa esa

2014

vojks/kd mipkj gsrq jhfr

nhed&vojks/kd mipkj

lafgrk Hkkx 3 iwoZ fufeZr

gsrq jhfr lafgrk Hkkx 3

Hkouksa dk mipkj ¼rhljk

iwoZ fufeZr Hkouksa dk

iqujh{k.k½

mipkj ¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

11-

vkbZ ,l 7236% 2013 dkWQh

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 7236%1974

15 Qjojh]

vkSj dkWQh mRikn —

2014

dkWQh ,oa mlds mRiknksa

2014

'kCnkoyh ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

gsrq dh ikfjHkkf"kd 'kCnkoyh

12-

vkbZ ,l 7835% 2013 [kkus

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 7835% 1975

15 Qjojh]

;ksX; e/;e — olk lks;k

2014

[kkus ;ksX; e/;e —

2014

vkVk — fof'kf"V ¼igyk

olk lks;k vkVk ds fy,

iqujh{k.k½

fof'kf"V

13-

vkbZ ,l 7837% 2013 [kkus

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 7837% 1975

15 Qjojh]

;ksX; iw.kZ&olk lks;k vkVk —

2014

[kkus ;ksX; iw.kZ&olk

2014

fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

lks;k vkVk — fof'kf"V

14-

vkbZ ,l 9338% 2013 tydy

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 9338%1984

15 Qjojh]

ds fy, dkLV vk;ju@,l th

2014

ikuh laca/kh dk;ks± ds

2014

vk;ju@dkLV LVhy ds

iz;kstukFkZ <yoka vk;ju

LØw&Mkmu jksd okYo & fof'kf"V

LØw&Mkmu LVkWi okYo

¼nwljk iqujh{k.k½

,oa LVkWi ,oa pSd okYo dh fof'kf"V

¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

15-

vkbZ ,l 12949% 2013 feV~Vh

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 12949%1990

15 Qjojh]

rFkk jkWdfQy ds cka/kksa esa ja/kz

2014

feV~Vh ds cka/kksa esa ja/kz

2014

nkc ekiu ds fy,

midj.kksa dk laLFkkiu]

miLdjksa dh laLFkkiu

j[kj[kko vkSj izs{k.k — fo|qr

j[k j[kko vkSj izs{k.k dh

ja/kz nkc lsy dEih rkj fdLe

jhfr lafgrk — fo|qr

— jhfr lafgrk ¼igyk

ja/kz nkc — lsy dEih

iqujh{k.k½

rkj fdLe

16-

vkbZ ,l 13258% 2014 vYi

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 13258%1991

15 Qjojh]

nkc nzo.kh; xSl ds fy, 5

2014

vYi nkc nzo.kh; xSl

2014

fyVj ls vf/kd ty {kerk

ds fy, 5 fyVj ls

okys osfYMr vYi dkcZu

vf/kd ty {kerk okys

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2163

bLikr ds flfyaMj —

osfYMr vYi dkcZu

mi;ksx fd;s x;s ,yihth

bLikr ds flfyaMj —

flfyaMjksa ds iquohZ;u vkSj

mi;ksx fd;s x;s ,y ih

fujh{k.k dh vis{kk;sa ¼igyk

th flfyaMjksa ds

iqujh{k.k½

iquuZoh;u vkSj fujh{k.k dh jhfr lafgrk

17-

vkbZ ,l 14320%2013

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 14320%2013

15 Qjojh]

oL=kfn — efgykvksa ds fy;s

2014

oL=kfn — efgykvksa ds

2014

lknh cquh lwrh iSUVht —

fy;s lknh cquh lwrh

fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

iSUVht — fof'kf"V

18-

vkbZ ,l 14325%2013

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 14325%2013

15 Qjojh]

i'kqvksa ds fy, ckbZikl izksVhu

2014

i'kqvksa ds fy, ckbZikl

2014

vkgkj — fof'kf"V ¼igyk

izksVhu vkgkj — fof'kf"V

iqujh{k.k½

19-

vkbZ ,l 14715 ¼Hkkx 2½%

15 Qjojh]

cqus gq, twV ds HkwoL= —

15 Qjojh]

2013 twV ds HkwoL= Hkkx&2

2014

fof'kf"V

2014

ufn;ksa rFkk ikuh ds tyk'k;ksa

ds fdukjksa dks dkVus ls jksduk

— fof'kf"V ¼igyk iqujh{k.k½

20-

vkbZ ,l 15000%2013

15 Qjojh]

vkbZ ,l 15000%1998

15 Qjojh]

tksf[ke fo'ys"k.k ,oa Økafrd

2014

[kk| LoPNrk — [krjk

2014

fu;a=.k fcanq ¼,p,lhlhih½

fo'ys"k.k vkSj Økafrd

[kk| J`a[kyk ds laxBu ds

fu;a=.k fcUnq

fy, vis{kk,¡ ¼igyk

¼,p,lhlhih½ —

iqujh{k.k½

iz.kkyh vkSj mlds vuqiz;ksx gsrq ekxZfunsZ'k

21-

vkbZ ,l 16096%2013

15 Qjojh]

ykxw ugha

ckal&iVlu daiksftV ds

2014

[kks[kys njoktksa ds 'kVlZ — fof'kf"V

22-

vkbZ ,l 16113%2013 xkek

15 Qjojh]

ykxw ugha

fidksyhu — fof'kf"V

2014

bl Hkkjrh; ekud dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj'kkg tQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh 110 002 {ks=h; dk;kZy;ksa% ubZ

fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ] rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa% vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/k gSaA Hkkjrh; ekudksa dks http://www.standardsbis.in }kjk baVjuSV ij

[kjhnk tk ldrk gSA

[lanHkZ ic@,lVhMh&1%1]

dyk ek/koh okfj;j] funs'kd ¼fons'kh Hkk"kk ,oa izdk'ku½

New Delhi, the 15th February, 2014

S.O. 799.—In pursuance of Clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the second column

of Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it in third column. The particulars of the

standards, if any, which are given in the fourth column shall also remain in force concurrently till they are cancelled on the

date indicated against them in the fifth column.

¼1½

¼2½

¼3½

¼4½

¼5½

2164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

No. & Year of the

Date of

No. & Year of the

Date of

No.

Indian Standards

Establishment

Indian Standards

cancellation

Established

to be cancelled, if any

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

IS 770:2013

‘Classification and

codification of Indian

15 Feb., 2014

codification of Indian

15 Feb., 2014

coals, lignites and semi-

coals, lignites and

anthracites (Third

semi-anthracites

Revision)’

(Second Revision)’

IS 2152:2013 Maize

IS 2152:1972

Gluten As Livetock

15 Feb., 2014

Specification For

15 Feb., 2014

Feed Ingredient —

Maize Gluten Feed

Specification (Second

(First Revision)

Revision)

IS 2491:2013

IS 2491:1998 Food

Food Hygiene — General

15 Feb., 2014

Hygiene — General

15 Feb., 2014

Principles — Code of

Practice

Practice (Second

(Third Revision)

Revision)

IS:3074:2013

IS3074:2005 Steel

Steel tubes for

tubes for Automotive

Automotive purposes—

15 Feb., 2014

purposes —

15 Feb., 2014

specification (Third

specification (Second

Revision)

IS 4046 (Part I): 2013

IS 4046 (Part I): 1981

Textiles — Gents'

Specification for gents

cotton briefs —

15 Feb., 2014

cotton rib knitted briefs

15 Feb., 2014

Specification part 1:1 x1

Part 1-2 ply rib-knitted

Rib Knitted

IS 4046 (Part 2) : 2013

IS 4046 (Part 2):1996

Textiles—Gents'

Textiles—Gents' cotton

cotton briefs—

15 Feb., 2014

briefs—Specification

15 Feb. 2014

Specification Part 2

Part 2 Plain knitted

Plain Knitted (First Revision)

IS 4376:2013 Textiles

IS 4376:1996

—Gents' Cotton short

15 Feb., 2014

Textiles—Gents' cotton

15 Feb., 2014

drawers (trunks)—

short drawers (Trunks)—

Specification (First

Specification

Revision)

IS 5429:2013

IS 5429:1979

Dimensions for Steel

tubes for Automotive

15 Feb., 2014

tubes for Automotive

15 Feb., 2014

purposes (Second

purposes (First

Revision)

IS 6313 (Part 2): 2013

IS 6313 (Part 2):2001

Code of Practice for

Anti-Termite Measures

in Buildings — Part 2:

15 Feb., 2014

in Buildings — Part 2:

15 Feb., 2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2165

Pre-Constructional

Chemical Treatment

Chemical treatment

Measures (Third

Measures (Second

Revision)

10.

IS 6313 (Part 3):2013

IS 6313 (Part 3):2001

Code of Practice for

Anti-Termite Measures

in Buildings — Part 3:

15 Feb., 2014

in Buildings — Part 3:

15 Feb., 2014

Treatment for Existing

Buildings (Third

Buildings (Second

Revision)

11.

IS 7236:2013 Coffee

IS7236:1974

and coffee products —

Glossary of terms for

Vocabulary (First

15 Feb., 2014

coffee and its products

15 Feb., 2014

Revision)

12.

IS 7835:2013 Edible

IS 7835:1975

medium-fat soya flour —

15 Feb., 2014

Specification edible

15 Feb., 2014

Specification (first

medium-fat soya flour

revision)

13.

IS 7837:2013 Edible

IS 7837:1975

full-fat soya flour—

15 Feb., 2014

Specification edible

15 Feb., 2014

Specification (first

full-fat soya flour

revision)

14.

IS 9338:2013 Cast

IS 9338:1984

Iron/S.G. Iron/Cast

Specification for cast

Steel screw-down stop

15 Feb., 2014

iron screw-down stop

15 Feb., 2014

valves for water works

valves and stop and

purposes —

check valves for water

Specification (Second

works purposes (First

Revision)

15.

IS 12949:2013

IS 12949:1990 Code

Installation,

of practice for

maintenance and

installation

observation of

maintenance and

instruments for pore

observation of

pressure measurements

15 Feb., 2014

instruments for pore

15 Feb., 2014

in earth and rockfill

pressure measurements

dams — Vibrating

in earth dams and

wire type electrical pore

rockfill dams:

pressure

Electrical pore pressure

cell — Code of practice

cells — vibratory wire

(First Revision)

type

16.

IS 13258:2014

IS 13258:1991 Welded

Welded Low Carbon

Low Carbon Steel

Steel Cylinders

Cylinders Exceeding 5

Exceeding 5 litre Water

litre Water Capacity for

Capacity for low

15 Feb., 2014

low Pressure

15 Feb., 2014

Pressure Liquefiable

Liquefiable Gas — Code

Gas — Requirements for

of practice for

Inspection and

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

2166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reconditioning of used

LPG Cylinders (First

LPG Cylinders

Revision)

17.

IS 14320:2013

ÌS 14320:1995

Textiles — Plain

15 Feb., 2014

Textiles — Plain knitted,

15 Feb., 2014

Knitted, Ladies', cotton

Ladies' cotton panties—

panties—Specification

Specification

(First Revision)

18.

IS 14325:2013 Bypass

IS 14325:1996 Bypass

Protein Feed for Cattle—

15 Feb., 2014

Protein Feed for Cattle

15 Feb., 2014

Specification (First

— Specification

Revision)

19.

IS 14715 (Part 2): 2013

IS 14715:2000 Woven

15 Feb., 2014

Jute Geo-Textiles Part 2

jute geotextiles—

control of bank erosion

15 Feb., 2014

Specification

in rivers and waterways—

Specification

20.

IS 15000:2013 Hazard

IS 15000:1998 Food

15 Feb., 2014

Analysis and Critical

Hygiene—Hazard

Control Point (HACCP)—

Analysis and Critical

Requirements for any

15 Feb., 2014

Control Point

organization in the food

(HACCP)—System and

chain (First Revision)

Guidelines for its Application

21.

IS 16096:2013

Bamboo—Jute composite

15 Feb., 2014

hollow core door

shutter—Specification

22.

IS 16113:2013

'Gamma picoline —

15 Feb., 2014

Nil

Specification'

Copies of these standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110002 and Regional Offices: Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices:

Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune,

Kochi.

[Ref. Pub/STD-1:1]

KALA M. VARIAR, Director (Foreign Languages & Publication)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 800.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifu;e ¼5½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd ftu ykblsalksa ds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa] os Lohd`r dj fn, x, gSa% —

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal lañ

Lohd`r djus dh

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZ

Hkkñ ekñ lañ¼Hkkx@

lañ

frfFk] o"kZ@ekg

vuqHkkx½% o"kZ

4681272

20140101

esllZ gSMªkykbu baMLVªhl

d`f"k vuqiz;ksx ds vidsUnzh iEiksa

IS 7538 % 1996

lhñvkjñvkbZñ iEIl izk;osV fyfeVsM

ds fy, rhu Qst+h; fLDojy dst

dk ;wfuV 43¼17½] vkokjeiky;e

izsj.k eksVjsa

jksM] x.kifr] dks;EcÙkwj&641 006

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2167

4681676

20140101

esllZ ekSyh VsDuksyksftl izk;osV

fuEetuh; iEilsV

IS 8034 % 2002

fyfeVsM 69] vyxslu jksM 2]

lkbZckck dkWyksuh iksLV]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 011

4682072

20140101

esllZ ds ,l ,u vkj ,Dok baMLVªhl

iSdstcan is;ty ¼iSdstcan

IS 14543 % 2004

losZ lañ 335@1] njoktk lañ 2@3561]

feujy ty ds vykok½

dkyeiky;e] rksUMkerwj CykWd]

rhrhiky;e iksLV] dks;EcÙkwj ¼nf{k.k½

rkyqd] dks;EcÙkwj&641 010

4682577

20140102

esllZ vYQk bathfu;fjax baMLVªh

d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9079 % 2002

lañ 2A, 6oka ØkWl] ohñdsñ jksM]

fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl

rUuhj iUny] ihyesMq]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 004

4686383

20140113

esllZ lsYtj byDVªksfuDl fyfeVsM]

250 oksYV rd dh jsfVr oksYVrk

IS 1293 % 2005

;wfuV&II fpUukeMeiky;e]

okys vkSj 16 ,Eih;j rd dh

dks;EcÙkwj&641 019

jsfVr djaV okys Iyx vkSj lkWdsV

fudkl dh fof'kf"V

4688690

20140121

esllZ fjdks vIyk;salsl

?kjsyw izs'kj dqdj

IS 2347 % 2006

,l ,Q lañ 352@4] 'kkLrk uxj]

,lñvkbZñ,pñ,lñ dkWyksuh]

flaxuYywj] dks;EcÙkwj&641 014

4690677

20140127

esllZ D;wc ,Dok izksMDVl

LoPN BaMs ikuh ds fy,

IS 8472 % 1998

,l ,Q lañ 1044@2] njoktk lañ 28@2

vidsUnzh; iqu#Riknd iEi

dkV~Vwj lM+d] dkykiV~Vh

dks;EcÙkwj&641 048

4691073

20140127

esllZ Jh lkbZ jke ,Dok izksMDVl]

iSdstcan is;ty ¼iSdstcan

IS 14543 % 2004

lañ 24@B4] Jh lkbZ xkMZu]

feujy ty ds vykok½

ÅrdwYyh CykWd] dqUurwj]

vfouk'kh rkyqd] fr:Iiwj&638 103

4693784

20140131

esllZ fØ"k VsDl

d`f"k ,oa ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

IS 9079 % 2002

,l ,Q lañ 255] ukyq dky rksV~Ve]

fctyh ds eksukslsV iEIl

jkdkph xkMZu ds ihNs]

euh;dkjuiky;e] x.kifr]

dks;EcÙkwj&641 006

[lañ lh,eMh@13%11]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 800.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification)

Regulation, 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars of which are given in the

following schedule :—

2168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant

Name and Address (Factory)

Title of the Standard

IS No. Part/

No.

Date

of the Party

Sec. Year

4681272

20140101

M/s. Hydraline Industries

Three phase Squirrel cage

IS 7538 : 1996

(Unit of C.R.I. Pumps

induction motors for

Private Limited)

centrifugal pumps for

43(17), Avarampalayam Road,

agricultural applications

Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006.

4681676

20140101

M/s. Mouli Technologies

Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002

Private Limited

69, Alagesan Road 2,

Saibaba Colony Post,

Coimbatore-641011.

4682072

20140101

M/s. KSNR Aqua Industries

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

S. No. 335/1, Door No. 2/356 I,

(other than Packaged

Kalampalayam,

Natural Mineral Water)

Thondamuthur Block,

Theethipalayam Post,

Coimbatore (South) Taluk,

Coimbatore-641010.

4682577

20140102

M/s. Alfaa Engineering Industry

Electric Monoset Pumps for

IS 9079 : 2002

No. 2A, 6th Cross, V.K. Road,

Clear, Cold Water for

Thaneer Pandal, Peelamedu,

Agricultural and Water Supply

Coimbatore-641004.

Purposes

4686383

20140113

M/s. Salzer Electronics Ltd.

Plugs and Socket outlets of

IS 1293 : 2005

Unit-II Chinnamadampalayam,

250 Volts and rated current

Coimbatore-641019

upto 16 Amperes

4688690

20140121

M/s. RIICO Appliances

Domestic Pressure Cooker

IS 2347 : 2006

S.F. No. 352/4, Sastha Nagar,

SIHS Colony, Singanallur,

Coimbatore-641014.

4690677

20140127

M/s. Qube Aqua Products

Centrifugal Regenerative

IS 8472 : 1998

S.F. No. 1044/2, Door No. 28/2C,

Pumps for clear, cold water

Kattoor Street, Kalapatti,

Coimbatore-641048

4691073

20140127

M/s. Sri Sai Ram Aqua Products

Packaged Drinking Water

IS 14543 : 2004

No. 24/B4 Sri Sai Garden,

(other than Packaged Natural

Uthukuli Block, Kunnathur,

Mineral Water)

Avinashi Taluk,

Distt: Tiruppur-638103.

4693784

20140131

M/s. Krish Tex

Electric Monoset Pumps for

IS 9079 : 2002

SF. No. 255, Naalu Kaal Thottam, Clear, Cold Water for

Behind Rakkachi Garden,

Agricultural and Water

Maniyakaranpalayam,

Supply Purposes

Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2169

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 801.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks ¼izek.ku½ fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 5 ds mi&fofu;eu ¼6½ ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/klwfpr djrk gS fd fuEu fooj.k okys ykblsalksa dks muds vkxs n'kkZbZ xbZ rkjh[k ls jí@LFkfxr dj fn;k x;k gS% —

vuqlwph

Øñ

ykblsal lañ

ykblsal/kkjh dk uke o irk

LFkfxr fd, x,@jí fd, x, ykblsal

jí gksus dh

lañ

lh,e@,y&

ds varxZr oLrq@izØe lEc)

frfFk

Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

tuojh 2014&'kwU;

[lañ lh,eMh@13%13]

,eñ lnkf'koe] oSKkfud ^,Q* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 801.—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 licence, particulars of which are given below, have

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

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence No.

Name and Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with

Date of

No.

CM/L-

relevant Indian Standard

Cancellation

covered by the licence

cancelled/suspension

JANUARY 2014 — NIL

[No. CMD/13: 13]

M. SADASIVAM, Scientist 'F' & Head

ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky;

¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½

¼jktHkk"kk ,dd½

ubZ fnYyh] 4 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 802.—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk ¼la?k ds 'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx½ fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e 4 ds

vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl ea=ky; ¼mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx½ ds varxZr bafnjk xka/kh jk"Vªh; eqDr fo'ofo|ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds 13 {ks=h;

dsUnzksa dks] ,sls dk;kZy;ksa ds :i esa] ftuds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/kd deZpkjh&o`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/kd Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/klwfpr djrh gS%—

1- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] fujek bafLVV~;wV vkWQ VsDukykWth ds lkeus] lj[kst xka/khuxj gkbZos] NjksM+h vgenkckn&382481] xqtjkr

2- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] lkSjk"Vª ;wfuoflZVh dSEil] jktdksV&360005] xqtjkr

3- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] rhljk ry] lqeu Iyktk] frydkeka>h] lsaVªy tsy jksM] Hkkxyiqj] fcgkj

4- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] nwljk ry] jkt'ks[kj Hkou] jkuh nqxkZorh fo'ofo|ky; ifjlj] iapes<+h] tcyiqj&482001] e/;izns'k

5- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] 3@310] efjl jksM] vyhx<+&202001] mÙkj izns'k

6- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] izFke eafty] ,eñ,lñ,Qñlhñ fcfYMax] 270] lsukifr ckir jksM] iq.ks&411016] egkjk"Vª

7- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] vkse yhok fodkl fudsru] ukusikMk jksM] feyan&bZ] eqEcbZ&400081] egkjk"Vª

8- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] vkWfQl jksM] fMfLVñ ,xzhdYpj vkfQl jksM] iapk;r Hkou ds ihNs] dksjkiqV&764020] mM+hlk

2170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

9- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] lehi dkS'kY;k esa'ku] xksikynkl fDyfud] u;k cktkj] lgjlk] fcgkj&582201

10- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] yfyr ukjk;.k fefFkyk ;wfuoflZVh ifjlj] dkes'oj uxj] lsaVªy cSad ds ikl] njHkaxk&846004

11- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] xka/kh Hkou] ch,p;w ifjlj] okjk.klh&221005] mñizñ

12- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] lsDVj&vyhxat] y[kuÅ&226024] mÙkj izns'k

13- bXuw {ks=h; dsanz] 457 ,] v'kksd uxj] jkaph&834002] >kj[kaM

[lañ 11011&1@2013&jkñHkkñ,ñ]

txeksgu flag jktw] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O.L. UNIT)

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2014

S.O. 802.—In pursuance of sub-rule (4) of rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union)

Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies 13 Regional Centres of Indira Gandhi National Open University, New

Delhi under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Higher Education) as offices whose more than

80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi:—

IGNOU Regional Centre, Opp. Nirma Institute of Technology, Surkhej Gandhinagar Highway, Charodi, Ahmedabad-

382481, Gujarat.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Saurashtra University Campus, Rajkot-360005, Gujarat.

IGNOU Regional Centre, 3rd Floor, Suman Plaza, Tilakamanjhi, Central Jail Road, Bhagalpur, Bihar.

IGNOU Regional Centre, 2nd Floor, Rajshekhar Bhawan, Rani Durgawati University Campus, Panchmerhi, Jabalpur-

482001, Madhya Pradesh.

IGNOU Regional Centre, 3/310, Maurice Road, Aligarh-202001, Uttar Pradesh.

IGNOU Regional Centre, 1st Floor, M.S.F.C. Building, 270 Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411016, Maharashtra.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Om Liva Vikas Niketan, Nanepara Road, Milind-E, Mumbai-400081, Maharashtra.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Office Road, Distt. Agriculture Office Road, Opp. Panchayat Bhawan, Koraput-764020,

Orissa.

IGNOU Regional Centre, near Kaushalya Mension, Gopaldas Clinic, Naya Bazar, Saharsa, Bihar-582201.

10.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Lalit Narayan Mithila University Campus, Kameshwar Nagar, near Central Bank, Durbhanga-

846004.

11.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Gandhi Bhawan, BHU Campus, Banaras-221005, U.P.

12.

IGNOU Regional Centre, Sector-Aliganj, Lucknow-226024, Uttar Pradesh.

13.

IGNOU Regional Centre, 457 A, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand.

[No. 11011-1/2013-O.L.U.]

JAGMOHAN SINGH RAJU, Jt. Secy.

Hkkjh mn~;ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=ky;

¼Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 803.—yksd ifj"kn ¼vukf/kd`r n[kydkjksa dh csn[kyh½ vf/kfu;e] 1971 ¼1971 dk 40½ dh /kkjk 3 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, dsanz ljdkj uhps nh xbZ rkfydk ds dkWye ¼1½ esa of.kZr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks] Hkkjr ljdkj ds jktif=r vf/kdkjh dh Js.kh ds cjkcj

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2171

dk vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs mi;qZDr vf/kfu;e ds iz;kstukFkZ ,rn~okjk laink vf/kdkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gSA og iznÙk 'kfDr;kasa dk iz;ksx djsaxs

vkSj bl rkfydk ds dkWye ¼2½ esa rnuq:ih izfof"V esa fufnZ"V yksd ifjljksa ds laca/k esa mi;qDr vf/kfu;e ds n~okjk vFkok varxZr laink vf/

kdkfj;ksa dks lkSais x, dk;ks± dk vius {ks=kf/kdkj dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa ds Hkhrj fu"iknu djsaxs(

rkfydk

vf/kdkjh dk inuke

yksd ifjlj dh Js.kh rFkk {ks=kf/kdkj dh LFkkuh; lhek,a

¼1½

¼2½

egkizca/kd ¼oDlZ½] [kjxks/kk] xqtjkr] fgUnqLrku

fgUnqLrku lkYV~l fyfeVsM ls lacaf/kr vkSj iz'kklfud fu;a=.kk/khu [kjxks/kk] xqtjkr

lkYV~l fyfeVsM] t;iqj] jktLFkkuA

esa fLFkr ifjljA

egkizca/kd ¼dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklu½] t;iqj]

fgUnqLrku lkYV~l fyfeVsM ds fuxe eq[;ky; ls lacaf/kr vkSj iz'kklfud fu;a=.kkèhu

jktLFkkuA

[kjxks/kk] xqtjkr esa fLFkr ifjlj rFkk t;iqj] e.Mh] fgekpy izns'k vkSj jkeuxj]

mñizñ fLFkr bldh lgk;d lkaHkj lkYV~l fyfeVsMA

egkizca/kd ¼oDlZ½] lkaHkj lkYV~l fyfeVsM]

lkaHkj esa] lkaHkj lkYV~l fyfeVsM] t;iqj ls lacaf/kr ifjljA

fgUnqLrku lkYV~l fyfeVsM t;iqj dh lgk;d

daiuhA

[Qkñlañ 19&11@2013&ihbZ&V]

ihñ nsc] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ENTERPRISES AND HEAVY INDUSTRIES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014

S.O. 803.—In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (1) of the

Table below, being officers equivalent to the rank of gazetted officer of the Government of India, to be estate officer for the

purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officers by or

under the said Act, within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in the corresponding

entry in column (2) of the said Table:

TABLE

Designation of officer

Categories of public premises and local limits of Jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

General Manager (Works), Kharaghoda, Gujarat

Premises belonging to and under the administrative control of Hindustan

Hindustan Salts Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan

Salts Limited, situated at Kharaghoda, Gujarat.

General Manager (Personnel and Administration), Premises belonging to and under the administrative control of Hindustan

Jaipur, Rajasthan.

Salts Limited, situated at the Corporate Headquarters of Hindustan

Salts Limited and its subsidiary Sambhar Salts Limited at Jaipur, Mandi,

Himachal Pradesh, and Ramnagar, Uttar Pradesh.

General Manager (Works), Sambhar Salts Limited, Premises belonging to Sambhar Salts Limited, Jaipur, at Sambhar.

a subsidiary of Hindustan Salts Limited, Jaipur

[F. No. 19-11/2013-PE.V]

P. DEB, Under Secy.

2172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=ky;

¼LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k foHkkx½

ubZ fnYyh] 31 vDrwcj] 2013

dkñvkñ 804.—Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼1956 dk 102½ dh /kkjk 11 dh mi&/kkjk ¼2½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj] Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds ,rn~}kjk mDr vf/kfu;e dh izFke vuqlwph esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj

la'kks/ku djrh gS uker% %—

mDr izFke vuqlwph esa —

^^pkSñ pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;@esjB fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k ds ckn vkSj ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk** 'kh"kZd [blds ckn

dkye ¼2½ esa ;Fkk lanfHkZr] ds varxZr] ^^vafre izfof"V** ds lkeus ^^iathdj.k ds fy, laf{kIr :i** ¼blds ckn dkye ¼3½ eas ;Fkk lanfHkZr]

'kh"kZd ds varxZr mlls lacaf/kr izfof"V esa fuEufyf[kr dks varfoZ"V fd;k tk,xk] uker% %—

^^MkWDVj vkWQ esfMflu ¼Ropk jksx foKku] ;kSu

,eñMhñ ¼Mh oh ,y½

jksx foKku] dq"B jksx foKku½**

¼;g o"kZ 1988 esa vFkok mlds ckn ,yñ,yñvkjñ,eñ esfMdy dkWyst]

esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa

pkSñ pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;@esjB fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

^^Ropk jksx foKku] ;kSu jksx foKku] dq"B jksx

,eñMhñ ¼Mh oh ,y½

foKku esa fMIyksek**

¼;g o"kZ 1987 esa vFkok mlds ckn ,yñ,yñvkjñ,eñ esfMdy dkWyst]

esjB] mÙkj izns'k esa izf'kf{kr fd, tk jgs fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa

pkSñ pj.k flag fo'ofo|ky;@esjB fo'ofo|ky;] esjB] mÙkj izns'k }kjk

Lohd`r fd, tkus ij ekU;rk izkIr fpfdRlk vgZrk gksxh½A

[lañ ;w&12012@14@2013&,eñbZñ¼ih&II½]

lwcs flag] funs'kd

lHkh ds lEcU/k esa uksV% 1- fdlh LukrdksÙkj ikB~;Øe ds fy, iznÙk ,slh ekU;rk 5 o"kks± dh vf/kdre vof/k ds fy, gksxh] ftlds mijkar

bldk uohuhdj.k djokuk iM+sxkA

2- mi&[kaM&4 esa ;Fkkisf{kr ekU;rk ds le;iwoZd uohuhdj.k laca/kh vis{kk esa vlQy jgus dk vfuok;Zr% ifj.kke lacaf/kr LukrdksÙkj

ikB~;Øe esa nkf[kyk can djus ds :i esa fudysxkA

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 31st October, 2013

S.O. 804.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act,

1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following

further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:—

In the said Schedule—

(a) against "Ch. Charan Singh University/Meerut University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh" under the heading 'Recognised

Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading

'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3)], the following shall be inserted, namely:—

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2173

(2)

(3)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venerology &

MD (DVL)

Leprosy)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted

by Ch. Charan Singh University/Meerut University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at L.L.R.M.

Medical College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or after 1988).

"Diploma in Dermatology, Venerology & Leprosy"

DDVL

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted

by Ch. Charan Singh University/Meerut University, Meerut,

Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at L.L.R.M.

Medical College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh on or after 1987).

[No. U-12012/14/2013-ME(P-II)]

SUBE SINGH, Director

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years, upon

which it shall have to be renewed.

2. Failure to seek timely renewal of recognition as required in sub-clause 4 shall invariably result in stoppage of

admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course.

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 8 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 805.—dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu vf/fu;e] 1962

(1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa uhps nh xbZ vuqlwph ds LrEHk (1) esa mfYyf[kr O;fDr dks mDr vuqlwph ds

LrEHk (2) esa dh rRLFkkuh izfof"V esa mfYyf[kr {ks=k dh ckcr] mDr vf/fu;e ds vk/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh ds ÑR;ksa dk ikyu djus ds fy,

izkf/Ñr djrh gS] vFkkZr~ %—

vuqlwph

izkf/dkjh dk uke vkSj irk

{ks=k

Jh ts- ,p- lksyadh] MsI;wVh Mh-Mh-vks- (jhVk;MZ)] th,lih,y bafM;k VªkUldks fyfeVsM]

xqtjkr jkT;

xzkm.M Ýyksj] uksFkZ ¯ox] th,lih,y Hkou] IykWV ua- bZ&18] thvkbZMhlh bysDVªksfud bLVsV]

lsDVj&26] xka/huxj&382028 (xqtjkr)

2- ;g vf/lwpuk tkjh gksus dh rkjh[k ls ykxw gksxh A

¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@39@2011&th-ih-º

Jhizdk'k vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 8th January, 2014

S.O. 805.—In purance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right

of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby Authorizes the person mentioned in cloumn (1) of the

Schedule given below to perform the functions to the Competent Authority under the said Act, in respect of the areas

mentioned in cloumn (2) of the said Schedule namely :—

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Authority

Area of Jurisdiction

Shri J.H. Solanki, Dy. D.D.O. (Retd.), GSPL India Tranco Limited,

For the State of Gujarat

Ground Floor, North-wing, GSPL Bhavan, Plot No. E-18,

GIDC Electronic Estate, Sector-26, Gandhinagar-382028 (Gujarat)

2. This notification will be effective from the date of its issue.

[F. No. L-14014/39/2011-GP]

S. P. AGARWAL, Under Secy.

2174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=ky;

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 806.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 ¼èkjk&76 dh mi /kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk

dh tk pqdh gS½ ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao

iqatS iqxywj

1- iqatS iqxywj mÙkj

d:j rkyqd

2- iqtS iqxywj nf{k.k

d:j ftyk

3- iqatS iqxywj ¼uatS iqxywj½

4- Vh ,u ih ,y Vkmu iapk;r ¼iqatS iqxywj nf{k.k½

5- rksV~Vdqfjph iqatS ¼iqatS rksV~Vdqfjph½

[la ,l&38013@09@2014&,lñ,lñ 1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 806.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely :—

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

Punjai Pugalur

1. Punjai Pugalur North

Karur Taluk,

2. Punjai Pugalur South

Karur District

3. Pugalur Nanjai (Nanjai Pugalur)

4. TNPL Town Panchayat (Punjai Pugalur South)

5. Thottakurichi Punjai (Punjai Thottakurichi)

[No. S-38013/09/2014-SS.I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 807.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k dukZVd jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

Øe lañ

jktLo xzke dk uke

gkscyh

rkyqd

ftyk

dsutk: xkao

lwjrdy

eaxykSj

nf{k.k dsujk

eyow:

lwjrdy

eaxykSj

nf{k.k dsujk

vk?kkikM+h

xq#iqjk

eaxykSj

nf{k.k dsujk

dksyEcs

xq#iqjk

eaxykSj

nf{k.k dsujk

dankojk

xq#iqjk

eaxykSj

nf{k.k dsujk

[la ,l&38013@10@2014&,lñ,lñ1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2175

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 807.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees, State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :—

Sl.

Name of the Rev. Village

Hobli

Taluk

District

No.

or Municipal Limits

Kenjar Village

Suratkal

Mangalore

Dakshin

Kannada

Malavooru

Suratkal

Mangalore

Dakshin

Kannada

Adyapady

Gurupura

Mangalore

Dakshin

Kannada

Kolambe

Gurupura

Mangalore

Dakshin

Kannada

Kandavara

Gurupura

Mangalore

Dakshin

Kannada

[No. S-38013/10/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 808.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao

fr:usyosyh ftyk

1- vpaik<q

vpaik<q

jk/kkiqje rkyqd

[lañ ,l&38013@08@2014&,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 808.— In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees, State Insurance

Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely :—

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

Achampadu area

1. Achampadu

Radhapuram Taluk,

Tirunelveli District

[No. S-38013/08/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

2176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 809.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gSa½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk

dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xk¡o

fr:usyosyh ftyk

psjUdksfoYiRFkq

1- psjUdksfoYiRFkq

vEckleqnze rkyqd

[lañ ,l&38013@07@2014&,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 809.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely :—

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

Cherankoilpatthu

1. Cherankoilpatthu

Ambasamudram

Taluk,

Tirunelveli District

[No. S-38013/07/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 810.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k fgekpy izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Øe

jktLo xzke dk uke@{ks=

gncLr

rglhy@rkyqd

ftyk

lañ

la[;k@gkscyh

nkM+ yk?kkV

179

vdhZ

lksyu

cXxk

190

vdhZ

lksyu

cVsM+

191

vdhZ

lksyu

lqgyh

196

vdhZ

lksyu

nok:

198

vdhZ

lksyu

jokrk

199

vdhZ

lksyu

jksM+h

200

vdhZ

lksyu

[lañ ,l&38013@06@2014&,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2177

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 810.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh namely :—

Sl. No.

Name of the

Had Bast

Tehsil/Taluk

District

villages/Area

No. Hobli

Darlaghat

179

Arki

Solan

Bagga

190

Arki

Solan

Bated

191

Arki

Solan

Suhli

196

Arki

Solan

Dawaru

198

Arki

Solan

Rwata

199

Arki

Solan

Rori

200

Arki

Solan

[No. S-38013/06/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 811.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk&1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 èkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [èkjk 76 dk mi&èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh

tk pqdh gS] ds micaè fgekpy izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %—

Øe

jktLo xzke dk uke@{ks=

gncLr

rglhy@rkyqd

ftyk

lañ

la[;k@gkscyh

uaxy [kqnZ

471

gjksyh

muk

Vkgyhoky

472

gjksyh

muk

ckFkw

475

gjksyh

muk

';keiqjk

528

gjksyh

muk

xksaMiqj cqyk

529

gjksyh

muk

xksaMiqj t;paM

530

gjksyh

muk

lhaxk

531

gjksyh

muk

nsoyh

136

vEc

muk

thriqj cgsM+h

137

vEc

muk

10-

f'koiqj

138

vEc

muk

11-

VVsjk

160

vEc

muk

12-

tyxzke fVCck

211

muk

13-

cSgMkyk

459

muk

[lañ ,l&38013@05@2014&,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

2178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 811.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh namely:—

Sl. No.

Name of the

Had Bast

Tehsil/Taluk*

District

villages/Area*

No. Hobli*

Nangal Khurd

471

Haroli

Una

Tahliwal

472

Haroli

Una

Bathu

475

Haroli

Una

Shyam Pura

528

Haroli

Una

Gondpur Bulla

529

Haroli

Una

Gondpur Jaichand

530

Haroli

Una

Singan

531

Haroli

Una

Deoli

136

Amb

Una

Jeetpur Baheri

137

Amb

Una

10.

Shivpur

138

Amb

Una

11.

Tatera

160

Amb

Una

12.

Jalgram Tibba

211

Una

13.

Behdala

459

Una

[No. S-38013/05/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 tuojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 812.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vfèfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh èkjk 1 dh mi&èkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vfèfu;e ds v/;k;&4

¼44 or 45 èkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [èkjk 76 dh mi èkjk ¼1½ vkSj èkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok;

tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds micaè fgekpy izns'k jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

Øe

jktLo xzke dk uke@{ks=

gncLr

rglhy@rkyqd

ftyk

lañ

la[;k@gkscyh

egky lalkjiqj

tloka

dkaxMk

egky jksM+h

tloka

dkaxM+k

[lañ ,l&38013@04@2014&,lñ,lñ-&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2014

S.O. 812.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2179

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Himachal Pradesh namely:—

Sl. No.

Name of the

Had Bast

Tehsil/Taluk

District

villages/Area

No.Hobli

Mahaal Sansarpur

Jaswan

Kangra

Mahaal Rori

Jaswan

Kangra

[No. S-38013/04/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 813.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi /kkjk&¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 Qjojh] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk

dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k NÙkhlx<+ jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

^^rglhy dV?kksjk ftyk dksjck esa jktLo xzke& <syokMhg] <i<i] dljsxk] tsatjk] gqadjk] /koabZiqj] MqMxk] dV?kksjk] egs'kiqj] uokxkao]

Nqjhdyk] lyksjk] fclquiqj] /kujkl] ?keksVk] Nqjh[kqnZ] xkaxiqj] >ksjk] /kkSajkikB] uokxkaodyk] >kcw] eMokekSgk] iqjSuk[kkj] yksryksrk] L;kgheqM+h]

tsy] xksikyiqj] MqejeqM+k] cjsM+heqM+k] pksjHkV~Bh] iaMjhikuh] MksMd/kjh] cupj] tVkaxiqj] fcjoV] fMaMksyHkkBk vkSj fNjgqV ds vUrxZr vkus okys

{ks=A**

[lañ ,l&38013@02@2014&,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2014

S.O. 813.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employee's State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI (except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Chhattisgarh namely:

"Area falling within the revenue villages of Dhelwadih, Dhapdhap, Kasrega, Jenjara, Hunkara, Dhanwaipur, Dudga,

Katghora, Maheshpur, Nawagaon, Chhurikala, Salora, Bisunpur, Dhanras, Ghamota, Chhurikhurd, Gangpur, Jhora,

Dhavrapath, Newagaonkala, Jhabu, Madwamauha, Purainakhar, Lotlota, Syahimudi, Jail, Gopalpur, Dumarmuda, Baredimuda,

Chorbhatti, Pandripani, Dodakdhari, Banchar, Jatangpur, Birwat, Dindolbhata and Chhirhut in Tehsil-Katghora,

Dist.-Korba."

[No. S-38013/02/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 814.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk&1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 1 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftudks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k;&4 ¼44 o 45

/kkjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k;&5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk&76 dh mi/kkjk&¼1½ vkSj /kkjk&77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys

gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

dsUnz

{ks= ds varxZr vkus okys fuEu jktLo xkao

fr:usyosyh ftyk esa

1- fot;ukjk;.ke&III

ukaxqusjh rkyqd ds

¼laxukXdqye xkao½

fot;ukjk;.ke&III

[lañ ,l&38013@12@2014@,lñ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

2180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2014

S.O. 814.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employee's State Insurance Act,

1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI [except Sub-

Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:—

Centre

Area Comprising the Revenue Villages of

Vijayanarayanam-III

1. Vijayanarayanam-III

Nanguneri Taluk,

(Sanganankulam Village)

Tirunelveli District

[No. S-38013/12/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 11 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 815.—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/kfu;e] 1948 ¼1948 dk 34½ dh /kkjk 1 dh mi&/kkjk ¼3½ }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 ekpZ] 2014 dks ml rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/;k; 4 ¼44 o 45 /kkjk ds

flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS½ v/;k; 5 vkSj 6 [/kkjk 76 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ vkSj /kkjk 77] 78] 79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh

tk pqdh gS] ds mica/k if'pe caxky jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=ksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~%—

Øe

jktLo {ks=@ekStk

tsñ ,yñ la[;k

uxjikfydk@xzke iapk;r

ftyk

lañ

ds uke

Jheariwj

csok I ,oa II xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

chj dsanqvk

csok II xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

iqjkuk paMhiwj

csok II xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

paMhiwj

csok II xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

dsanqvk

csfu;kxzke xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

va/kqvk

csfu;kxzke xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

csfu;kxzke

csfu;kxzke xzke iapk;r

eqf'kZnkckn

[lañ ,l&38013@11@2014&,lñ ,lñ&1]

iou dqekj] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 11th February, 2014

S.O. 815.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance

Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2014 as the date on which the provisions of

Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI [except

Sub-Section (1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall

come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal namely:—

Sl.

Name of Revenue

J. L. No.

Name of Municipality/

District

No.

Area/Mouza

Gram Panchayat

Srimantapur

Bewa I & II Gram Panchayat

Murshidabad

Bir Kendua

Bewa II Gram Panchayat

Murshidabad

Purana Chandipur

Bewa II Gram Panchayat

Murshidabad

Chandipur

Bewa II Gram Panchayat

Murshidabad

Kendua

Beniagram G.P.

Murshidabad

Andhua

Beniagram G.P.

Murshidabad

Beniagram

Beniagram G.P.

Murshidabad

[No. S-38013/11/2014-S.S.-I]

PAWAN KUMAR, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2181

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 816.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ñ,lñvkbZñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 60@2002½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@211@2001&vkbZvkj¼lh,e&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 816.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby pubishes the Award Ref. 60/02 of the

Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, New

Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of Archaeological Survey of India,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

13/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/211/2001-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

PRESENT: Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 60/02

Smt. Vimla Sahi

Versus

Archaeologist Survey of India

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-42012/211/2001-IR(CM-II) dated

26.07.2002 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in not regularizing/

granting of temporary status to Smt. Vimla Sahi,

Casual labour and continuing her on casual basis

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

she is entitled to?"

On 7-08-2002 reference in this tribunal. Which was

file claim statement within fifteen days from date of service

of notice. Which was required to be accompanied with

relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 13.9.2004. Wherein she stated as follows:—

1. That vide order of Reference dated 26-07-2002

the industrial dispute raised by the workman has been

referred for adjudication. The terms of reference read as

under:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India in not regularizing/

granting of temporary status of Smt. Vimla Sahi,

Casual labour and continuing her on casual basis

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

she is entitled to?"

2. That the workman had been working as casual

labour since 1989, though in the Award it is mentioned as

01.01.1991 with Management. However her services were

terminated on 28.03.1992 in gross violation of Section 25-F.

Hence the workman raised industrial dispute which resulted

in reference order dated 07.12.1993. The term of reference

was adjusted and an Award dated 06.01.1997 by this Hon'ble

Tribunal holding that the workman worked continuously

for more than 240 days and hence the termination was

illegal. The Ld. Tribunal ordered for reinstatement and the

workman was taken in the employment of the Management.

3. That vide letter/order dated 14.04.1998 the

workman was directed to report for duty as casual labour

by the Superintending Archaeologist and was asked to

work at Humayun Tomb, Nizamuddin where she worked till

March 2000. Thereafter, the workman was asked to work at

Lal Kila (Red Fort) from since April 2000. She has been

working at Red Fort since April 2000 and is still working

there. The workman has continuously been working all

these years and performing duties of regular and permanent

nature, though she is labeled as 'Casual Labour'.

4. That the workman has been performing duties of

grass cutting/removing which is a regular feature. Grass

grows very fast and is to be cut/removed regularly. The

male labours cut the grass with sword/machine who have

been given Temporary status and the benefits thereon.

Though she has put in more than 240 days of continuous

service, she has not been even given temporary status

which entitles the workman for higher benefits as are being

given to others. In terms of memorandums/circulars

regarding conferring Temporary status she is entitled to

proper scale of pay and other service benefits.

5. That the workman is being paid wages at the rate

of Rs. 107.00 per day and wages is paid monthly. No other

benefit such as PF, ESI, leave facilities, etc. given to the

workman, though same are admissible to regular employees.

However, the workman has been paid bonus of Rs. 1184.00

for the years, 2002 and 2003. If leave is taken, the wage for

that day is deducted. Wage for Sunday is not paid at all.

Inspite of regular nature of work and working regularly, the

workman is entitled to paid week off. But wage is not paid

2182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for the weekly off day of Sunday. This is unfair labour

practice. The workman is to work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily

with lunch break of one hour between 1 and 2 p.m. the

workman is shown on Muster Roll and signature is obtained

on the muster Roll and Register for making payment of

wages. Attendance is signed by the workman.

6. That the workman has been requesting the

Management to regularize and made her permanent

employee and pay regular scale and other service benefits.

But the management has not heeded to. Even Temporary

status is not given to the workman. The workman is entitled

to be permanency of job, proper scale and allowances and

other benefits, as she has been working all these years.

7. That the action of the management in

continuously extracting permanent and regular jobs and

not making her permanent employee and thereby depriving

her of proper pay scale and other service benefit. Hence

the action of the management would amount to unfair labour

practice. The management is exploiting the weak bargaining

power of the workman and continuing her as casual all

these years. Not only it would amount to unfair labour

practice but also would amount to forced labour.

Continuous employment itself indicates permanent

requirement and regular/perennial nature of job of grass

cutting being done by the workman. It is also indicative of

existence of permanent vacancy.

It is therefore prayed to Hon'ble Tribunal that it may

pleased to pass Award holding that the workman Smt. Vimla

Sahi is entitled to regularization and regular pay scales and

other service benefits from the date of completion of 240

days of service as she has been continuously working

with the Archaeological Survey of India or at least entitled

to Temporary status and benefits attached to conferment

of temporary status in terms of the Memorandum governing

Temporary Status. All consequential benefits of

regularization/temporary status also be awarded to the

workman. Any other reliefs as may deemed necessary and

proper may also be granted to the workman.

Against claim statement management filed following

written statement on 11.4.2005:

1. That the reference in this matter is devoid of any

merit and not maintainable as it is uncalled.

2. That the present application is liable to be dismissed

as the Hon'ble Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to

try the present dispute as the same is not an Industrial

dispute. Further, the claimant is not a worker as per the

Industrial Act, and moreover, being a matter not related to

Industrial dispute, the present claim requires to be

dismissed.

3. That the claimant has concocted false story and

has not come out with the true facts has concealed the

material facts from this Hon'ble Tribunal as such the claim

is liable to be dismissed. In this matter the management is a

Central Government Department under the Ministry of

Culture, Government of India and has been declared as

Scientific and Technological Institution by Government

of India by notification No. 36016/2/89-Estt. dated

27th October, 1989 published in the Gazette of India. The

Archaeological Survey of India is discharging its duties

for the preservation and conversation of ancient and

historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains

which are declared to be of national importance under the

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains

Act, 1958, regulation of achaeological excavations,

explorations, implementation of the Ancient monument and

Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Rules 1959

and the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972, Rules,

1973, etc. are also being performed by the Archaeological

Survey of India.

4. That the present claim is liable to dismissed as the

Archaeological Survey of India is neither an industry nor

industrial establishment nor industry undertaking so as

to attract the provisions of I.D. Act. The Archaeological

Survey of India is performing sovereign functions of the

state as enshrined in the Constitution of India in looking

after the centrally protected monuments of national

importance spread over the entire length and breadth of

the country. It is submitted that that the provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act does not apply to its employees or

the daily wages casuals engaged on Muster Rolls.

5. That the present claim is liable to be dismissed as

the sanctioned staff/personnel are governed by CCS

regulations and statutory instructions issued by the

Department of Personnel Training. The said staff is

classified as on-industrial posts. Besides the regular

establishment, Archaeological Survey of India also engages

daily wages casual labourers on need basis periodically

for removal of vegetational growth and special repair works,

etc. of purely casual/temporary nature and are carried out

for short durations. The wages to such daily wages casual

labourers are paid in accordance with the provisions of the

Minimum Wages Act.

6. That the respondent has not violated any provision

of the Industrial Dispute Act and every action of there is

within the ambit of law and as such the claim is liable to be

dismissed. Moreover, there is no sanctioned post which

claimant is seeking.

7. That the workman was not validity appointed and

regularizing her services would be a violation of rights

given to other citizen under Articles 14 and 16(4) of

Constitution of India.

Reply on Merits

1. It is submitted that Smt. Vimla Sahi is working in

the Archaeological Survey of India as a daily waged casual

labour or on Muster Roll. As the said casual labourers did

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2183

not fulfill the required conditions for grant of temporary

status/regularization as per DoPT scheme of 10th

September, 1993 she was not granted the temporary status.

2. That the contents of para No. 2 are wrong and

denied. It is submitted that Smt. Vimla Sahi was not engaged

in 1989 as claimed. She was, in fact, engaged on Muster

Roll in September, 1990 but did not complete 240 days in a

year. As referred to herein she is continuously working as

a casual daily wages laboured on Muster Roll since 1998.

3. It is submitted that Smt. Vimla Sahi is working as a

casual labourer temporary nature of work against

sanctioned estimate as and when required basis.

4. In reply to the contents of para No. 4, it is submitted

that the said labourer is working as a casual labourer and

has been paid wages as per the Minimum Wages Act. Since

Smt. Vimla Sahi, does not fulfill the conditions of DoPT

Scheme of 1993, she is not entitled for Temporary status

benefit. The said fact has already been communicated

through the Asstt. Labour Commissioner also.

5. That the contents of para No. 5 are denied. It is

submitted that the ASI is neither an industry nor industrial

establishment nor industrial undertaking so as to attract

the provisions of I.D. Act, as ASI is performing sovereign

functions of the state as enshrined in the Constitution of

India in looking after the centrally protected monuments of

national important spread over the entire length and breadth

of the country (copy enclosed as Annexure-A). As such

the provisions of I.D. Act does not apply to the employees

or the daily wages casual labourers engaged on Muster

Roll by the Archaeological Survey of India. It is further

submitted that there is no scheme of ESI in ASI, which may

be applicable to the casual labourers. Weekly off and bonus

is given to the casual labourers as per the relevant rules.

The minimum wages are paid as prescribed by the

competent authority. As far as ESI is concerned the ASI is

a Central Government Department and not an industry as

alleged, hence the Archaeological Survey of India is not

governed by any ESI Scheme and I.D. Act.

6-7. That the contents of para Nos. 6 and 7 are wrong

and hence denied. It is submitted that Smt. Vimla Sahi is

misleading the Hon'ble Court by submitting false statements.

She is working as casual labourer and is being paid

Rs. 110.10 per day as per minimum wages Act. It is submitted

that she does not fulfill the conditions of OM: 51016/2/90(C),

dated 10th September, 1993 for granting her temporary status

as alleged. It is submitted that her case for regularization will

be considered as per the recruitment rules.

REJOINDER

1. That the contents of para 1 WS are wrong and

denied. The claim is based on legal right.

2. That the contents of para 2 WS are wrong and

denied. The dispute raised and referred is an industrial

dispute. This Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the

same. The workman is a workman as defined under section

2(s) of I.D. Act.

3. That the contents of para 3 WS are wrong and denied.

The contents of Claim are correct and are reiterated. The

management is an industry and is reiterated. The Management

is an industry and is governed by the provisions of I.D. Act.

Hence the allegations as made are misconceived.

4. That the contents of para 4 WS wrong and denied

being misconceived. The Management i.e. Archaeological

Survey of India, is an 'industry'. It is wrong and denied that

in perfoms sovereign functions. It is rendering service to

society. The employees are employed are employed to do

maintenance job like cleaning, grass cutting, etc. Visitors/

tourists do visits the places and they are charged entry

fees. The employees employed including the workman are

workman under I.D. Act.

5. That the contents of para 5 of WS are wrong and

denied. The workman is a workman and is entitled to the

protection under I.D. Act. Applicability CCS & other Rules

are matters of arguments. The vital issue is that the

workman is governed by I.D. Act. The action of

Management in continuing the workman as temporary/

casual for year together is unfair labour practice. The

workman has been performing regular and permanent

nature of duties.

6 & 7. That the contents of paras 6 & 7 WS are wrong

and denied. Keeping the workman as casual/temporary

continuously by and not extending service condition as

applicable to regular employees; and not regularizing her

services are unfiar labour practice. Only to avoid and evade

the legal rights accrued to the workman, the Management

is deliberately not regularized her and given all service

benefits. The allegation that regularization of workman

would violate Art. 14 & 16(4) of the constitution of India is

misconceived and hence it is wrong and denied.

REGOINDER PARAWISE:

1.That the content of para 1 of WS are wrong and

denied except to the extent of admission. The workman is

entitled to temporary status. The contents of para 1 of

claim of reiterated.

2.That the contents of para 2 WS are wrong and

denied. Contents of para of 2 of claim are reiterated and

reaffirmed. The workman has been working since 1989. It is

wrong & denied that she has not put in continuous services

of more than 240 days prior to 1998. The Management

admitted that she is continuously working on Mustey Roll

as casual 1998.

3. That the contents of para 3 WS as stated are wrong

and denied. Contents of para 3 of claim are reiterated and

reaffirmed. The work performed are regular and perennial

nature and are continuously done all these years.

2184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

4. That the contents of para 4 WS as stated are wrong

and denied. Contents of para 4 claim are reiterated. She is

being paid Rs. 107/- per day and no other benefits are

given. She is entitled to the benefits of Temporary Status

also.

5. That the contents of para 5 WS are wrong and

denied. Contents of para 5 of claim are reiterated and

reaffirmed. The Management is an industry and is covered

under the provisions of I.D. Act, 1947. It discharges no

sovereign funcitons. It can not justify its illegal, unfair

actions and commission of unfair labour practice. The

allegation as made are misconceived and are wrong and

denied.

6. That the contents of paras 6 & 7 WS are wrong

and dened. Contents of paras 6 & 7 of claim are reiterated

and reaffirmed. She is paid Rs. 107/- per day and the Wages

are paid monthly. It is wrong and denied that she does not

fulfill the criteria for conferring temporary status. Many

similarly situated employees, in fact juniors, have been the

benefits of Temporary status and also regularized in service.

The long and continuous services rendered itself indicative

of existence of vacancy and the work being performed by

her are permanent and regular nature. Hence Right to

regularization of services has accured to her.

It is therefore prayed to the Hon'ble Tribunal that it

may pleased to pass Award as prayed in claim.

On the basis of pleadings of parties following issues

has been framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 31.05.06:—

1. Whether there exist an Industrial Dispute between

the partices & OPW

2. As in terms of Reference?

3. Relief.

Vimla Sahi in support of her case filed her affidavit

on 15.7.2006 are as follow:—

1. That the workman had been working as casual

labour since 1989, though in the Award it is mentioned as

01.01.1991 with Management. My services were terminated

on 28.03.1992 in gross violation of seciton 25-F. I raised

industrial dispute which resulted in reference order dated

07.12.1993. The term of reference was adjudicated and an

Award dated 06.01.1997 by Hon'ble Court holding that the

deponent worked continuously for more than 240 days

and hence the termination was illegal. The LD. Tribunal

ordered for reinstatement and the workman was taken in

the employment of the Management. The Award dated

6.1.1997 is Exhibit WW1/1.

2. That vide letter/order dated 14.04.1998 the

dependent was directed to report for duty as casual labour.

By the superintending Archaeologist and was asked

to work at Humayun Tomb. Nizamuddin where I worked till

March 2000. Thereafter, I was asked to work at Lal Kila

(Red Fort) from April 2000. I have been working at Red fort

since April 2000 and is still working there. I have been

continuously working all these years and performing duties

of regular and permanent nature, though I have been labeled

as 'Casual Labour'.

3. That I have been performing duties of grass cutting/

removing which is a regular feature. Grass grows very fast

and is to be Cut/removed regularly. The male labours have

been given Temporary Status and the benefits here on.

Though I have put in more than 240 days of continuous

service, I have not been even given temporary status which

entitles the workman for higher benefits as are being given

to others. In terms of memorandums/circulars regarding

conferring Temporary status I am entitled to proper scale

of pay and other service benefits.

4. That the deponent is being paid wages at the rate

of Rs. 107.00 per day and wages is paid monthly. No other

benefit such as PF, ESI, leave facilities, etc given to the

workman, though same are admissible to regular employees.

However, the deponent has been paid bonus of Rs. 1184.00

for the years, 2002 and 2003. If leave is taken, the wage for

that day is deducted. Wage for Sunday is not paid at all.

Inspite of regular nature of work and working regularly, the

deponent is entitled to paid weekly off. But wage is not

paid for the weekly off day of Sunday. The deponent is to

work from 9 to 5 pm daily with lunch break of one hour

between 1 and 2. The deponent is shown on Muster Roll

and signature is obtained on the muster Roll and signature

for making payment of wages. Attendance is signed by the

deponent-workman.

5. That the workman has been requesting the

Management to regularize and make her permanent

employees and pay regular scale and other service benefits.

But the Management has not needed to. Even Temporary

Status is not given to the workman. The deponent is entitled

to permanency of job, proper scale and allowances and

other benefits, as she has been working all these years.

6. That the action of the Management in continuously

extracting permanent and regular jobs and not making me

permanent employee and thereby depriving me of proper

pay scale and other service benefit. Continuous

employment itself indicates permanent requirement and

regular/perennial nature of job of grass cutting being done

by the workman. It is also indicative of existence of

permanent vacancy.

7. That I am entitled to regularization and regular pay

scales and other service benefits from the stated of

completion of 240 days of service or at least entitled to

Temporary Status in terms of the memorandums governing

temporary status and the benefits of such temporary status.

8. That the documents filed by the deponent workman

are certificate dated 08.05.2002; Letter dated 14.4.1998;

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2185

Wages list of Govt. of NCT; Letter dated 28.8.2000 of the

deponent; OM dated 12.04.2002 for grant of temporary

status:

Letter dated Nil of the Association, as per list of

documents dated 18.04.2006 be taken as Exhibits WW1/2

to WW1/7 respectively.

He was Cross examined by A/R for the management

on 5.2.07 Her cross-examinaiton is as follow:—

At present I do not possess any document/paper to

show that I have been working with the management on

10.09.93 I have already filed or placed on record all

documents or proof on the court file to show that I have

worked for more than 240 days before 10.09.93. It is incorrect

to suggest that I have not worked for 240 days in any yar

preceding/before 10.9.93. It is incorrect to suggest that I

am not entitled to grant to temporary status as per DOPT

Scheme. It is incorrect to suggest that I am not entitled to

the relief claimed.

In support of its case management filed affidavit of

Shri Chandidas Mishra which having following contents:—

1. That the deponent is the Security Officer of

Archaeological Survey of India Delhi Circle, in the above

noted matter and hence fully aware with the facts and

circumstances of the present matter and competent to

swear this affidavit.

2. That the management is a Central Government

Department under the Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India

and has been declared as scientific and Technological

Institution by Govt. of India by notification No. 36016/2/

89-East dated 27.10.1989 published in the Gazette of India

which is exhibited as MW-1/1. The ASI is discharging its

duties for the preservation and conservation of ancient

and historical documents and archaeological sites and

remains which are declared to be of national importance

under the ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites

and Remains Act, 1958, regulations, implementation of the

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological sites and Remains

Act, 1958 an rules 1959 and the Antiquities and Art

Treasures Act, 1972, Rules 1973 etc. are also being

performed by the Archaeological Survey of India.

3. That the ASI is neither an industry nor industrial

establishment undertaking so as to attract the provisions

of ID Act. The archelogical Survey of India is performing

sovereign funcitons of the state as enshrined in the

constitution of India in looking after the centrally protected

monuments of national importance spread over the entire

length and breadth of the country. It is submitted that the

provisions of Industrial Dispute Act does not apply to its

employees or the daily wages casuals engaged on Muster

Rolls.

4. That the sancitoned staff/personnel are governed

by CCS regulations and statutory instructions issued by

the Department of Personal and Training. The said staff is

not classified as on industrial posts. Besides the regular

establishment, Archaeological Survey of India also engages

daily wages casual labourers on need basis periodically

for removal of vegetation growth and special repair works,

etc. of purely casual/temporary nature and are carried out

for short durations. The wages to such daily wages casual

labourers are paid in accordance with the provisons of the

Minimum Wages Act.

5. That the management has not violated any

provision of the industrial Dispute Act and every aciton of

there is within the smbit of law and as such the claim is

liable to be dismissed. Moreover, there is no sanctioned

post which claimant is seeking.

6. That the workman was not validly appointed and

regularizing her services would be a violation of rights

given to other citizen under Article 14 and 16 (4) constitution

of India.

7. That Smt. Vimla Sahi was not engaged in 1989 as

claimed. She was in fact engaged on Muster Roll in

September 1990 but did not complete 240 days in a year. As

referred to herein she is sporadically working as a causal

daily wages labourers is on Muster Roll since 1989. Said

labourer is working a causal labourers and has been paid

wages as per the Minimum wages Act. Since Smt. Vimla

Sahi does not fulfill the conditions of DOPT Scheme of

1993, she is not entitled for temporary status benefit so

present claim of workman is liable to be dismissed.

His affidavit was tendered on 24.01.2012. He was

Corss examined on the same day. His cross-examinaiton is

as follow:—

I was not taking work from the workman in the year

1989. The attendance register is in possession of the office

of the management though not in my personal possession.

The workman being a casual labour, his attendance is

marked on the muster rolls and not on the register. The

muster roll must be in the office if it is preserved till today

as per rules. The workman was doing the Beldari job such

as grass cutting, cleaning, sweeping etc. I am not able to

tell the exact number of casual labours employed in the

management but their figure keep on changing according

to the requirement of the management. Earlier, casual labours

used to be called as casual labourers but since 1993 after

the grant of temporary status to them they are Called

temporary status casual labour. I have seen the

memorandum dated 10.09.1993 of the Govt. of India,

Ministry of Personnel PG and Pension Department which

is Ex. MW/W1. The same is correct and has been adopted

by our department. We are acting in accordance with this

Ex MW1/1 wherever the same is applicable. We do not

dispute document Ex. WW1/1.

Q. I put it to you that workman Smt. Vimla Sahi has

not been dealt with in accordance with Ex. MW1/W1 and

2186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

she has not been granted the temporary status to which

she was entitled as per this document.

A. It is incorrect that workman Smt. Vimla Sahi was

entitled to temporary status in accordance with document

Ex. MW1/W1. In fact, Smt. Vimla Sahi had not worked for

240 days in the year 1992-93 and so she was not entitled to

the grant of temporary status.

I do not dispute the notification along with the award

dated 06.01.1997 of Sh. Ganpati Sharma, PO with the said

notificaiton Ex. MW1/W2. It is incorrect to suggest that

the workman case was covered with award Ex. MW1/W2.

In fact, her case is not covered by this award. As in the

award it is mentioned that she was employed prior to march,

1992 and the order of the Govt. of India pertain to such

casual workers who were in the employment in the year

1992-93. It is wrong to suggest that the job of the

management for maintenance etc. is not of sovereign

function. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.

Workman Argument on Behalf of workman is as

follows:—

1. That the Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-

42012/221/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 26.7.2002 has referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of

Archaeological Survey of India is not regularizing/

granting of temporary status to Smt. Vimla Sahi,

Casual labour and continuing her on casual basis

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

she is entitled to?"

2. That as per the workman's affidavit for evidence

WW1/A, it is proved that Smt Vimla Shai was initially

employed since 1989, though in the award it is mentioned

as w.e.f 1.1.1991 with the Management and as per the award

of CGIT when the services of the workman were terminated

w.e.f 28.3.1992 in violation of Section 25-F as per the award

which is exihibit WW1/1 in the Award the date of her initial

appointment is 1.1.1991 and the said Award is placed in th

file of this Hon'ble Tribunal which proves that the

workmaen was appointed causal worker at Archaeological

Survey of India, Purana Quila, New Delhi on 1.11.1991 and

as per the Award she was reinstated by the order of

Sh. Ganpati Sharma, the then Presiding Officer vide is award

dated 6.1.1997 but without back wages which proves that

she was on employment of the Management w.e.f 1.1.1991

till date including the date of termination. Copy of the said

award was published in the Gazette of India on 1.2.1997

and the same is again annexed with this written statement

for the perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.

3. That as per the policy of Govt. of India, Deptt. The

Personnel & Training the workers working on the role of

the management vide its Office Memorandum No. 51016

dated 10th September 1993 granted the temporary status

and regularization of casual worker. As per the said OM the

workman completed one year service w.e.f 1.9.1992 on 1.9.93

so he/she is entitled grant of temporary status and

regularization scheme. As per the award in I.D No. 88/94

dated 6.1.1997 the workman Smt Vimla Shai has to be treated

on duty till her terminaiton i.e. w.e.f 28.03.1992 till date and

she is entitled grant of temporary status as her similar

situated casual workers were granted temporary status

being a Group 'D' employee so she is also atleast entitled

grant of temporary status w.e.f 1.9.1993 as she completed

more than one year of service because she was employed

as casual workers/daily-rated worker w.e.f 1.9.1991

continuously. Copy of the temporary status and

employment of causal labour is already placed in the court

record. Due to ineligible in reading I am enclosing herewith

Office memorandum No. 51016/90. Estt (C) dated 10th

September 1993 for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. Copy

of the documents filed as per list of documents datd

18.4.2006 are exhibit WW1/2 to WW1/7 respectively.

According to the temporary status the workman is entitled

Group 'D' pay scale as per the Appendix of the Office

memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Esst (C) dated 10th September

1993 at SI. No. 5 which is as under:—

"Temporary status would entitle the casual labourers

to the following benefits:—

(1) Wages at daily rates with references to minimum

of the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group 'D' official

including DA, HRA and CCA.

(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as

applicable to a Group 'D' employee would be taken into

account for calculating pro-rata wages for every one year

of service subject to performance of duty for atleast 240

days (206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days

week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary

status."

(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro-rata basis at

the rate of one day for every 10 days of work, casual leave,

maternity leave, to varry forward the leave at their credit on

their regularization. They will not be entitled to the benefits

of encashment of leave on termination of services for any

reasons or on their quitting serving.

(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourer as

admissible to regular Group 'D' employees will be allowed.

(v) 50% of the service rendered under Temporary

Status would be counted for the purpose of retirement

benefits after their regularization.

(vi) After rendering three year's continuous service

after conferment of temporary status, the casual labourers

would be treated on par with temporary Group 'D' employees

for the purpose of contribution to the General Provident

Fund, and would also further be eligible for the grant of

Festival Advance/Flood Advance on the same conditions

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2187

as are applicable to temporary Group 'D' employees,

provided they furnish two sureties form permanent Govt.

Servants of their Department.

(vii) Until they are regularized, they would be entitled

to productivity Linked Bonus/Ad-hoc bonus only at the

rates as applicable to casual labourers.

4. That the temporary status is also adopted by the

Management of Suptd. Archaeologist, Archaeological

Survey of India, New Delhi.

5. That as per the Policy of Govt. of India the workman

is emplyed as per the Award w.e.f 1.1.1991 so she is entitled

the temporary status w.e.f 1st September 1993 to the pay

scale revised from time to time and all benefits as referred

herein-above and the same is mentioned in the temporary

status para 5 of group 'D' employees and all the benefits as

mentioned in the office Memorandum of Deptt. Of

Personnel dated 10th September 1993 till the services of

Smt. Vimla Sahi will be regularized alongwith all other casual/

daily rated workers and from the date in accordance with

the seniority.

6. That non-regularization of Smt. Vimla Shai is also

unfair labour practice under Seciton 2(sa) of I.D Act 1947

as specified in item 10 of 5th Schedule provides as "10 to

employee workman as "badlies," casual or temporaries and

continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving

them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen. It

is also submitted that indulgence by the Management in

unfair labour practice provides penalty u/s 25 U of ID. Act.

The said Section is reproduced as under:

"25U Penalty for committing unfair labour practices

Any person who commits any unfair labour practice shall

be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may

extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one

thousand rupees or with both."

In View of the above it is prayed to:—

(a) Award temporary status under O.M. No. 51016/2/

90—Estt. (C) dated 10.09.1993 of Ministry of

Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Deptt. of Personnel

& Training, New Delhi to Smt. Vimla Shai w.e.f

1.09.1993 as Group 'D' employee with all

consequential benefits.

(b) Direct the Management to regularize the services

of Smt. Vimla Shai as regular employee in the Group

'D' category to set aside the unfair labour practice

adopted by the management.

Written argument on behalf of UOI (Management/ASI)

1. That the workman have not approached the Hon'ble

tribunal with clean hands and suppressed material facts

and thus the ID is liable to be dismissed on this ground

only.

2. That the workman have miserably failed to prove

her case could not bring evidence for proving her case.

3. That the Management is a central Government

Department under the Ministry of Culture, Govt. of India

and has been declared as scientific and Technological

Institution by Govt. of India by notification No. 36016/2/

89-East dated 27-10-1989 published in the Gazette of India

which was exhibited as MW1/1. The ASI is discharging its

duties for the preservation and conversation of ancient

and historical monuments and archaeological sites and

remains which are declared to be of national importance

under the ancient Monument and Archaeological Sites and

Remains Act, 1958, regulations, implementation of the

Ancient Monument and Archaeological sites and Remain

Act, 1958 and Rules 1959 and the Antiquities and Art

Treasures Act, 1972, Rules 1973 etc. are also being

performed by Archaeological Survey of India.

4. That the ASI is neither an Industry not industrial

establishment undertaking so as to attract the provisions

of ID Act. The Archaeological Survey of India is performing

sovereign functions of the state as enshrined in the

constitution of India in looking after the centrally protected

monuments of national importance spread over the entire

length and breath of the country. It is submitted that the

provisions of industrial Dispute Act does not apply to its

employee or the daily wages casuals engaged on Muster

Rolls.

5. That the sanctioned staff/personnel are governed

by c.c.s. regulations and statutory instructions issued by

the Department of personal and training. The said staff is

classified as on industrial posts. Besides the regular

establishment, Archaeological Survey of India also engages

daily wages casual labourers on need basis periodically

for removal of vegetation growth and special repair works,

etc. of purely casual/temporary nature and are carried out

for short durations the wages to such daily wages casual

labourers are paid in accordance with the provisions of the

Minimum wages Act.

6. That the management has not violated any

provision of the industrial Dispute Act and every action of

there is within the ambit of law and as such the claim is

liable to be dismissed. Moreover, there is no sanctioned

post which claimant is seeking.

7. That the workwoman was not validity appointment

and regularizing her services would be a violation of rights

given to other citizen under Article 14 and 16(4) of

Constitution of India.

8. That Smt. Vimla Sahi was not engaged in 1989 as

claimed. She was in fact engaged on Muster Roll in

September 1990 but did not complete 240 days in a year. As

referred to herein she is continuously working as a casual

daily wages labourers on Muster Roll since 1989. Said

labourer is working as per the Minimum wages Act. Since

2188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Smt. Vimla Sahi does not fulfill the conditions of DOPT

Scheme of 1993, she is not entitled for temporary status

benefit so present claim of workman is liable to be dismissed.

9. That the applicant/workwoman Smt. Vimla Sahi

was not engaged as casual labour under the establishment

of the respondent/ASI any time in 1988 as claimed by her.

However, the applicant was engaged in the department for

the first time in September 1990 for intermittent and periodic

nature of works. The applicant had not completed 240 days

of work in the year 1990.

10. That the workwoman was continued to be

engaged in such periodic, sporadic and casual nature of

works on as and when required basis under the

establishment of the respondent/management only for the

year 1990. She did no work in the year 1991 or thereafter.

11. That the workwoman resurfaced in 1994 and filed

and ID. Case bearing ID. No. 28 of 1994 against the

department against her alleged termination from work. The

CGIT cum labour Court was pleased to grant her relief and

accordingly. She was reengaged in the department in 1998.

She is continuing to be so engaged in the department since

1998.

12. That the Scheme titled 'Casual Laboureres (Grant

of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of

Government of India 1993 lays down the following

preconditions for grant of such temporary status:—

a. The concerned casual labour should have been in

the engagement of the department on 10.09.1993.

b. The concerned casual labour should have

completed at least 240 days of work (206 days in

the establishment observing 5 days a week) in a

year proceeding to 10.09.1993.

c. The Hon'ble Supreme court has made it clear that

this scheme is not an ongoing issued in Civil

Appeals No. 3198, 3182, 3179, 3176-78, 3169 of 2002,

SLP (civil) No. 2151/2000 has held the following:

"However, we make it clear that the Scheme of

01.09.1993 is not an ongoing scheme and the

'temporary status can be conferred on the casual

labourers under the scheme only on fulfilling the

conditions incorporated in clause 4 of the scheme

namely they should have been casual labourers in

employment as on the date of commencement of the

scheme and they should have rendered continuous

services at least on one year i.e. at least 240 days in

a year or 206 days (in case of officers having 5 days

a week). We also make it clear that those who have

already been given temporary status on the

assumption that it is an ongoing scheme shall not be

stripped of the temporary status pursuant to our

decision."

13. That the applicant Smt. Vimla Sahi does not fulfill

any of the afore stated preconditions meaning thereby that

she was not in the engagement of the department of the

respondent/management on 10.09.1993 and she had not

completed 240 days of work during the period from 10.9.1992

to 10.09.1993. Hence my temporary status could be granted

to her. Accordingly, the case of the present applicant

Smt. Vimla Sahi cannot be considered at this stage.

14. That the afore-stated scheme of ' Casual Labourers

(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of

Govt. of India 1993 is not a continuous scheme so as to

make it applicable for all the years to come.

15. That since regularization is subsequent

procedure after grant of temporary status, and since the

applicant was not granted temporary status for the afore-

stated reasons, hence the applicant cannot be granted

temporary status at this stage, which would be against the

extant Rules.

16. That in addition, it is stated that the department

has Number of Temporary status casual labourers who are

waiting to be regularized. Moreover, casual labourers senior

to the applicant needed to be absorbed first before

considering the case of the applicant and hence at this

stage, the case of the applicant cannot be considered by

the department of the Respondent/Management.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the

statement of claim of the applicant may please be dismissed

in favour of the respondent/Management/ASI and against

the workwoman/Claimant.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble CGIT. May deem

fit and proper be also passed in favour Management/ASI.

In the light of contention and counter contentions I

perused the pleadings contained in Claim/Statement,

Written Statement, and Rejoinder as well as evidence and

Written arguments of parties on record, settled law and

relevant provision of concerned law.

(a) Which shows that Workwoman Vimla Sahi is

entitled for Award of temporary status under O.M.

No. 51016/2/90-Estt.(C) dated 10.09.1993 of

Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions, Deptt.

of Personnel & Training, New Delhi to Smt. Vimla

Shai w.e.f. 1.09.1993 as Group 'D' employee with all

consequential benefits and therefore management

is directed to regularized the services of Smt. Vimla

Shai as regular employee in the Group 'D' category

to set aside the unfair labour practice adopted by

the management. Reference is liable to be decided

in favour of workman and against management.

Which is accordingly decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:—13/01/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2189

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 817.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj us'kuy bU'kqjUl

daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 36@2007½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@2@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 817.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), 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 National

Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-17012/2/2005-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/36/2007

Date: 16.01.2014

Party No. 1

: The Divisional Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office, M.G. Rd,

In front of Open Theatre,

Taluka & Distt. Akola, Maharashtra.

: The Regional Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Regional Office, Mangalam Arcade,

2nd Floor, North Bazar Road, Dharampeth

Extn. Nagpur.

: The General Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

Royal Insurance Building, 3-Midilatan

Street, Kolkata, West Bengal.

Versus

Party No. 2

: Shri Gajanan S/o. Dombji Ingle,

R/o. Ramabai Chowk, Old City Akola,

Maharashtra.

AWARD

(Dated: 16th January, 2014)

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of M/S National Insurance Company Ltd. and

their workman, Shri Gajanan Dombji Ingle, for adjudication,

to Mumbai-II as per letter No. L-17012/2/2005-IR(M) dated

13.02.2007, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of National

Insurance Co. Ltd. through the Divisional Manager,

Akola is justified in orally terminating the employment

of Shri Gajanan S/o. Sh. Dombji Ingle w.e.f.

07.09.2004? If not, then what is the relief the workman

is entitled to?"

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this

Tribunal for adjudication in accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Gajanan

Dombji Ingle, ('the workman" in short), filed the statement

of claim and the management of National Insurance Co.

Ltd., (Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he is a member of Schedule Cast

community and he has read up to 9th Standard and in 2001,

there was requirement of "Safais Kamgar" by Party No. 1

and he made application for the said post and he was

interviewed by the Divisional Manager, Akola and he was

appointed as a Safia Kamgar orally w.e.f. 01.09.2001 on

daily wages basis and he worked as such continuously

without any break till 07.09.2004 and on 07.09.2004, his

services were terminated orally by Party No.1, without

following the procedure of law, as he demanded more salary

as per the Minimum Wages Act and he had completed

more than 240 days of work in each year and he was paid

his wages regularly by party no. 1 on vouchers and Party

No. 1 intentionally showed in their account regarding

making payment of wages to unknown persons in the

months of November, 2001, June, 2002, December, 2002,

June, 2003, February, 2003 and March, 2004, even though,

he had worked during those months and had received wages

for the same and while terminating his services, neither

one month's notice as required under law was served on

him nor one month's pay in lieu of notice was given nor

any retrenchment compensation was paid to him by party

No. 1 as required under section 25-F of the Act and after

his termination, Party No. 1 engaged new persons as Safai

Kamgar, firstly Shri Nilesh Nage and then, Shri Vikas Skrhoo

and from the said facts, it is clear that the work of Safai

Kamgar was/is continuously in existence and his

termination from services is illegal and he is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and fully back

wages.

3. In the written statement, the Party No. 1 denying

all the adverse allegations made in the statement of claim

2190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was engaged on

part time basis for cleaning of the office, as and when

required and he was never appointed as a safai kamgar as

alleged and the engagement of the workman was as a stop

gap arrangement and he was not employed regularly and

as such, the question of termination of his services w.e.f.

07.09.2004 does not arise and there was also no question

of the workman completing of 240 days of work in the

preceding 12 months of his alleged date of termination or

during any prior period and the workman is not entitled to

the protection of 25-F of the Act and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In order to prove their respective claims, both the

parties have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

The workman has examined himself as a witness in

support of his case. In his evidence on affidavit, the

workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. However, in his cross-examination, the workman

has admitted that he had not filed the copy of application

alleged to be submitted by him for the job of Safai Kamgar

in 2001 and he was doing the sweeping work prior to the

office hours and he was not performing any work from 11

AM to 5 PM and the documents, Exts. M-I, M-V, M-VI, M-

VII, M-IX, M-X, M-XIII to M-XIX bears his signatures.

5. One Prakash Laxmanrao Tidke has been examined

as a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. The evidence of

the witness for Party No. 1 is on affidavit. The witness for

the Party No. 1 has reiterated the facts mentioned in the

written statement, in his evidence. In his cross-examination,

this witness has stated that the workman was engaged for

cleaning and dusting of the office and he was working

from 9 AM to 10 AM and nobody was supervising his

work and the statement made by him in his affidavit that

the workman did not work for 240 days in the previous

12 months prior to 07.09.2004 is based on the payment

vouchers regarding payment of wages to the workman and

the workman was being paid Rs. 20 per day as his wages.

This witness has also stated that the statement given by

the workman in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim

matches the dates of engagement of the workman as

mentioned on the back of the vouchers.

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

learned advocate for the workman that the workman had

filed notice for production of documents and demanded

the production of attendance register from 01.09.2001 to

07.09.2004 by Party No. 1 and on 07.02.2011, Party No. 1

produced copies of some vouchers, but did not produce

the documents demanded by the workman, only to deprive

the workman from his legal right and for that adverse

interference has to be drawn against the Party No. 1 and

the witness for Party No. 1 has admitted that the statement

given by the workman in paragraph 2 of the statement of

claim regarding the number of his working days matches

the dates of engagement of the workman as mentioned on

the back of the vouchers and from the same, it is clear that

the workman worked continuously from 01.09.2001 to

07.09.2004, without any break and he had completed more

than 240 days of work every year and before the termination

of the services of the workman, the mandatory provisions

of section 25-F of the Act were not complied with and

neither one month's notice nor one month's pay in lieu of

the notice nor retrenchment compensation was paid to the

workman and after the termination of the services of the

workman, Party No. 1 in violation of section 25-H of the

Act, engaged Shri Nilesh Negi and Shri Vikas Shahoo and

it is clear that the work of Safai Kamgar was/is in existence

and therfore, the termination of the services of the workman

is illegal and he is entitled for reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages. In support of the

submissions, in the written notes of argument, the learned

advocate for the workman though had mentioned the cases

reported in 2012 (2) Mh. LJ-503 (SC) Devindar Singh Vs.

Municipal Council, Sanour) and 2010 (3) Mh. L.J-537 (SC)

(Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana) and many others, he

did not file the said judgments for perusal of the Tribunal.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the Party No. 1 that the workman was never

appointed as a Safai Kamgar and he was engaged as a

part time worker for cleaning of the office, as and when

required and the workman did not work for 240 days in

the preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

termination or at any time prior to the same and therefore,

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act are not applicable

to the case of the workman and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

8. It is the admitted case of the parties that the

workman was engaged on daily wages to sweep and clean

the office of Party No. 1. According to the workman, from

01.09.2001 to 07.09.2004, he worked continuously without

any break and he had completed 240 days of service in

each year and on 07.09.2004, he was terminated from

services by Party No. 1 orally, without compliance of the

mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the Act.

The case of Party No. 1 is that the workman was

engaged on part time basis, as and when required as a stop

gap arrangement and he was not employed regularly and

the workman neither completed 240 days of work in the

preceding 12 months of the alleged date of termination nor

in any calendar year prior to the same, so he is not entitled

to the protection under section 25-F of the Act.

It is well settled that in a case of this nature, where it

is claimed by the workman that he had completed 240 days

of work prior to his termination and there is a denial of such

claim by the management, the workman has to prove that

he had infact worked for 240 days during a period of

12 cleandar months preceding the date with reference to

which calculation has to be made.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2191

So, keeping in view the settled principles as

mentioned above, now, the case in hand is to be considered.

9. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention that

the workman had file an application on 07.02.2011 for a

direction to Party No. 1 to produce the documents relating

to attendance and payment of salary to him and after hearing

the parties, by order dated 08.11.2011, the Party No. 1 had

been directed to produce the attendance register and

payment vocuhers for the period from 01.09.2001 to

07.09.2004. On 28.03.2012, Party No. 1 filed 12 (Nineteen)

payment vouchers, but did not file the attendance register.

A pursis was filed by the Party No. 1 stating that no such

attendance register was maintained. The nineteen vouchers

were admitted into evidence on admission and marked as

Exts. M-I to M-XIX.

It is to be mentioned here that though the workman

in the statement of claim has specifically pleaded that his

attendance was being marked daily by the officers of Party

No. 1, there was no specific denial of non-maintenance of

such attendance register by party no. 1 in the written

statement, In the say filed by Party No. 1 to the application

of the workman for production of documents also, it was

not mentioned that such attendance register was not being

maintained. It is also found that even though the workman

endorsed on the list of documents filed by Party No. 1 that

all the vouchers were not produced, no objection was raised

by Party No. 1 to such endorsement and it was never stated

by Party No. 1 that there was no other voucher in their

possession regarding payment of wages to the workman.

So adverse inference has to be drawn against the Party

No. 1 for non-production of the relevant documents relating

to the engagement of the workman in their office.

10. From the oral evidence of the workman, the

documents Exts. M-I to M-XIX, the admission of the

witness for the Party No. 1 about the correctness of the

statement given by the workman regarding the working

days and due to non production of the relevant documents

by Party No. 1, it is found that the workman has been able

to prove that he worked for 240 days in the preceding

12 calendar months of the date of his termination

i.e. 07.09.2004.

11. Now, the question remains for consideration is as

to what relief or reliefs the workman is entitled.

As per the submission of the learned advocate for

the workman, the workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

On the other hand, the learned advocate for the Party

No. 1 submitted that in this case, the workman is not entitled

to any relief and the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act

are not applicable.

12. At this juncture, I think it proper to mention about

the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision

reported in (2013) 5 SCC-136 (Asstt. Engineer, Rajasthan

Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh). The Hon'ble

Apex Court in the above decision have been pleased to

take into consideration a large number of decisions

delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court earlier, including the

decisions reported in 2011 II CLR-461 (Devinder Singh Vs.

Municipal Council, Sonaur, (2013) 3 SCC-192 (Harjinder

Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation) and

(2010) 9 SCC-126 (Incharge Officer Vs. Shankar Setty.) have

been pleased to hold that:—

"In our view, Harjinder Singh and Devinder Singh do

not lay down the proposition that in all cases of wrongful

termination, reinstatement must follows. This court found

in those cases that judicial discretion exercised by the

labour court was disturbed by the High Court on wrong

assumption that the initial employment of the employee

was illegal. As noted above, with regard to the wrongful

termination of a daily wager, who had worked for a short

period, this court in long line of cases has held that the

award of reinstatement cannot be said to be proper relief

and rather award of compensation in such cases would be

in consonance with the demand of justice. Before exercising

its judicial discretion, the labour court has to keep in view

all relevant factors, including the mode and manner of

appointment, nature of appointment, length of service, the

ground on which the dispute before grant of relief in an

industrial dispute.

In the light of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present case in

hand is to be considered. In this case, it is admitted that the

workman was engaged as a daily wager on 10.01.2001. It is

also found that he continued as such till 07.09.2004, when

he was terminated from services by Party No. 1. In a case

such as the present one, it appears that the relief of

reinstatement cannot be justified and instead monetary

compensation would meet the ends of justice. Taking into

consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, in

my considered opinion, the compensation of Rs. 30,000

(Rupees Seventy Five thousand only) in lieu of

reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and equitable.

Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of National Insurance

Co. Ltd. through the Divisional Manager, Akola is

unjustified in orally terminating the employment of

Shri Gajanan S/o Sh. Dombji Ingle w.e.f. 07.09.2004. The

workman is entitled for monetary compensation of

Rs. 30,000 (Repees thirty thousand only) in lieu of

reinstatement. He is not entitled for any other relief. The

Party No. 1 is directed to pay the monetary compensation

of Rs. 30,000 to the workman Shri Gajanan Dombji Ingle

within 30 days of the publication of the award in the official

gazette failing which, the amount will carry interest at the

rate of 6 per cent per annum.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

2192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 818.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vk;y bafM;k

fyfeVsM ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

18@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&30011@40@2011&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 818.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Oil India Limited and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-30011/40/2011-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

ASSAM

Present : Shri L. C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

Ref. Case No. 18 of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :—

The Management of Oil India Ltd., Guwahati

Vrs.

Their workmen rep. by the President/General

Secretary, Oil India Limited, Pipeline Transport

Supplier Association, Narangi, Guwahati and the

President/General Secretary, Motor Workers Union,

Duliajan.

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman.

: Mr. K.M. Haloi, Advocate

For the Management. : Sri S.N. Sarma, Sr. Advocate

Sri A. Sarma, Advocate,

Sri A. Jahid, Advocate.

Date of Award: 8.10.2013

AWARD

1. This Reference is arising out of an Industrial

Dispute exists between the employers in relation to the

Management of M/s Oil India Ltd. and their workmen and

union in respect of the notice of strike/agitational

programme of Motor Workers Union dated 22.7.2011 served

on the Management, which was referred to by the Ministry

of Labour and Employment vide their Order No.-L-30011/

40/2011-IR(M) Dated : 2/5/2012. The Schedule of the

Reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the notice of Strike/Agitational programme

of Motor Workers Union dated 22.7.2011 served on

the General Manager (PLS), Oil India Ltd., Guwahati

demanding benefits of settlement dated 12.2.2009

between the Motor Workers Union, Duliajan and

Duliajan Trade & Transport Contractors Association

Duliajan, is legal and justified? What relief the

workmen led by Motor Workers Union are entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the order of Reference from the

Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India,

New Delhi, this Reference Case was registered and notices

were also issued upon both the parties with direction to

file their Claim Statement/Written Statement and documents

and to exchange their respective copies of Claim Statement/

Written Statement and documents between them.

Accordingly both the parties appeared and submitted their

Claim Statement/Written Statement.

3. The case of the Motor Workers Union (herein after

called the Union), in brief, is that the said Union has been

espousing the cause of the Motor Workers and the

members of this Union have been working as the Driver

and helper engaged by the Contractors in different divisions

of the Oil India Ltd. The Union entered into a settlement

with the Management of Oil India Ltd. in the year 2004 and

the benefit of the said settlement was provided to all the

Motor Workers engaged by the contractor in different

divisions of the Oil India Ltd. On 12.2.2009 the

representatives of the Union, owner/employer (i.e. Duliajan

Trade and Transport Contractors Association, Duliajan)

and the Management of Oil India Ltd. arrived at a settlement

before the Conciliation Officer and the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh under Industrial Dispute Act,

1947. The benefit of the settlement dated 12.2.2009 has

been provided by the Management to all the motor workers

engaged by the Contractors in Duliajan, Moran and Digboi

but the motor workers engaged by the contractors in the

Pipeline Division, Guwahati of the Oil India Ltd. had been

deprived of the benefit of this settlement since the date of

settlement till October, 2011 for which the Union in many

occasions raised demand for implementation of the

settlement in motor workers engaged by the contractors in

the Pipeline Division, Guwahati. But the Management did

not pay heed to the same till November, 2012. Hence, the

Union finding no alternative served the strike notice dated

22.07.2011. The Union pleaded that the motor workers

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2193

engaged by the contractor in the Pipeline Division,

Guwahati of Oil India Ltd., have been discharging the same

and similar nature of jobs and they are working for same

working hour as worked by the motor workers engaged by

the contractors in various places under the Oil India Ltd.

and a such, they are entitled to benefit of settlement dated

12.2.2009. It is also mentioned by the Union that after service

of the strike notice dated 22.7.2011 the conciliation took

place but it failed and after failure of the conciliation the

Union resorted to strike on 14.9.2011. After resorting to the

strike the Management of Oil India Ltd. provided the benefit

of the settlement dated 12.2.2009 to the motor workers

engaged by the contractors in the Pipeline Division at

Guwahati of the Oil India Ltd. from the month of November,

2011 but the motor workers engaged by the contractor in

the Pipeline Division at Guwahati of the Oil India Ltd. have

not received their arrear salary up to the month of October,

2011 till date. Thus the implementation of settlement

dated 12.2.2009 in the Pipeline Division, Guwahati Oil India

Ltd. from the month of November, 2011 has established

that the strike notice dated 22.7.2011 served upon the

Management by the Union demanding the benefit of

settlement dated 12.2.2009 is justified. Hence, the Union

prayed for passing award directing the Management to

provide the benefit of settlement arrived at between the

representative of Motor Workers Union, owner/employer

and the Management of Oil India Ltd.

4. The Management of Oil India Ltd., Guwahati stated

that the notice dated 22.7.2011 issued by the Union to the

Resident Chief Executive, Oil India Ltd., Duliajan wherein

they have stated that earlier they have submitted charter

of demand and served notice of strike and agitational

programme which was however deferred by them at the

advice of Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dibrugarh; and

pointed out that they resumed their deferred programme of

agitational strike. The Management mentioned that the

Motor Workers Union, Guwahati Branch was formed

recently on 14.9.2011 and the said Union demanded

implementation of the settlement dated 12.2.2009 and they

have served the notice on 01.11.2011 informing that if their

demands are not fulfilled within 7 days they would start

agitation. Further the settlement dated 12.2.2009 is a

settlement for the Motor Workers engaged in the field at

Duliajan and the same was not applicable in Pipeline

Division as the said settlement was arrived at between the

Motor Workers Union, Duliajan and Duliajan Trade and

Transport Contractors Association, Duliajan and as such,

the same is not binding upon the Transport Suppliers

Association, Narengi, Guwahati. In that view of the matter,

the Union at Pipeline can not issue strike/agitational

programme demanding benefit of an agreement agreed by

the Transport Contractors' Association of Duliajan. The

Management pointed out that there being no demand ever

submitted on 22.7.2011 to the Management, the issues

referred to are absolutely not maintainable and are liable to

be rejected; and that the appropriate Government in

referring the issue for adjudication, have not applied its

mind and has referred a vague issue without there being

any materials in the same.

Further plea of the Management is that after the

demand of the Union for the year 2011 conciliation took

place but it ended in failure and thereafter the matter was

again discussed bilaterally and after much negotiation, the

dispute has been settled up between the parties and after

getting the Board approval the Driver and Helpers of the

Union were given same and similar wages from the month

of November, 2011. In this connection, The Secretary of

the Union, Guwahati Branch who has raised the dispute,

has written a letter dated 02.02.2012 to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) for withdrawal of the dispute and the

Management also written a similar letter about the

withdrawal of the dispute to the RLC (C). Even after this,

the appropriate Government has referred this dispute to

the adjudicated.

The Management denied all the averments made in

the claim statement by the Union except those which are

specifically admitted in thei W.S. The Management denying

the statements made in the Claim Statement in paragraphs-

2 & 3, stated that the alleged settlement of 2004 was

confined to the Drivers and Helpers engaged by the

Contractors in Field i.e. in Duliajan, Moran and other parts

of the field in Upper Assam Area and the same was not

extended to the drivers and helpers of Pipeline Division.

As regards averments made in paragraphs-5 & 6 of the

claim statement of the Union the Management stated that

the Union started raising demand for the benefits of the

settlement dated 12.2.2009 in the month of September, 2011

and after discussion with the Guwahati Branch of the Union

the Management directed the members of the Transport

Suppliers Association, Narangi to give the same and similar

benefits to drivers and helpers w.e.f. November, 2011, upon

wich the Union has withdrawn the dispute by their letter

dated 2.2.2012. The Management has also denied that the

contention of the Union made in Paragraphs-8 & 9 of their

Claim Statement is also not correct. The Management added

that conciliation took place in pursuance to the strike notice

dated 14.9.2011 issued by the Guwahati Branch of the Union

which was forwarded by the Managment to the Assistant

Labour Commissioner (C) and the dispute was settled

between the parties subsequent to which the Union

forwarded a letter dated 2.2.2012 for withdrawal of the

dispute. Instead the dispute was referred by the appropriate

Government. Hence, the Management prayed for disposal

of the present order of Reference accordingly.

5. During the course of Hearing both the parties

appeared along with their learned Advocate and verbally

submitted that the dispute has been settled up amicably

between the parties. The Union through their General

Secretary, Motor Workers' Union, Head Office, Duliajan,

2194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has submitted petition bearing No. 738/13 stating that the

dispute has been settled up outside the Court and as such

they are not willing to proceed with the case, and also

prayed for passing necessary Award/Order.

6. Sri Bijoy Gogoi, General Secretary of Motor

Workers Union, Head Office-Duliajan has been examined

and discharged. In course of his deposition Sri Gogoi stated

that consequent upon the resolution adopted by the Union

in a meeting he is deposing on behalf of the Union. In his

statement Mr. Gogoi mentioned that their Union raised the

present dispute claiming benefit of settlement arrived at on

12.2.09 among the representative of Motor Workers' Union,

Owner/Employer i.e. Duliajan Trade and Transport

Contractors Association and the Management of the Oil

India Limited before the Conciliation Officer and the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dibrugarh under I.D.

Act, 1947. He stated that during pendency of the Reference

they have discussed the matter with the Management and

in the mean time they are getting all the benefits and now

all their claims in connection with this Reference have been

satisfied and as such, the Union is not inclined to proceed

with the case and they prayed for disposal of the Reference

without any relief.

7. After recording of the statement of Sri Bijoy Gogoi,

General Secretary, Motor Workers' Union, Head Office-

Duliajan, I have heard the learned Advocates for both the

sides on the matter. The Advocate for the Management

verbally agreed to the contention of the Union and

expressed his no objection if the Reference is disposed of

without any relief. Learned Advocate for the Management

also has not pressed for cost of the proceeding.

8. In view of the above discussion and having regard

to the submission of both the sides the Reference is

disposed of without granting any relief. However, I am not

inclined to pass any order as to the cost.

9. Send the no relief Award to the Ministry as per

procedure.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

8th day of October, 2013 at Guwahati.

L. C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 819.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

39@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&15025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 819.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-15025/01/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 39/2005

Between:

Sri A.V. Anil Kumar,

S/o. A.P. Vittal,

H. No. 2-6-24/6, Machabolaram,

Kumarbasthi, Near Pochamma Temple,

Secunderabad-500015.

..... Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India,

Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi-I

The Executive Engineer (Ele),

Airport Authority of India,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad - 500016.

M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.,

Early Street, Calcutta,

C/o Kalavathi Electrical Works,

1-9-53/2, Alwal, Secunderabad-500015.

M/s. I.C.S. Systems Ltd.,

4-135, Fatehnagar,

Hyderabad.

.... Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner

Sri Ch. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent :

M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar, I. Sambasiva

Rao & D. Sreekanth, Advoctes

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri A.V. Anil Kumar, the

workman invoking Sec. 2A (1) and (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2195

seeking for a relief declaring that the Petitioner is deemed

to be continuing in service pending regularization of

services, and consequently directing the respondents to

pay wages from the date of termination including difference

of pay of regular employee with 12% interest p.a. till the

date of payment together with attendant benefits. He also

sought for the following interim reliefs i.e., to reinstate him

into service of the 4th respondent of else where and also

for directing the third respondent to pay wages pending

adjudication of the dispute and from the date of oral

termination i.e., 17.7.2000 with interest at 12% p.a. till the

date of retirement.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are

as follows:

Petitioner has been working as Semiskilled Fitter-

cum-operator in the Electrical department of the 2nd

Respondent since 15.3.1995. He was interviewed by the

Junior Executive Engineer, of Airport Authority of India,

Hyderabad in the year 1995 and was selected for

employment as N.M.R. and he was allotted to work under

the 3rd Respondent represented by its sub-contractor i.e.,

Kalavathi Electrical Works. He was paid monthly salary of

Rs. 2480. His signature was being taken in wage register.

He used to perform duties at Rajiv Gandhi Terminal of N.T.R.

Terminal as conveyor belt operator and also used to perform

or assist the operation and maintenance and also to repairs

of passenger baggage conveyor system; daily, weekly and

annual mainteance schedule during their duty timings. He

got requisite knowledge of the work of conveyor belt

operating and its repairs. His attendance was marked by

J.E., Electrical, who is an officer of Airport Authority of

India (A.A.I.) and his salary was being paid by the Airport.

Therefore it is clear that he was completely under the control

of the 2nd Respondent who is the pirncipal employer. He

was given identity card and his signatures were obtained

in log books maintained by the contractors. He worked

round the clock without a holiday or over time. He worked

on par with the regular employees of the department though

he was deined the facilities to which the regular employees

are provided with like pay scales, holidays, weekly offs,

casual leaves etc., with the expectation that his services

would be regularised in future. The work is perennial in

nature and 1st Respondent ought to have considered case

of the Petitioner and regularised his services, after

abolishing of the contract labour system by the Government

of India vide notification No. SO.114/E dated 16.11.1999.

Petitioner is qualified with respect to eligibility to hold the

posts in which he worked, on a regular basis. After the

system of contract labour was abolished consequent to

notification issued on 16.11.1999, the AAI became direct

employer eliminating the middlemen and the contractor

thereby with effect from 16.11.1999 there is relationship of

employer and employee between the 2nd Respondent and

the Petitioner. Without complying with the rules of Contract

Labour (R&A) particularly Sec. 14, i.e., Procedure for

Termination of Services of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, 4th Respondent orally terminated the services

of the Petitioner from 17.7.2000 and engaged men of their

choice thus depriving livelihood of the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the illegal termination of the Petitioner by

4th Respondent their union namely Airport Authority

Kamgar Union, filed a petition invoking Sec. 2 (k) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad but no conciliation took

place. 2nd Respondent continued the contract labour

system even till today, initially through the 3rd Respondent

and now through the 4th Respondent. After Petitioner was

terminated without notice. 4th Respondent engaged other

persons in Petitioner's place, though the Respondents were

specifically directed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in

their order dated in WVMP 3479/2000 in WPMP No. 16170/

2000, not to replace the Petitioner with the third parties.

The persons who were working on aero bridge were

brought to work on conveyor belt by 4th Respondent.

Inspite of Petitioner putting in 240 days of continuous

service each year without complying with the provisions

of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 his services

were terminated. It is to be verified whether the contract is

a genuine contract or it is mere ruse or camouflage to evade

compliance with various legislations so as to deprive the

workers of the benefit thereunder.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

Airport Authority of India ought to have been made

a party but not the Chairman or the Executive Enginer. Prior

to March, 1997 conveyor belt was not commissioned at

Hyderabad airport. The date of commissioning of Rajiv

Gandhi Terminal was 10.3.1997 as such, there was no need

to operate the conveyor belt before that date. The

contention of the Petitioner that he was engaged by AAI

from 15.3.1995 onwards in totally incorrect. AAI got nothing

to do with the Petitioner before 13.3.1997 as there was no

conveyor belt operation till that date. Prior to 13.3.97

Petitioner might have worked under any contractor as an

unskilled labour for the erection of conveyor which is not

a continuous process and which does not require any

regular employment. There is no employer and employee

relationship between AAI and Petitioner. Petitioner never

reported to any Airpot Authority of India official and AAI

never marked his attendance. No payment was made by

AAI to the Petitioner. AAI's involvement is limited to the

general supervision of works that was being done through

agency of contractors. AAI do not have any regular

conveyor belt operator with whom the job of Petitioner can

be compared. AAI has discontinued the operation of the

conveyors. Conveyors are operated by respective airline

operators. The Government of India's order dated 16.11.1999

was quashed by the Delhi High Court on 22.11.2001.

2196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Therefore, no relief can be claimed on the strenghth of said

government order. At present AAI is getting the periodic

maintenance of the conveyors done through agencies

having technical expertise in the field. There is no regular

deployment of the staff of AAI for this purpose. The order

of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. dated 19.4.2001 referred in

the petition does not speak of continuation of the labour.

At present 4th Respondent is carrying out periodic

maintenance of the conveyor belt at Hyderabad airport.

There is no industrial dispute what so ever that could be

raised against the Respondents No. 1 and 2. There is no

post as Conveyor Belt Operator-cum-Electrician, helper,

electrician, fitter etc., in Respondent's organization.

Conveyer belts have never been operated by the

Respondents No. 1 and 2 and the same are being operated

by the airlines on their own. No operator is required for

Respondents 1 and 2. AAI is responsible only for the

periodic maintenance of the conveyor belts. For which no

operator is required. The contention of the Petitioner that

AAI deployed regular employees for operating conveyor

belt is not correct. Petitioner never approached Assistant

Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad, Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

4. By virtue of order dated 9.5.2007 3rd Respondent

has been set exparte and by virtue of order dated 7.3.2007

4th Respondent has been set exparte by this forum.

5. Since main case itself is being disposed off, the

court need not consider the interim reliefs sought for.

6. To substantiate the contentions of the workman

he examined himself as WW1 by filing his chief examination

affidavit. But he was no subject to any cross examination

by the Respondent. As respondent was not showing any

interest corss examine the said witness, his right to cross

examine the said witness forfeited by virtue of order

29.7.2011. No evidence was adduced for the Respondent.

7. Heard either party.

8. The Point that arise for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the main reliefs

sought for?

9. Point:

The workman involved Sec. 2 A (1) and (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and filed this petition seeking for a relief of

declaration that the Petitioner is deemed to the continuing

in service pending regularization of services and

consequently to direct the respondents to pay wages to

him from the date of termination including difference of

pay of regular employee with 12% interest till date of

payment. This is a very vague relief sought for. It can be

said so since no where in the petition, Petitioner claimed

that he initiated any proceeding seeking for regularization

of his services. In such case seeking for declaration that he

is deemed to be continuing in service pending regularization

of his services does not arise. Like wise, the consequential

direction to the respondents sought for, to pay him any

wages, also does not arise.

10. Further more, a careful perusal of the material

made available on the record including the pleading of the

Petitioner, giving rise to a conclusion that Petitioner's claims

themselves are vague. Petitioner, on one hand is claiming

that he is an employee of the 2nd Respondent. On the

other hand he is claiming that he is an employee of third

Respondent, having allotted by the 2nd Respondent to

work under the 3rd Respondent. 2nd Respondent is an

executive engineer of AAI. 3rd Respondent is a private

company. How 2nd Respondent can engage a worker and

allot him to work under 3rd Respondent is a question which

remained unanswered.

11.Further more, Petitioner is relying upon a

document dated 6.7.2000 said to have been issued by one

Kalavathi Electricals which is to the effect that Petitioner

worked in their concern and has been associated with

maintenance of baggage conveyor system at Rajiv Gandhi

Terminal building or N.T.R. Terminal building at Hyderabad

Airport. Petitioner claimed that said Kalavathi Electrical

works is sub-contractor for the 3rd Respondent. But, the

certificate issued by Said Kalavathi Electrical Works does

not show that the said firm is a sub-contractor to the 3rd

Respondent. In such case how the Petitioner, who appeared

to have worked for said Kalavathi Electrical Works can

calim that 3rd Respondent got anything to do with the

work done by him is also a question which remains

unanswered. As it is the contention of the Petitioner himself,

that Petitioner worked for Kalavathi Electiral Works a sub-

contractor of 3rd Respondent, 3rd Respondent will not

have anything to do with him. Kalavathi electrical works is

his employer. The certificate issued by Kalavathi Electrical

Works dated 6.7.2000 clearly indicates that Petitioner has

been working in their concern.

12. In the given circumstances, question of either of

the Respondents 1 to 4 terminating services of the Petitioner

does not arise.

13.In view of the fore gone discussion, it can safely

be held that there is no industrial dispute to be dissolved,

existing among the parties to this petition and that

Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

14. Result:

In the result, Petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17th

day of January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2197

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri A.V. Anil Kumar

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 820.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,;jiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

41@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&15025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. .820.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-15025/01/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: Smt. M. Vijaya Lakhsmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 41/2005

Between:

Sri. M. Balakrishna,

S/o M. Balanarsimha Goud,

H.No. 4-52,

Cheriyal

...........Petitioner

AND

1. The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India,

Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi-1

2. The Executive Engineer (Ele.),

Airport Authority of India,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-500 016.

3. M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.

Early Street, Calcutta,

C/o Kalavathi Electrical Works,

1-9-53/2, Alwal, Secunderabad-500 015.

4. M/s. I.C.S. Systems Ltd.,

4-135, Fatehnagar,

Hyderabad

.........Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner

: Sri Ch. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar, I. Sambasiva

Rao & D. Sreekanth, Advocates.

AWARD

This is a petition field by Sri M. Balakrishna, the

workman invoking Sec. 2 A (1) and (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947

seeking for a relief declaring that the Petitioner is deemed

to be continuing in service pending regularization of

services, and consequently directing the respondents to

pay wages from the date of termination including difference

of pay of regular employee with 12% interest p.a. till the

date of payment together with attendant benefits. He also

sought for the following interim reliefs i.e. to reinstate him

into service of the 4th respondents or else where and also

for directing the third respondent to pay wages pending

adjudication of the dispute and from the date of oral

termination i.e., 17.7.2000 with interest at 12% p.a. till the

date of retirement.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows : Petitioner has been working as Khalasi in the

Electrical department of the 2nd Respondent since 1.7.1999.

He was interviewed by the Junior Executive Engineer of

Airport Authority of India, Hyderabad in the year 1995 and

was selected for employment as N.M.R. and he was allotted

to work under the 3rd Respondent represented by its sub-

contractor i.e., Kalavathi Electrical Works. He was paid

monthly salary of Rs. 1860. His signature was being taken

in wage register. He used to perform duties at Rajiv Gandhi

Terminal or N.T.R. Terminal as conveyor belt operator and

also used to perform or assist the operation and

maintenance and also to repairs of passenger baggage

conveyor system; daily, weekly and annual maintenance

schedule during their duty timings. He got requisite

knowledge of the work of conveyor belt operating and its

repairs. His attendance was marked by J.E., Electrical, who

is an officer of Airport Authority of India (A.A.I.) and his

salary was being paid by the Airport. Therefore it is clear

2198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that he was completely under the control of the 2nd

Respondent who is the principal employer. He was given

identity card and his signatures were obtained in log books

maintained by the contractors. He worked round the clock

without a holiday or over time. He worked on par with the

regular employees of the department though he was denied

the facilities to which the regular employees are provided

with like pay scales, holidays, weekly offs, casual leaves

etc., with the expectation that his services would be

regularised in future. The work is perennial in nature and

1st Respondent ought to have considered case of the

Petitioner and regularised his services, after abolishing of

the contract labour system by the Government of India

vide notification No. SO. 114/E dated 16.11.1999. Petitioner

is qualified with respect to elgibility to hold the posts in

which he worked, on a regular basis. After the system of

contract labour was abolished consequent to notification

issued on 16.11.1999, the AAI became direct employer

eliminating the middlemen and the contractor thereby with

effect from 16.11.1999 there is relationship, of employer

and employee between the 2nd Respondent and the

Petitioner. Without complaying with the rules of Contract

Labour (R&A) paritcularly Sec. 14, i.e., Procedure For

Termination of Services or Sec. 25F of Industrial Dispues

Act, 1947, 4th Respondent orally terminated the services

of the Petitioner from 17.7.2000 and engaged men of their

choice thus depriving livelihood of the Petitioner.

Aggrieved by the illegal termination of the Petitioner by

4th Respondent their union namely Airport Authority

Kamgar Union, filed a petition invoking Sec. 2 (k) of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central, Hyderabad but no conciliation took

place, 2nd Respondent continued the contract labour

system even till today, initially through the 3rd Respondent

and now through the 4th Respondent. After Petitioner was

terminated without notice, 4th Respondent engaged other

persons in Petitiner's place, thogy the Respondents were

specifically directed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in

their order dated in WVMP 3479/2000 in WPMP No. 16170/

2000, not to replace the Petitioner with the third parties.

The persons who were working on aero bridge were

brought to work on conveyor belt by 4th Respondent.

Inspite of Petitioner putting in 240 days of continuous

service each year without complying with the provisions

of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 his services

were terminated. It is to be verified whether the contract is

a genuine contract or it is a mere ruse or camouflage to

evade compliance with various legislations so as to deprive

the workers of the benefit thereunder.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

Airport Authority of India ought to have been made

a party but not the Chairman or the Executive Engineer.

Prior to March, 1997 converyor belt was not commissioned

at Hyderabad airport. The date of commissioning of Rajiv

Gandhi Terminal was 10.3.1997 as such, there was no need

to operate the conveyor belt before that date. There is no

employer and employee relationship between AAI and

Petitioner. Petitioner never reported to any Airport Authority

of India official and AAI never marked his attendance. No

payment was made by AAI to the Petitioner. AAI's

involvement is limited to the general supervision of works

that was being done through agency fof contractors. AAI

do not have any regular conveyor belt operator with whom

the job of Petitioner can be compared. AAI has discontinued

the operation of the conveyors. Conveyors are operated

by respective airline operators. The Government of India's

order dated 16.11.1999 was quashed by the Delhi High

Court on 22.11.2001. Therefore, no relief can be claimed on

the strength of said government order. At present AAI is

getting the periodic maintenance of the conveyors done

through agencies having technical expertise in the field.

There is no regular deployment of the staff of AAI for this

purpose. The order of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. dated

19.4.2001 referred in the petition does not speak of

continuation of the labour. At present 4th Respondent is

carrying out periodic maintenance of the conveyor belt at

Hyderabad airport. There is no industrial dispute what so

ever that could be raised against the Respondents No. 1

and 2. There is no post as conveyor Belt Operator cum

Electrician, 'khalasi' helper, electrician, fitter etc., in

Respondent's organization. Conveyer belts have never

been operated by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and the

same are being operated by the airlines on their own. No

operator is required for Respondents 1 and 2. AAI is

responsible only for the periodic maintenance of the

conveyor belts. For which no operator is required. The

contention of the Petitioner that AAI deployed regular

employees for operating conveyor belt is not correct.

Petitioner never approached Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. Petition is liable to be

dismissed.

4. By virtue of order dated 9.5.2007 3rd Respondent

has been set exparte and by virtue of order dated 7.3.2007

4th Respondent has been set exparte by this forum.

5. Since main case itself is being disposed off, the

court need not consider the interim reliefs sought for.

6. To substantiate the contentions of the workman

he examined himself as WW1 by filing his chief examination

affidavit. But he was not subject to any cross examination

by the Respondent. As Respondent was not showing any

interest to cross examine the said witness, his right to cross

examine the said witness forfeited by virtue of order

29.7.2011. No evidence was adduced for the Respondent.

7. Heard either party.

8. The Point that arise for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the main reliefs

sought for?

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2199

9. Point:

The workman invoked Sec. 2 A(1) and (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and filed this petition seeking for a relief of

declaration that the Petitioner is deemed to be continuing

in service pending regularization of services and

consequently to direct the respondents to pay wages to

him from the date of termination including difference of

pay of regular employee with 12% interest till date of

payment. This is a very vague relief sought for. It can be

said so since no where in the petition, Petitioner claimed

that he initiated any proceeding seeking for regularization

of his services. In such case seeking for declaration that he

is deemed to be continuing in service pending regularization

of his services does not arise. Like wise, the consequential

direction to the respondents sought for, to pay him any

wages, also does not arise.

10. Further more, a careful perusal of the material

made available on the record including the pleading of the

Petitioner, giving rise to a conclusion that Petitioner's claims

themselves are vague. Petitioner, on one hand is claiming

that he is an employee of the 2nd Respondent. On the

other hand he is claiming that he is an employee of third

Respondent, having allotted by the 2nd Respondent to

work under the 3rd Respondent. 2nd Respondent is an

executive engineer of AAI. 3rd Respondent is a private

company. How 2nd Respondent can engage a worker and

allot him to work under 3rd Respondent is a question which

remained unanswered.

11. Further more, Petitioner is relying upon a

document dated 5.6.2000 said to have been issued by one

Kalavathi Electricals which is to the effect that Petitioner

worked in their concern and has been associated with

maintenance of baggage conveyor system at Rajiv Gandhi

Terminal building or N.T.R. Terminal building at Hyderabad

Airport. Petitioner claimed that said Kalavathi Electrical

works is sub-contractor for the 3rd Respondent. But, the

certificate issued by said Kalavathi Electrical Works does

not show that the said firm is a sub-contractor to the 3rd

Respondent. In such case how the Petitioner, who

appeared to have worked for said Kalavathi Electrical

Works can claim that 3rd Respondent got anything to do

with the work done by him is also a question which remains

unanswered. As it is the contention of the Petitioner

himself, that Petitioner worked for Kalavathi Electrical

Works a sub-contractor of 3rd Respondent, 3rd

Respondent will not have anything to do with him.

Kalavathi electrical works is his employer. The certificate

issued by Kalavathi Electrical Works is his employer.

dated 5.6.2000 clearly indicates that Petitioner has been

working in their concern.

12. In the given circumstances, question of either of

the Respondents 1 to 4 terminating services of the Petitioner

does not arise.

13. In view of the fore gone discussion, it can

safely be held that there is no industrial dispute to be

dissolved, existing among the parties to this petition

and that Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs

sought for.

14. Result:

In the result, Petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this the 17th

day of January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri M Balakrishna

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 821.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

40@2005½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&15025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 821.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 40/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11/2/2014.

[No.L-15025/01/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT: SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 40/2005

Between:

Sri G. Chandra Sekhar,

S/o G. Yadaiah,

H.No.8-1-107, Shaikpet,

Golconda Post,

Hyderabad-500 008

........Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India,

Safdar Jung Airport, New Delhi-1

The Executive Engineer (Ele.),

Airport Authority of India,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad-500 016.

M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.,

Early Street, Calcutta,

C/o Kalavathi Electrical Works,

1-9-53/2, Alwal, Secunderabad-500 015.

M/s. I.C.S. Systems Ltd.,

4-135, Fatehnagar,

Hyderabad.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner

: Sri Ch. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent : M/s. M. Vijaya Kumar, I Sambasiva

Rao & D. Sreekanth, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri G. Chandra Sekhar, the

workman invoking Sec.2 A (1) and (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947

seeking for a relief declaring that the Petitioner is deemed

to be continuing in service pending regularization of

services, and consequently directing the respondents to

pay wages from the date of termination including difference

of pay of regular employee with 12% interest p.a. till the

date of payment together with attendant benefits. He also

sought for the following interim reliefs i.e., to reinstate him

into service of the 4th respondent or else where and also

for directing the third respondent to pay wages pending

adjudication of the dispute and from the date of oral

termination i.e., 17.7.2000 with interest at 12% p.a. till the

date of retirement.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner has been working as Helper in the ELectrical

department of the 2nd Respondent since 1.7.1999. He was

interviewed by the Junior Executive Engineer, of Airport

Authority of India, Hyderabad in the year 1995 and was

selected for Employment as N.M.R. and he was allotted to

work under the 3rd Respondent represented by its sub-

contractor i.e., Kalavathi Electrical Works. He was paid

monthly salary of Rs. 1860/-. His signature was being taken

in wage register. He used to perform duties at Rajiv Gandhi

Terminal or N.T.R. Terminal as conveyor belt operator and

also used to perform or assist the operation and

maintenance and also to repairs of passenger baggage

conveyor system; daily, weekly and annual maintenance

schedule during their duty timings. He got requisite

knowledge of the work of conveyor belt operating and its

repairs. His attendance was marked by J.E., Electrical, who

is an officer of Airport Authority of India (A.A.I.) and his

salary was being paid by the Airport. Therefore it is clear

that he was completely under the control of the 2nd

Respondent who is the principal employer. He was given

identity card and his signatures were obtained in log books

maintained by the contractors. He worked round the clock

without a holiday or over time. He worked on par with the

regular employees of the department though he was denied

the facilities to which the regular employees are provided

with like pay scales, holidays, weekly offs, casual leaves

etc., with the expectation that his services would be

regularised in future. The work is perennial in nature and

Ist Respondent ought to have considered case of the

Petitioner and regularised his services, after abolishing of

the contract labour system by the Government of India

vide notification No. SO. 114/E dated 16.11.1999. Petitioner

is qualified with respect to eligibility to hold the posts in

which he worked, on a regular basis. After the system of

contract labour was abolished consequent to notification

issued on 16.11.1999, the AAI became direct employer

eliminating the middlemen and the contractor thereby with

effect from 16.11.1999 there is relationship of employer and

employee between the 2nd Respondent and the Petitioner.

Without complying with the rules of Contract Labour (R&A)

particularly Sec. 14, i.e., Procedure for Termination of

Services or Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 4th

Respondent orally terminated the services of the Petitioner

from 17.7.2000 and engaged men of their choice thus

depriving livelihood of the Petitioner. Aggrieved by the

illegal termination of the Petitioner by 4th Respondent their

union namely Airport Authority Kamgar Union, filed a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2201

petition invoking Sec. 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Hyderabad but no conciliation took place. 2nd Respondent

continued the contract labour system even till today,

initially through the 3rd Respondent and now through the

4th Respondent. After Petitioner was terminated without

notice, 4th Respondent engaged other persons in

Petitioner's place, though the Respondents were specifically

directed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in their order

dated in WVMP 3479/2000 in WPMP No. 16170/2000, not

to replace the Petitioner with the third parties. The persons

who were working on aero bridge were brought to work on

conveyor belt by 4th Respondent. In spite of Petitioner

putting in 240 days of continuous service each year without

complying with the provisions of Sec. 25F of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 his services were terminated. It is to be

verified whether the contract is a genuine contract or it is a

mere ruse or camouflage to evade compliance with various

legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

thereunder.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

Airport Authority of India ought to have been made

a party but not the Chairman or the Executive Engineer.

Prior to March, 1997 conveyor belt was not

commissioned at Hyderabad airport. The date of

commissioning of Rajiv Gandhi Terminal was 10.3.1997

as such, there was no need to operate the conveyor belt

before that date. There is no employer and employee

relationship between AAI and Petitioner. Petitioner never

reported to any Airport Authority of India official and

AAI never marked his attendance. No payment was

made by AAI to the Petitioner. AAI's involvement is

limited to the general supervision of works that was being

done through agency of contractors. AAI do not have

any regular conveyor belt operator with whom the job

of Petitioner can be compared. AAI has discontinued

the operation of the conveyors. Conveyors are operated

by respective airline operators. The Government of

India's order dated 16.11.1999 was quashed by the Delhi

High Court on 22.11.2001. Therefore, no relief can be

claimed on the strength of said government order. At

present AAI is getting the periodic maintenance of the

conveyors done through agencies having technical

expertise in the field. There is no regular deployment of

the staff of AAI for this purpose. The order of Hon'ble

High Court of A.P. dated 19.4.2001 referred in the petition

does not speak of continuation of the labour. At present

4th Respondent is carrying out periodic maintenance of

the conveyor belt at Hyderabad airport. There is no

industrial dispute whatsoever that could be raised

against the Respondents No. 1 and 2. There is no post

as Conveyor Belt Operator-cum-Electrician, helper,

electrician, fitter etc., in Respondent's organization.

Conveyer belts have never been operated by the

Respondents No. 1 and 2 and the same are being

operated by the airlines on their own. No operator is

required for Respondent 1 and 2. AAI is responsible

only for the periodic maintenance of the conveyor belts.

For which no operator is required. The contention of the

Petitioner that AAI deployed regular employees for

operating conveyor belt is not correct. Petitioner never

approached Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Hyderabad. Petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. By virtue of order dated 9.5.2007 3rd Respondent

has been set exparte and by virtue of order dated 7.3.2007

4th Respondent has been set exparte by this forum.

5. Since main case itself is being disposed off, the

court need not consider the interim reliefs sought for.

6. To substantiate the contentions of the workman

he examined himself as WW1 by filing his chief

examination affidavit. But he was not subject to any cross

examination by the Respondent. As Respondent was not

showing any interest to cross examine the said witness,

his right to cross examine the said witness forfeited by

virtue of order 29.7.2011. No evidence was adduced for

the Respondent.

7. Heard either party.

8. The Point that arise for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the main reliefs

sought for?

9. Point:

The workman invoked Sec. 2A (1) and (2) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 and filed this petition seeking for a relief of

declaration that the Petitioner is deemed to be continuing

in service pending regularization of services and

consequently to direct the respondents to pay wages to

him from the date of termination including difference of

pay of regular employee with 12% interest till date of

payment. This is a very vague relief sought for. It can be

said so since no where in the petition, Petitioner claimed

that he initiated any proceeding seeking for regularization

of his services. In such case seeking for declaration that he

is deemed to be continuing in service pending regularization

of his services does not arise. Likewise, the consequential

direction to the respondents sought for, to pay him any

wages, also does not arise.

10. Further more, a careful perusal of the material

made available on the record including the pleading of the

Petitioner, giving rise to a conclusion that Petitioner's claims

themselves are vague. Petitioner, on one hand is claiming

that he is an employee of the 2nd Respondent. On the

2202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

other hand he is claiming that he is an employee of third

Respondent, having allotted by the 2nd Respondent to

work under the 3rd Respondent. 2nd Respondent is an

Executive Engineer of AAI. 3rd Respondent is a private

company. How 2nd Respondent can engage a worker and

allot him to work under 3rd Respondent is a question which

remained unanswered.

11. Furthermore, Petitioner is relying upon a

document dated 5.6.2000 said to have been issued by one

Kalavathi Electricals which is to the effect that Petitioner

worked in their concern and has been associated with

maintenance of baggage conveyor system at Rajiv Gandhi

Terminal building or N.T.R. Terminal building at Hyderabad

Airport. Petitioner claimed that said Kalavathi Electrical

works is sub-contractor for the 3rd Respondent. But, the

certificate issued by said Kalavathi Electrical Works does

not show that the said firm is a sub-contractor to the 3rd

Respondent. In such case how the Petitioner, who

appeared to have worked for said Kalavathi Electrical

Works can claim that 3rd Respondent got anything to do

with the work done by him is also a question which remains

unanswered. As it is the contention of the Petitioner

himself, that Petitioner worked for Kalavathi Electrical

Works a sub-contractor of 3rd Respondent, 3rd

Respondent will not have anything to do with him.

Kalavathi Electrical Works is his employer. The certificate

issued by Kalavathi Electrical Works dated 5.6.2000 clearly

indicates that Petitioner has been working in their

concern.

12. In the given circumstances, question of either of

the Respondents 1 to 4 terminating services of the Petitioner

does not arise.

13. In view of the foregone discussion, it can safely

be held that there is no industrial dispute to be dissolved,

existing among the parties to this petition and that

Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

14. Result:

In the result, Petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri,

Personal Assistant and corrected by me on this 17th day of

January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri G. Chandra Sekhar

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 822.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

38@2005½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&15025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 822.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 38/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Airport Authority of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 11/2/2014.

[No.L-15025/01/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:

Smt. M. Vijaya Lakshmi, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 38/2005

Between:

Sri Syed Jahangir,

S/o Syed Abdul Salam,

H.No. 26-150, Roadamastry Nagar,

Gajularamaram, Shapurnagar

Ranga Reddy District- 500 055.

….Petitioner

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2203

AND

The Chairman,

Airport Authority of India,

Sardar Jung Airport, New Delhi-1

The Executive Engineer (Ele)

Airport Authority of India,

Hyderabad Airport, Begumpet,

Hyderabad - 500016.

M/s. Gannon Dunkerly & Co.,

Early Street, Calcutta,

C/o Kalavathi Electrical Works,

1-9-53/2, Alwal, Secunderabad - 500 015.

M/s I.C.S. Systems Ltd.,

5-135, Fatehnagar,

Hyderabad.

…Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner

Sri Ch. Indrasena Reddy, Advocate

For the Respondent :

M/s M. Vijaya Kumar, I.

Sambasiva Rao & D. Sreekanth,

Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri Syed Jahangir, the

workman invoking Sec. 2 A (1) and (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947

seeking for a relief declaring that the Petitioner is deemed

to be continuing in service pending regularization of

services, and consequently directing the respondents to

pay wages from the date of terminating including difference

of pay of regular employee with 12% interest p.a. till the

date of payment together with attendant benefits. He also

sought for the following interim reliefs i.e., to reinstate him

into service of the 4th respondent or else where and also

for directing the third respondent to pay wages pending

adjudication of the dispute and from the date of oral

termination i.e., 17.7.2000 with interest at 12% p.a. till the

date of retirement.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:

Petitioner has been working as Conveyor Belt

Operator-cum-Electrician in the Electrical department of

the 2nd Respondent since 15.3.1995. He was interviewed

by the Junior Executive Engineer, of Airport Authority

of India, Hyderabad in the year 1995 and was selected

for employment as N.M.R. and he was allotted to work

under the 3rd Respondent represented by its sub-

contractor i.e., Kalavathi Electrical Works. He was paid

monthly salary of Rs. 2640/-. His signature was being

taken in wage register. He used to perform duties at Rajiv

Gandhi Terminal or N.T.R. Terminal as conveyor belt

operator and also used to perform or assist the operation

and maintenance and also to repairs of passenger

baggage conveyor system; daily, weekly and annual

maintenance schedule during their duty timings. He got

requisite knowledge of the work of conveyor belt

operating and its repairs. His attendance was market by

J.E., Electrical, who is an officer of Airport Authority of

India (A.A.I.) and his salary was being paid by the

Airport. Therefore it is clear that he was completely under

the control of the 2nd Respondent who is the principal

employer. He was given identity card and his signatures

were obtained in log books maintained by the

contractors. He worked round the clock without a holiday

or over time. He worked on par with the regular

employees of the department though he was denied the

facilities to which the regular employees are provided

with like pay scales, holidays, weekly offs, casual leaves

etc., with the expectation that his services would be

regularized in future. The work is perennial in nature

and 1st Respondent ought to have considered case of

the Petitioner and regularized his services, after

abolishing of the contract labour system by the

Government of India vide notification No. SO. 114/E dated

16.11.1999. Petitioner is qualified with respect to

eligibility to hold the posts in which he worked, on a

regular basis. After the system of contract labour was

abolished consequent to notification issued on

16.11.1999, the AAI became direct employer eliminating

the middlemen and the contractor thereby with effect

from 16.11.1999 there is relationship of employer and

employee between the 2nd Respondent and the

Petitioner. Without complying with the rules of Contract

Labour (R&A) particular Sec. 14, i.e., Procedure For

Termination of Services or Sec. 25F of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, 4th Respondent orally terminated

the services of the Petitioner from 17.7.2000 and engaged

men of their choice thus depriving livelihood of the

Petitioner. Aggrieved by the illegal termination of the

Petitioner by 4th Respondent their union namely Airport

Authority Kamgar Union, filed a petition invoking

Sec.2(k) of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 before the

Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad

but no conciliation took place. 2nd Respondent

continued the contract labour system even till today,

initially through the 3rd Respondent and now through

the 4th Respondent. After Petitioner was terminated

without notice, 4th Respondent engaged other persons

in Petitioner's place, though the Respondents were

specifically directed by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

2204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in their order dated in WVMP 3479/2000 in WPMP No.

16170/2000, not to replace the Petitioner with the third

parties. The persons who were working on aero bridge

were brought to work on conveyor belt by 4th

Respondent. In spite of Petitioner putting in 240 days of

continuous service each year without complying with

the provisions of Sec. 25F of Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 his services were terminated. It is to be verified

whether the contract is a genuine contract or it is a mere

ruse or camouflage to evade compliance with various

legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit

thereunder.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

Airport Authority of India ought to have been made

a party but not the Chairman or the Executive Engineer.

Prior to march, 1947 conveyor belt was not commissioned

at Hyderabad airport. The date of commissioning of Rajiv

Gandhi Terminal was 10.3.1997 as such, there was no

need to operate the conveyor belt before that date. The

contention of the Petitioner that he was engaged by

AAI from 15.3.1995 onwards is totally incorrect. AAI

got nothing to do with the Petitioner before 13.3.1997 as

there was no conveyor belt operation till that date. Prior

to 13.3.97 Petitioner might have worked under any

contractor as an unskilled labour for the erection of

conveyor which is not a continuous process and which

does not require any regular employment. There is no

employer and employee relationship between AAI and

Petitioner. Petitioner never reported to any Airport

Authority of India official and AAI never marked his

attendance. No payment was made by AAI to the

Petitioner. AAI's involvement is limited to the general

supervision of works that was being done through

agency of contractors. AAI do not have any regular

conveyor belt operator with whom the job of Petitioner

can be compared. AAI has discontinued the operation

of the conveyors. Conveyors are operated by respective

airline operators. The Government of India's order dated

16.11.1999 was quashed by the Delhi High Court on

22.11.2001. Therefore, no relief can be claimed on the

strength of said government order. At present AAI is

getting the periodic maintenance of the conveyors done

through agencies having technical expertise in the field.

There is no regular deployment of the staff of AAI for

this purpose. The order of Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

dated 19.4.2001 referred in the petition does not speak

of continuation of the labour. At present 4th Respondent

is carrying out periodic maintenance of the conveyor

belt at Hyderabad airport. There is no industrial dispute

whatsoever that could be raised against the Respondents

No. 1 and 2. There is no post as Conveyor Belt Operator

cum Electrician, helper, electrician, fitter etc., in

Respondent's organization. Conveyor belts have never

been operated by the Respondents No. 1 and 2 and the

same are being operated by the airlines on their own. No

operator is required for Respondent 1 and 2. AAI is

responsible only for the periodic maintenance of the

conveyor belts. For which no operator is required. The

contention of the Petitioner that AAI deployed regular

employees for operating conveyor belt is not correct.

Petitioner never approached Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central), Hyderabad. Petition is liable to

be dismissed.

4. By virtue or order 9.5. 2007, 3rd Respondent has

been set exparte and by virtue of order dated 7.3.2007 4th

Respondent has been set exparte by this forum.

5. Since main case itself is being disposed off, the

court need not consider the interim relief sought for.

6. To substantiate the contentions of the workman

he examined himself as WW1 by filling his chief

examination affidavit. But he was not subject to any cross

examination by the Respondent. As Respondent was not

showing any interest to cross examine the said witness,

his right to cross examine the said witness forfeited by

virtue of order 29.7.2011. No evidence was adduced for

the Respondent.

7. Heard either party.

8. The Point that arise for determination is:

Whether the Petitioner is entitled for the main reliefs

sought for?

9. Point:

The workman invoked Sec. 2 A (1) and (2) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 and filed this petition seeking for a relief

of declaration that the Petitioner is deemed to be

continuing in service pending regularization of services

and consequently to direct the respondents to pay

wages to him from the date of termination including

difference of pay of regular employee with 12% interest

till date of payment. This is a very vague relief sought

for. It can be said so since no where in the petition,

Petition claimed that he initiated any proceeding seeking

for regularization of his services. In such case seeking

for declaration that he is deemed to be continuing in

service pending regularization of his services does not

arise. Likewise, the consequential direction to the

respondents sought for, to pay him any wages, also

does not arise.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2205

10. Further more, a careful perusal of the material made

available on the record including the pleading of Petitioner,

giving rise to a conclusion that Petitioner's claims

themselves are vague. Petitioner, on one hand is claiming

that he is an employee of the 2nd Respondent. On the

other hand he is claiming that he is an employee of third

Respondent, having allotted by the 2nd Respondent to

work under the 3rd Respondent. 2nd Respondent is an

executive engineer of AAI. 3rdRespondent is a private

company. How 2nd Respondent can engage a worker and

allot him to work under 3rd Respondent is a question which

remained unanswered.

11. Furthermore, Petitioner is relying upon a document

dated 6.7.2000 said to have been issued by one Kalavathi

Electricals which is to the effect that Petitioner worked in

their concern and has been associated with maintenance

of baggage conveyor system at Rajiv Gandhi Terminal

building or N.T.R. Terminal building at Hyderabad Airport.

Petitioner claimed that said Kalavathi Electrical works is

sub-contractor for the 3rd Respondent. But, the certificate

issued by the Kalavathi Electrical Works does not show

that the said firm is a sub-contractor to the 3rd Respondent.

In such case how the Petitioner, who appeared to have

worked for said Kalavathi Electrical Works can claim that

3^rd Respondent got anything to do with the work done by

him is also a question which remains unanswered. As it is

the contention of the Petitioner himself, that Petitioner

worked for Kalavathi Electrical Works a sub-contractor of

3rd Respondent, 3rd Respondent will not have anything

to do with him. Kalavathi Electrical Works is his employer.

The certificate issued by Kalawathi Electrical Works dated

6.7.2000 clearly indicates the Petitioner has been working

in their concern.

12. In the given circumstances, question of either of the

Respondents 1 to 4 terminating services of the Petitioner

does not arise.

13. In view of the foregone discussion, it can safely be

held that there is no industrial dispute to be dissolved,

existing among the parties to this petition and that

Petitioner is not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

14. Result:

In the result, Petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Syed Jahangir

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 823.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vjiksVZ vFkkWfjVh

vkWQ+ bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

42@2007½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&15025@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 823—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2007) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Airport Authority of India and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-15025/01/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- SMT. M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 42/2007

BETWEEN:

Sri G. Trinadha Reddy,

D.No. 467-11,

Bhagivari Street Dondaparthy,

Visakhapatnam.

.....Petitioner

AND

The Managing Director,

Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited,

Visakhapatnam Steel Plant,

Water Management Department,

Visakhapatnam.

....Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. A. Sarojana & K.

Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s V. Ravinder Rao, S. Nayana

Goud & Ramjoshi, Advocates

2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri G. Trinadh Reddy, Ex.

Technician of respondent (Workman) invoking Sec.2A(2)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for declaring

the order of the respondent No. WK/WMD/109234/2130

dated 29.11.2006 whereunder the workman has been

removed from service as illegal, arbitrary and contradictory

to the provisions of law and consequently directing the

respondent to reinstate the workman into service with back

wages, continuity of service and all other attendant

benefits.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as follows:

The workman was appointed on 22.10.1988. He was

removed from service on 29.11.2006 with baseless

allegations. A charge sheet has been issued against him

alleging that he committed theft of the company's property

with dishonest intention and fradulently and futher that he

failed to maintain absolute integraity. These are all false

and speculative charges. The charge sheet itself is defective

and it prejudges the entire issue even before calling for

explanation of the workman and the enquiry was reduced

into empty formality. The enquiry officer was very keen in

observing the contradictions in the defence while ignoring

serious contradictions in the Management's case and

erroneously held the workman as guilty. The enquiry officer

has not approached the case in objective manner. There

are serious contradictions in the depositions of MWs 4,7

and 8 regarding the purported transactions of loading

metallurgical coke in private dumpers the same raises doubt

against veracity of the witnesses. Sri P.N.A. Naidu a material

witness has not been examined. Sri M. Govidna Rao and

Sri Rehman are also material witnesses, they also have not

been examined. The conclusions drawn by the enquiry

officer are perverse. The workman is unconcerned with the

loading and unloading of the material and he does not

know about the contract in between steel plant and private

contractor. He is not guilty of the charges. He was sincere

in discharging his duties except his salary he got no other

income. He got neither movable nor immovable properties.

The investigation made by the CBI officials establish the

same. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondent filed his counter with the averments in

brief as follows:

Enquiry was conducted against the workman duly

following the procedure. The punishment awarded for the

grave misconduct of the workman is reasonable. His

contentions that he was removed from service on baseless

allegation is not correct. Respondent received a

communications dated 22.7.2003 from Central Bureau of

Investigation stating that a Criminal Case No. 20(A) 2003

dated 18.7.2003 has been registered against the workman

under Sec. 120-B, 420, 477-A of IPC and Sec. 13(2) read with

13(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act for committing an

offence of theft of metallurgical coke. On such information

the Deputy Chief Manager(T) of Water Management

Department being the Disciplinary Authority issued an

order dated 23.7.2003 placing the workman under

suspension pending further proceedings in terms of clause

31.1 of Certified Standing Orders of the company. Since the

information received against the workman from CBI reveals

misconduct prima facie disciplinary proceedings initiated

and charge sheet dated 9.8.2005 has been issued to the

workman. The misconduct noticed is referable under clause

27.25, and clause 27.65 read with clause 7.9(i) of the Standing

Orders. The said clause read as under:

"7.9 Every employee shall at all times,

(i) Maintain absolute integrity.

27.25 Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the

company's business, affairs or operation or

property or of the property entrusted by the

company.

27.65 Any act which constitutes vialation of any

of these Standing Orders".

The contention of the workman that charge sheet has

been the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority

and it speaks prejudging the entire issue even before calling

for explanation is false and baseless. For the charge sheet

the explanation dated 18.8.2005 has been submitted by the

workman. Neither in this explanation nor at any time during

the course of enquiry the workman has complained that

the charge sheet is in the nature of prejudging the issue.

Without any demur he participated in the enquiry and

availed the opportunity afforded. Thus, his contention that

the enquiry was reduced to an empty formality is incorrect.

Perusal of the enquiry report reveals that enquiry was

conducted in unbiased and balanced manner. The workman

has submitted written arguments before the enquiry officer

and in it also he never has complained that the matter has

been prejudged. The allegation relating to illness of the

workman's daughter is an after thought. It was never raised

during the course of enquiry. The calls made by the workman

and other relevant persons from their mobile phones were

duly considered by the enquiry officer. There are no

contradictions in the evidence of MWs No. 4,7 and

8 regarding loading of metallurgical coke on the instructions

of workman, payment of Rs. 500 to MW4 in the presence of

the workman at the site when the loading operation took

place. No witnesses were examined as DW7 and 8. Workman

has examined only four witnesses i.e., DWs No. 1 to 4. It is

established beyond reasonable doubt that the mobile phone

in question belonged to the workman and he made calls

to certain persons relevant/connected to the misconduct/

theft committed. Workman also received calls from such

persons. Material evidence on record clearly establish

that the workman and his brother Shri G. Murali Krishna

Reddy were involved in the unauthorized coke business

by diverting the same from the coke stock yard. Whether

the workman being in possession of movable or immovable

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2207

property has been revealed during the investigation by

the CBI is not relevant to the charges framed against the

workman. The question relevant is whether the evidence

let in by the presenting officer during the course of the

enquiry established misconduct of the workman. The

workman was afforded due opportunity by following

principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the impugned

order of removal of workman from service workman

submitted duly signed final settlement forms for payment

of final settlement which has been paid to him. It amounts

to acceptance of the order of removal. The petition is liable

to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

5. After hearing both parties regarding validity of

domestic enquiry by virtue of order dated 16.6.2010 this

forum held that the domestic enquiry conducted in this

case is legal and valid.

6. Heard the arguments of either party under Sec. 11(A)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Futher for respondent

its represented that written arguments filed for them at the

time of hearing regarding validity of domestic enquiry are

to be considered as arguments under Sec. 11(A) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the same are considered.

7. The points arise for determination are:

I. Whether the impugned order dated 29.11.2006

removing the workman from service is legal and

valid?

II. Whether the workman is entitled for relief of

reinstatement into service and other consequential

reliefs sought for?

III. To what relief the workman is entitled for?

8. Point No.1:

The workman is attacking the impugned order mainly

on the ground that the charge sheet is appearing to be a

conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority and speaks

prejudging the entire issue even before calling for the

examination of the workman. To verify whether this

contention is correct or otherwise, charge sheet is perused.

On such perusal, it is found that this contention is not at all

sustainable. The charge sheet contains only allegations

and basis for the said allegations is supplied to the

Petitioner in annexure-I, annexed to the charge sheet. Thus,

the contention of the workman that charge sheet itself is a

conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority and it speacks

prejudging the entire issue, cannot be accepted.

9. It is the other contention of the workman that the

entire issue is prejudged and enquiry has been reduced as

an empty formality as can be seen from the manner in which

it was conducted. To verify the correctness or otherwise of

this contention, the enquiry proceedings produced before

this court have been perused, apart from perusing the

enquiry report. As can be seen from the same at every

stage of the enquiry proceeding the workman has been

given due opportunity to participate. There is not violation

of principles of natural justice in this case. The workman

has elaborately cross examined all the witnesses examined

for the Management. Further, he was given opportunity to

place his defence evidence and he examined five witnesses

in all as DWs 1 to 5. A perusal of the enquiry report clearly

shows that not only the evidence of Management but also

that of the defence was duly considered by the enquiry

officer while arriving at, his findings. Therefore, the

contection of the workman that the enquiry conducted in

this case is reduced to an empty fomality, can not be

accepted.

10. Not only the salient features of the evidence of

Management but also that of the defence of the workman

and further the respective arguments of the Management

as well as workman were duly considered by the enquiry

officer, as can be seen from the material on record. It can be

seen that the findings of the enquiry officer are not at all

pervert. Considering the evidence which could be brought

on record against the workman the said findings can not

be taken as unsubstantiated. There is ample evidence

brought on record regarding the involvement of the

workman in the theft and fraud committed against the

Management. It some other persons are also involved in

the same, and some other crucial evidence also available

but the same was not brought on record like the evidence

of Sri P.N.A. Naidu, the same will not exonerate the workman,

when the evidence already made available on record is

sufficiently establishing his guilt. The question to be gone

into is whether the findings given against him by the

enquiry officer are not having any support from the

evidence made available on record. As already observed

above, a perusal of the material on record clearely discloses

that there is sufficient evidence available on record which

can give raise to a finding that the workman is guilty of the

fraud, theft and misconduct alleged against him. The

evidence adduced on record for Management is

independent and dispassionate in nature. This can be said

so since, as can be seen from the record it is not the

contention of the workman that either of the witnesses

examined for Management got any personal grudge against

the workman.

11. There is ample evidence against the workman made

available on record which bring home his guilt. This

evidence has been dispassionately considered by the

enquiry officer in the light of various contentions raised

for the defence of the workman and after scrutinizing and

analyzing the same, came to the conclusion that the

workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The

contention of the workman that the contradictions in the

evidence of Management have been ignored by the enquiry

officer is not correct. What ever contradictions which are

there, they have been considered duly. The contentions

raised by the workmen during the course of enquiry have

been duly enumerated and have been dealt with in the

enquiry proceeding. The various circumstances like the

2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mobile call details secured in the case and the persons

among whom the calls were made were all duly considered.

There is direct evidence adduced on record regarding

involvement of the workman in the incident of theft. The

witnesses have duly identified him. The contentions raised

contra are not correct. Thus, the findings of the enquiry

officer do not warrant any interference.

12. The findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are

supported by due reasons, as can be seen from the enquiry

report. The statement of the witnesses recorded in the

presence of the workman during the course of domestic

enquiry alone were considered by the enquiry officer while

coming to various conclusions in the enquiry. Therefore,

the principles laid down in the cases of Valli Kumari (2010)

2 SCC 497 and A C Ravindran Vs High Court of A.P.

2011(2)ALD 275 (Division Bench)", relied upon by learned

counsel for the workman are not helpful to his case. As can

be seen from the enquiry report statement of any witness

recorded during the preliminary enquiry has not been relied

upon while drawing conclusions in the matter therefore,

the principles laid down in the case of "Champaklal, Vs.

Union of India reported in AIR 1964 SC 1854" relied upon

for the workman is also not applicable to the facts of this

case. One can not dispute with the principle that once

regular enquiry is held, the preliminary enquiry loses its

importance and evidence adduced during preliminary

enquiry can not be used in regular enquiry. That does not

mean the evidence gathered during preliminary enquiry

can not at all be brought on record during regular enquiry.

It can be brought on record by proving the facts regarding

which the said evidence pertains, afresh in the presence of

the charged employee. In present case, what ever evidence

which is brought on record during the course of the enquiry

and in the presence of the workman alone has been

considered by the enquiry officer for arriving at various

conclusions in his enquiry report. Thus, the principles laid

down in the cases of "Narayana Dattatreya Ramathirtakar

Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1997) 1 SCC 299

and Nirmala J Jala Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2013

(4) SCC 301", relied upon for workman are also not

applicable to the facts of this case.

13. As can be seen from the material on record after

receiving the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority

has supplied copy of the same to the workman and called

for his remarks. The workman submitted his remarks dated

5.12.2006. Thereafter, the impugned punishment order dated

29.11.2006 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority,

removing the workman from service. This order is clearly

showing that the Disciplinary Authority has gone through

the entire record and considering the grave nature of the

charges which are established against the workman, passed

the impugned order.

14. The charges leveled against the workman and which

are proved against him clearly establish a very grave

misconduct. As per said established charges the workman

has committed theft of the property of the Management by

playing fraud. It amounts to grave misconduct. For such

fraudulent behaviour removal of the workman from service

is a very much appropriate punishment. Therefore, it can

not be said that the punishment awarded is in any way

disproportionate to the charge proved against the workman.

15. In view of the fore gone discussion it can safely be

held that the impugned order dated 29.11.2006 is legal and

valid and is not liable to be interfered with in any manner.

This point is answered accordingly.

16. Point No. II:

In view of the finding given in Point No. I workman is

not entitled for any of the reliefs sought for.

This point is answered accordingly.

17. Result:

In the result petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal

Assistant and corrected by me on this the 3rd day of

January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 824.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eSlwj feujYl fyfeVsM

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2004½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@54@2003&vkbZvkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th Feburary, 2014

S.O. 824.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2004) 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

Mysore Minerals Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-29012/54/2003-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2209

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED

2nd January, 2014

PRESENT

Shri S.N. Navalgund,

Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 16/2004

I Party

II Party

Sh. B.M. Lakshmaiah,

The Managing Director,

S/o Late Mudalagiri, Near

Mysore Minerals Limited,

Doddimane Colony,

No. 39, M.G. Road,

Bageshpura and Post,

Bangalore-560 001.

Arasikere Taluk,

Hassan-573 162.

APPEARANCES

I Party

Shri B.N. Byrappa,

Advocate

II Party

Shri N. Ganesh,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-29012/54/

2003-IR(M) dated 13.02.2004 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Mysore Minerals

Limited is justified in (1) Cancelling the relieving order

already issued (2) Issuing Charge Sheet and

conducted an enquiry against an employee already

relieved and holding him guilty of unauthorised

absence (3) not making payment of dues to Sri B.M.

Lakshmaiah on his reliving from duties? If not to

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C.R.

16/2004 when notices were issued to both the sides they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and claim statement of the I Party came to be

filed on 01.06.2004, whereas, the counter statement of the

II Party on 23.02.2005.

3. The I Party in his claim statement allieges that he who

was working as a Labour/Mazdoor in Mysore Minerals

Limited in Shantigrama, Near Dumagere Village and on

introduction of Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the II Party

during August/September, 1998 he submitted his

application seeking voluntary retirement and the same was

being accepted by the II Party he was relieved from the

duty w.e.f. 31.10.1998. It is further allieged that on

acceptance of Voluntary Retirement Scheme and relieving

him on 31.10.1998 the II Party had not settled or paid all the

service emoluments and benefits to him and now the II

Party has come out with a version that he was not entitle

for voluntary retirement and his application was wrongly

considered and that letter was sent to him to report for

duty which is not in fact received by him and II Party is

also further claiming that he was issued with a show cause

notice to report for duty within 7 days which also infact

not received by him and that II Party is claiming that he has

remained absent unauthorisedly as such Domestic Enquiry

was initiated against him in which he was informed that he

should report for duty and that later I made a statement

that I am unable to continue the service and is interested in

the Agricultural work as such I have been removed from

service on the basis of the said letter which infact he has

not submitted at all. Thus, he has submitted that he is

entitle for all the service benefits consequent to acceptance

of his voluntary retirement as per the company's rules and

regulations. Interalia, in the counter statement filed by the

II Party it is contended the I Party who was working as

Mazdoor in its Dumagere Granite Quarry situated in Hassan

Taluk had remained absent to the duty unauthorizedly from

19.08.1998 and in the meantime on its introduction during

August/September, 1998 he submitted an application under

the said scheme seeking voluntary retirement and on the

basis of that application he was permitted to retire w.e.f.

31.10.1998 along with others who opted for voluntary

retirement under the said scheme but subsequently on

rescrutinization of all the applications it was found that the

I Party had not completed 15 years of Service which was

mandatory was not eligible for opting for the voluntary

retirement scheme and same was erroneously accepted,

the II Party had directed the quarry manager on 02.11.1998

to call back him to duty with immediate effect and

accordingly the Manager, Dumagere Granite quarry vide

his memo dated 02.11.1998 had directed him to report to

duty immediately duly intimating him that the order issued

relieving him from the duties w.e.f. 31.10.1998 has been

withdrawn and as he failed to report to the duty another

memo dated 07.11.1998 was sent to him directing to report

to the duty immediately for which also he did not respond.

It is further contended since the I Party continued to remain

absent unauthorisedly the Manager, Dumagere Granite

Quarry issued a Show-cause Notice dated 12.12.1998

directing to report for duty within 7 days along with

explanation for unauthorised absence further cautioning

in case he failed to report for duty he would be dismissed

from service. It is further contended the said show cause

notice was being returned unserved with an endorsement

"Refused return to the Sender" the Manager, Ordered for a

Domestic Enquiry by appointing Sh. K.S. Umesh, Assistant

Executive Engineer (Electrical) Unit, Hassan and the said

Enquiry Officer securing the presence of the I Party on his

admission of the guilt of staying away from duty from

02.11.1998 with a request to extend him a final opportunity

to report for duty. Accordingly a report was being submitted

2210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

considering his request in the enquiry and on humanitarian

grounds he was directed to report to the duty vide memo

dated 06.10.1999 but as he did not responded to it finally

one more show cause notice was issued to him from the

Head office calling for explanation within 10 days from the

date of receipt of notice as to why he should not be

dismissed from the company's service for his unauthorised

absence from duty since 02.11.1998 and to that notice a

reply was sent through his advocate stating that he being

aged is not in a position to do the work in mine and he has

been engaged in Agricultural activities and is not interested

to work as Mazdoor in the mine. On the basis of that reply

holding him guilty of acting of staying away from duty

from 02.11.1998 which amounts to serious misconduct as

defined under clause 11(2)(e) of the Certified Standing

Orders of the II Party which attracts major penalty, he has

been dismissed from duty w.e.f. 10.04.2000. Thus, the II

Party has prayed for rejecting the reference.

4. After completion of the pleadings my learned

predecessor while framing a Preliminary issue as to whether

the Domestic Enquiry conducted by the II Party against

the I Party is fair and proper called upon the II Party to lead

evidence first on the said issue. The learned advocate

appearing for the II Party while filling the affidavit

Sh. Govindappa K.Y. Office Superintendent of the II Party

and SK Umesh the Enquiry Officer of the Domestic Enquiry,

later giving up the affidavit evidence of Govindappa K.Y.

Office Superintendent further examining K.S. Umesh,

Enquiry Officer on oath got exhibited Circular dated

20.07.1998; application by the I Party for Voluntary

Retirement Scheme; Show cause Notice issued to the

I Party; Enquiry Report; Second Show cause notice issued

to the I Party; order the Disciplinary Authority; Legal notice

issued by the I party to the II Party; Reply given by the

II Party to the I Party as Ex M-1 to Ex M-9, Inter alia, the

I Party filed his affidavit in liew of his evidence and after

his cross-examination his side was being closed my learned

predecessor after hearing the argguments of the learned

advocates on both sides when the case was posted for

order on the Preliminary Issue to 20.11.2007 on that day

while observing:

"After having gone through the records, more

particularly, the point of the reference schedule, it

appears to me that the question with regard to the

validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry

proceedings is required to be determined subject to

the finding to the recorded by this tribunal on the

point as to whether the management was justified in

cancelling the relieving order and in issuing the charge

sheet and conducting an enquiry itself, against the

first party who was said to be already relieved from

duties. Incase, the management justified its action

in cancelling the relieving order already issued and

in issuing the charge sheet and then conducting the

enquiry, then only the question of the first party

remaining absent from duty will arise so as to

determine the next question as to whether the

enquiry conducted against the first party for his

remaining absent from duty was fair and proper or

not. Therefore, the question with regard to the

validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry

proceedings is ordered to be deffered till the

management justify its action in cancelling the

relieving order already passed in favour of the first

party."

Deferred the consideration of the Preliminary Issue and

called upon the II Party to lead evidence on the first point

of reference and as the II party did not avail the said

opportunity posted the matter for evidence of I party on

the said first point of the schedule. The I Party pursuant to

the posting the case for his evidence the first point of the

schedule filed his affidavit in lie of his evidence on

31.12.2010 and examined himself on oath as WW 1 and got

marked Relieving order dated 31.10.1998; Office copy of

the notice issued by was dated 30.09.1999; copy of the

proceedings of the discussion made with the Labour Union

Leaders in the chamber of Managing Director, Mysore

Minerals Limited on 17.12.1998; letter of Manager, Mysore

Minerals Limited, Dumagere; Report of Failure of

Conciliation of ALC(C), Hubli dated 27.11.2003 as Ex W-1

to Ex W-5 and subjected himself for cross-examination by

the learned advocate for the II party and closed his side.

Thereafter when the matter was posted for arguments on

20.04.2011 the counsel for I party filed his written arguments

but since inspite of further grant of two adjournments the

II Party counsel did not address oral agruments or filed

written arguments matter came to be posted for Award.

5. In view of the facts narrated by me above now the

point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the management by Mysore Minerals

Limited is justified in cancelling the relieving order

already issued to Sh. B.M. Lakshmaiah and is not

making payment of dues on his relieving from duties.

6. On appreciation of the pleadings, oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides

with the written arguments submitted for the I Party my

finding on the above point is in the Negative for the

following.

REASONS

7. There is no dispute Sh. B.M. Lakshmaiah (hereinafter

referred as I Party) was working as Mazdoor at Dumangere

Granite Quarry of the Mysore Minerals Limited (hereinafter

referred as II Party) and that on II party introducing

voluntary retirement scheme 1998 copy of which has been

produced at Ex M-1 the I party submitted his application

dated 21-08-1998 seeking voluntary retirement as per Ex

M-2 and accepting the said application he was relieved

from duty w.e.f. 31.10.1998 without making payment of any

benefits payable on acceptance of voluntary retirement

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2211

application and relieving. It is claimed by the II Party that

subsequent to acceptance of the voluntary retirement

application of the I party when it restructinized all the

application received for voluntary retirement it was found

that since I Party had not completed 15 years of service on

the date of filing of the application accepting his voluntary

retirement application was erroneous as such it directed its

Manager, Dumagere Granite Quarry to call upon the I Party

to report to duty intimating that acceptance of his voluntary

application is recalled and accordingly he issued Memo to

him dated 02.11.1998 informing the same through Registered

Post and the same returned with shara "Refused return to

sender". It is true that as per the voluntary retirement

scheme 1998 introduced by the II Party copy of which is

produced at Ex M-1 It is made applicable to regular

permanent employees who had put in 15 years of service

and conpleted 35 years of age and not attained 56 years of

age as on the date of the application and who has been

brought under the identified categories if eligible for

Voluntary Retirement Scheme and as the I party in his cross-

examination has categorically stated that he joined the

company services on 13.10.1983 and the same date has

been mentioned in his application seeking voluntary

retirement which is at Ex M-2 in Column No. 11 the date of

joining the service being 13.10.1983 and as the date of

application for voluntary retirement is dated 21.08.1998 as

on that date his services were short by one month 22 days

for completion of 15 years of service. But when his

voluntary retirement application is accepted and he is

relived on 31.10.1998 as on that day i.e., the date of relieving

him from service he having had completed 15 years of

service, the II Party without issuing him show cause notice

as to why accepting his voluntary retirement application

and relieving him from duty w.e.f., 31.10. 1998 should not

be recalled and he should be ordered to report to duty

taking one sided decision to recall the order accepting his

voluntary retirement application and relieving him from

duties is unsustainable. Though as per clause 4 of Voluntary

Retirement Scheme 1998 copy of which is produced at Ex

M-1 one has to put in 15 years of service as on the date of

the application of II Party while accepting the application

of the I Party dated 21.08.1998 on which date he was short

by one month 22 days to complete 15 years of service

having ordered to relive him w.e.f. 31.10.1998 on which

date he completes 15 years of service its one sided decision

to recall the order accepting his Voluntary Retirement

Scheme application and directing him to report to the duty

is unsustainable and not justified and is liable to pay him

all the benefits due to be paid on acceptance of the

Voluntary Retirement Scheme application. Accordingly,

while answering the point raised by me in the negative, I

pass the following:

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the management

of Mysore Minerals Limited in cancelling the

relieving order already issued to Sh. B.M. Lakshmaiah

accepting the Voluntary Retirement Scheme

application and not making payment of dues to him

is not justified and that he is entitle to all the benefits

that was due to his on acceptance of his Voluntary

Retirement Scheme application and relieving him from

duties w.e.f. 31.10.1998. The II Party shall work out

dues payable to Sh. B.M. Lakshmaiah and pay him

within one month from date of publication of

notification failing which liable to pay interest to him

on that sum @ 12% p.a.

(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 2nd January 2014).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 825.—vkS|kSfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&26012@1@2003&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 825.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2010) 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 Bhilai Steel

Plant and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-26012/1/2003-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/12/2010

Date: 19.09.2013.

Party No. 1:

The Managing Director,

Bhilai Steel Plant,

PO: Bhilai (Chhattisgarh), Distt. Durg

Party No. 2:

Shri Gautam Ghosh (Representative),

III-A Type Qr. No. 11/A, Opposite

Rajhara Hospital Dalli Rajhara,

Durg. (Chhattisgarh)

AWARD

(Dated: 19th 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

2212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bhilai Steel Plant and the 52 Workmen,

(List enclosed) for adjudication, as per letter No. L-26012/

1/2003-IR (M) dated 08.11.2010, with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management of Bhilai

Steel Plant in terminating the services of Shri K.C.K.

Nair and other workmen (List enclosed) is just and

legal? What relief the workmen are entitled and from

which date?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, twenty five applicants out of

the 52 applicants ("the applicants" in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of Bhilai Steel Plant,

("Party No. 1" in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the 25 (twenty five) applicants as presented

in the statement of claim is that the Party No. 1 employed

about 208 persons including them, who were the children

of its employees in the name of "unpaid trainees" with the

condition that during the period of the training, they would

not be paid any wages etc., but they were orally given

assurance that they would be absorbed in the respective

vacancies later on and their applications were scrutinized

and they were called for interview and they were selected

for different trades and were posted to the respective

sections and were made to work with their other workers,

even in shift rotation alongwith production workers and

after 1 1/2 years i.e. in 1993, they were terminated, so they

approached the local trade unions and political leaders etc

several times, but all their efforts went in vain and Party

No.1 did not take any positive action for their reinstatement,

so they approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central), Raipur ("the ALC" in short) in 2002 with the

industrial dispute and during the conciliation proceedings,

the Party No.1 took several objections to their status as

workmen, the nature of the complaint and delay in raising

the dispute and even though Party No. 1 was asked by the

ALC to produce their "B' Registers, Party No. 1 did not

produce the same and lastly, the conciliation proceedings

ended in failure and though the ALC submitted the failure

report to the Central Government, the Central Government

refused to refer the matter for adjudication, on the grounds

that they failed to produce the appointment orders and

they were not appointed by Party No. 1 and they

approached the Hon'ble High Court, Bilaspur with a prayer

to direct the Central Government to refer the dispute for

adjudication, by filing writ petition 216/2006 to decide the

matter on merits and the Hon'ble Court directed to refer the

matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. (It is to be mentioned

that the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur by

order dated 06.09.2010 in the writ petition No. 2721/2003

directed the Central Government to make the reference and

not in writ petition 216/2003 as claimed by the applicants.)

It is further pleaded by the applicants that one T. Koshy,

who was one of the petitioners before the Hon'ble High

Court, during the pendency of the writ petition committed

suicide and as such, his wife, Bindu Koshy is to be

considered for giving appointment in his place.

The applicants have prayed for a direction to Party No.1

for their reinstatement with continuity and payment of

reasonable ex-gratia in lieu of back wages and allowances.

3. It is necessary to mention here that the reference was

made by the Central Government in respect of 52 applicants,

but the statement of claim was filed only on behalf of 25

applicants. The 27 applicants namely, (1) Ajay Kumar Pali

(2) Lalit Jodia, (3) Vijay Dixit, (4) Martand Singh, (5) Gajendra

Sahu, (6) Nand Kumar Dandsena, (7) S.N. Asaraf, (8) Binny

Verghese, (9) Mannmohan Sharma, (10) Vijay Kumar

Sharma, (11) Mahendra Prajapati, (12) Balluram, (13) Sunil

Kumar Sonwant, (14) Mohan Sahu, (15) Kirtanlal, (16) Jacob

Verghese, (17) Kedarnath, (18) Vidyut Kumar Mukharje,

(19) Eshwarlal Patel, (20) Sarad Kumar Sahu, (21) Raju

Vinayak, (22) Mahesh Pandey, (23) Ram Singh, (24) Lakhan

Kumar Sahu, (25) Ajay Ashtikar, (26) Pardeshi and (27)

Sapan Kumar Benjamin did not file any statement of claim.

It is well settled that whenever a workman raises a

dispute challenging the validity of the termination of the

service, 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 produces evidence

to prove his case. If the workman fails to appear or file

written statement or produce evidence, the dispute referred

by the government cannot be answered in favour of the

workman and he would not be entitled to any relief.

As in this case, the twenty seven applicants named

above did not file any statement of claim or produce any

evidence, they are not entitled to any relief. Hence, the

reference is answered against the 27 applicants named

above and it is held that they are not entitled to any relief.

4. It is also necessary to mention here that during the

pendency of the reference, for adjudication, i.e. 02.11.2012,

two of the applicants, out of the 25 applicants, on whose

behalf the statement of claim was filed, namely, Jairam and

Jagannathan (whose names are at serial nos. 44 and 45 in

the list of the applicants attached to the letter of reference)

filed separate affidavits stating that as they have already

got employment elsewhere, they do not want any

employment in Bhilai Steel Plant and their name be struck

off from the reference. In view of the affidavits filed by

applicants, Jairam and Jagannathan, it is held that there is

no dispute between Party No.1 and the said two applicants

and the applicants, Jairam and Jagannathan are also not

entitled to any relief.

Now, the reference is only to be adjudicated in respect

of the rest twenty three applicants, namely, (1) Gautam

Bose, (2) Devbrat Chakraborty, (3) Prem Shankar Singh, (4)

Dhanraj Singh, (5) Babloo Das, (6) K.M. Sarvanan, (7)

Bharasaram, (8) Appalraju, (9) Indra Vijay Kumal, (10) Binda

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2213

(wife of deceased K.T. Koshi), (11) Chaman Sapate, (12)

Jogendra Singh, (13) Sapu Kumar, (14) Ramsai Dewangan,

(15) Anil Kumar Dakate, (16) Kuldeep Kumar, (17) Kanhaiya,

(18) Nakulram, (19) Kumar Singh, (20) Zaffar lqbal, (21)

Chandrakant Bharadwaj, (22) Brajesh Kumar and (23)

Satdeo.

5. In the written statement, Party No.1 has pleaded inter-

alia that it is one of the units of the Steel Authority of India

Limited and it has a recruitment policy for appointment and

appointments are made with prior approval of the company,

after following government's directions, which include

submission of requisition to the local employment

exchange, consideration for reservation of S.C., S.T. and

O.B.C. candidates, besides scrutiny of eligibility of

sponsored candidates for appointment by conducting test/

interview and as goodwill to the wards of its employees, it

offered vocational training, on their request with the

condition of their executing a bond and in Para 2 of the said

bond, it was clearly mentioned that the management would

not owe any responsibility whatsoever, for providing any

job to such children/claimant and the training being imparted

would be as a gesture of goodwill and the applicants were

never appointed as workmen in its services and neither any

appointment order nor any termination order was issued by

it to the applicants and as there was no employment, there

was no question of termination and the applicants cannot

be called employees or workmen and as such, the dispute

itself is not maintainable under law.

The further case of Party No. 1 is that the applicants

were engaged for training for the designated trades in the

Mines and Civil Appeal No. 1714/2007 and writ petition

258/2003 were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh by Shankarlal and Several others jointly and

Shrilal respectively, seeking relief of employment against it

on the same facts and grounds and the same were dismissed

on 25.04.2007 and 19.01.2007 respectively and assurance

was never given to the applicants that they would be given

employment later on and they were given practical training

in different trades as a goodwill gesture and after completion

of practical training, they were given training completion

certificate and the name of the applicants were registered

in the "B" Form register in accordance with the provisions

of Mines Act and the same does not mean that they were

employed with it and the applicants were vocational trainees

and shri K.A. Raju, who has signed the statement of claim

is neither a claimant nor a co-worker or office bearer of a

registered trade union, hence he has no locus standi to

represent the claim on behalf of the applicants and the

claim initiated by shri K.A. Raju is nonest in the eye of law

and the applicants are not entitled to any relief.

It is necessary to mention here that after filing of the

statement of claim, Shri K.A. Raju expired and on the

application of applicants, Shri Babloo Das, one of the

applicants was allowed to represent himself and the other

applicants.

6. In the rejoinder, the applicants have denied the

pleadings made by the Party No. 1 in the written statement

and have further pleaded that the plea of delay and plea

that they were not workmen raised by Party No. 1 were

duly considered by the ALC and the reference was made

as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court and they

were directly employed in production related job alongwith

the regular staff and they were workmen and they are

entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the statement of claim.

7. To prove their respective claims, both the parties have

adduced oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

On behalf of the applicants, twenty three witnesses have

been examined in total, out of whom, 22 witnesses are the

applicants and the rest one witness is shri P.E. Anyapan, a

retired employee of Party No. l.

Only one witness, namely, Partha Jha has been examined

on behalf of Party No. l.

8. The examination-in-chief of the witnesses examined

by both the parties are on affidavit.

So far the evidence of the twenty two applicants is

concerned, the contents of their affidavits are replica of

each other, except the name of the trade and the period of

their training. In their examination-in-chief, all the applicants

have stated that being selected for undergoing training, as

sponsored by the management of Dalhi Rajhara Mines,

they worked for about two years in different trades and in

their appointment letters, they were designated as "Non

Stipandary Vocational Trainees" and they were detailed to

work in different trades and offices and their names were

included in "B" Form Register as employee of Party No. 1

and they were not given any type of training, but they

were engaged to do the work of the company alongwith

the regular employees and they worked as skilled, Semi

skilled and general workers for production work of the

company and the only difference between them and the

regular employees of Party No. 1 was that they were not

given the salary, safety equipments and leave etc., as given

to the regular employees and being asked by them, they

were assured by the officers of Party No. 1 to work properly

and that Party No. 1 would take care of them and they were

terminated from services without any payment or without

issuance of any prior notice, which was quite illegal.

In their cross-examination, all the twenty two applicants

have categorically admitted that they were not sponsored

by the employment exchange for the training and the Party

No. 1 had given a circular for such training for the dependent

children of the employees of the plant and accordingly,

they applied for such training and they were selected by

the management for the training and the dispute was raised

by them in the year 2003, before the ALC and they had

received letters from the management for non-stipendiary

vocational training and each of them had executed bond to

undergo the training and one of the conditions of the said

2214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

bond was that management would not be responsible for

providing employment to the trainees as the training was

as gesture of goodwill by the management and they worked

in the Steel Plant alongwith the other employees as per the

directions of the respective section-in-charge during the

period of training and the same type of bond was taken by

the management from all the trainees including themselves

and Exts. M-I to M-IV are the agreement-cum-bonds

executed by them.

9. Shri P.E. Anyapan in his examination-in-chief has

stated that he retired from services of Party No. 1 in 1996

and he knows the applicants and the applicants were

engaged in the name of giving of training in the Mines, but

actually they were engaged in the work of the company

and there was no scope to give them training and being

asked, he was informed by the Production Manager that

management would give them employment in future.

However, demolishing his own evidence, in the cross-

examination, he has stated that he has no relationship with

the applicants and he was not marking the attendance of

Babloo Das, who was working in his department, during

the period of training and he cannot say the training period

of Babloo and during practical training, the trainees did

work with the regular workers of the concerned department

and he does not remember the contents of his affidavit.

10. The only witness for the management, in his

examination-in-chief has stated that as per the consistent

demand made by the union of Rajhara Mine, it was decided

to give practical training to the dependents eligible children

of the employees in Rajhara Mine vocational Training

Centre, as a gesture of goodwill and applications were

submitted by such children and the eligible children were

selected and the selected candidates signed and submitted

the agreement-cum-bond and in para 2 of the said bond, it

was clearly mentioned that management would not be

responsible to provide employment to the candidates after

completion of the training and it was also mentioned in the

bond that the trainees would not be paid any stipend or

remuneration and the applicants were never assured that

they would be employed after the period of training and for

giving training in the Mine to anybody, it is necessary to

enter his name in the "B" Form Register and after the

training period was over, certificates of training were issued

to the applicants and the training was stopped.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that

the applicants were given vocational training under Mines

Vocational Training Rules and the provisions of the

Standing Order of Party No.1 are applicable to its employees

and during the period of training,the applicants were being

given instructions regarding their respective trades and

"B" Form Registers in respect of the applicants were

prepared as per the Mines Act.

11. During the course of argument, it was submitted by

the representative for the applicants that the case under

consideration is related to Iron Ore Group of Mines of Dalli

Rajhara and in 1991, Party No. 1 I introduced a training

Scheme for the wards of its employees and about 200 wards

of the employees including the applicants were selected

and offered letters to join as "Non Stipend Practical

Vocational Trainee" on execution of a Bond-cum-Agreement

as prepared by Party No. 1 and on joining, all the candidates

were employed in various sections of different trades of

the Mines as part of the regular crew and they served the

company doing production related job, till the date of their

purported training, actually without training and the

officers of Party No. 1 were giving them hopeful assurance

of regular employment to motivate them to do the company's

work and their appointment as "Non Stipend Vocational

Trainee" was meaningless. It was further argued that the

plea taken by Party No. 1 regarding delay in raising the

dispute is not tenable and liable to be rejected, as it is well

settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that provisions of the

Limitation Act are not applicable to the proceedings under

the Act and the plea of the Party No. 1 that the applicants

are not "workmen" is unsustainable and the applicants are

"workmen" and they are entitled for the reliefs claimed in

the statement of claim.

12. Per contra, it was submitted by the management

representative that as a gesture of goodwill, the

management of Dilli Rajahara Mines agreed with the union

to impart practical training as unpaid vocational trainees to

about 208 wards of the employees from 1991 to 1993 and it

was made clear to all concerned including the applicants in

writing that management would not own responsibility for

their employment after completion of their training and the

dispute was raised by the applicants after a lapse of

10 years and no explanation has been offered for such

delay and therefore, the stale claim should not have been

entertained for adjudication. It was further submitted that

the applicants are not workmen and as such, the dispute

raised is not an industrial dispute and the applicants were

never appointed as "workmen" in the service and there

was no employment and as such question of termination

does not arise and there was never any employer-employee

relationship between the applicants and Party No. 1 and as

such, the reference is not maintainable and the applicants

are not entitled to any relief.

13. First of all, I will take up the submission made by the

Party No. 1 that due to inordinate delay in raising the

dispute, the claim should not have been entertained.

In this regard, it is to be mentioned here that it is settled

beyond doubt in a number of decisions by the Hon'ble

Apex Court that the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 are

not applicable to the proceeding under the Act and that

the relief under it cannot be denied to the workman, merely

on the ground of delay and the plea of delay, if raised by

the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact, by

showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical

defence.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2215

In this case, admittedly, there is a delay of about ten

years in raising the dispute before the ALC by the

applicants. The Party No. 1 has also taken a plea that there

was unexplained inordinate delay in raising the dispute.

However, no plea has been taken by the Party No. 1 that

due to such delay, actually any prejudice was caused to it.

It is found from record that the plea of delay has been

taken by Party No. 1 merely as a hypothetical defence.

Hence, the contention raised by the management

representative in this regard fails.

14. The next contention raised by the Party No. 1 is that

the applicants were not workmen and they were "Non

Stipend Vocational Trainees" and they were never

appointed or employed by it in the production related jobs

and as goodwill gesture, they were given training after

their execution of a Bond for such training, in which it was

clearly mentioned that it would not be responsible for

providing employment to the trainees including the

applicants and there was no employer and employee

relationship between it and the applicants and for that the

dispute cannot be termed as industrial dispute.

It is to be mentioned here that the Hon'ble High Court of

Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur by order dated 06.09.2010, in writ

petition No. 2721/2003 have been pleased to observe that

the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the

question as to whether the applicants are workmen or not,

in view of the stands taken by the applicants that Party

No. 1 engaged them in production related jobs from the

date of their joining till their termination.

It is the admitted case of the applicants that they joined

as "Non Stipend Vocational Trainees" with Party No. 1 and

during the entire period of their training, no wages or stipend

was paid to them.

Section 2 (c) of the Standing Orders for the Mines and

quarries of the Bhilai Steel Project says that "Employee"

means a workman as defined in the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

Section 2 (i) of the Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act, 1946 says that "wages" and "workman" have

the meaning respectively assigned to them in clauses (rr)

and (s) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947).

According to section 2(s) of the Act, "workman" means

any person (including an apprentice employed in any

industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical,

operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or implied

and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Act in

relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person

who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in

connection with, or as a consequence of that dispute or

whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment has led to that

dispute, but........."

In this case, it is clear from the materials on record and

the own admission of the applicants and their witness that

the Party No. 1 as a gesture of goodwill devised a vocational

training programme for the wards of its employees, as per

the demand of the local union and the applicants and other

wards of the employees applied to undergo the training

and about 208 persons including the applicants were

selected for the training and all of them executed bonds

like Exts. M-I to M-IV, in which the terms and conditions of

the training were clearly mentioned and it was also clearly

mentioned that the management would not be responsible

to employ the trainees. It is also found from the materials

on record that the applicants were given training including

practical training in different trades ranging for a period of

two years and after the period of training was over, training

certificates were given to them. It is found that the

applicants were not employed to do any work for hire and

reward. Hence, the applicants cannot be said to be workmen

as defined u/s. 2(s) of the Act.

As it is clear from the materials on record that the

applicants were vocational trainees and they were not

apprentices and they were not employed to do any work

for hire and reward and they were also not paid any stipend

during the period of training and they worked in the Steel

Plant alongwith the other employees as per the directions

of the respective section-in-charge during the practical

training, the provisions of clause 3(d) of the Standing

Orders of Party No. 1 or the provisions of Apprenticeship

Act, 1961 are not applicable to their cases. The inclusion of

the names of the applicants in "B" Form register was done

by Party No. 1 as per the provisions of Rules 48 and 77 of

the Mines Rules. It is found that maintenance of "B" Form

the mines is a must as per the Mines Act and Rules. So,

inclusion of the names of the applicants in "B" Form

were employed by Party No. 1 in the mine as workmen. In

view of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand,

with respect, I am of the view that the decisions of the

Hon'ble Courts cited by the parties have no clear

application.

As it is held that the applicants are not workmen, the

dispute raised by them cannot be said to be industrial

dispute. The end of the training period of the applicants

also cannot be said to be termination of their services. So,

there was no question of compliance of section 25-F of the

Act. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is answered against the applicants. The

applicants are not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 826.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vksfj,.Vy bU'kqjUl

daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2008½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@45@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 826.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 01/2008) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of Oriental

Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-17012/45/2007-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/01/2008

Date: 01.10.2013

Party No. 1(a)

The Dy. General Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mayfairs Towers, Ist Floor,

Pune-Mumbai Road, Wakde Wadi,

Pune

Party No.1(b)

The Assistant General Manager,

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Mayfairs

Towers, 1st Floor, Pune Mumbai

Road, Wakde Wadi, Pune

Party No. 2

Shri Prakash Shankar Shende,

R/o Akot Fall, Ambedkar Nagar,

Akola

Akola (M.S.)

AWARD

(Dated: 1st October, 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 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and their

workman Shri P.S. Shende for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-17012/45/2007-IR(M) dated 02/09.01.2008, with the

following schedule:—

"whether the action of the Assistant General Manager

(Disciplinary Authority) and the Dy. General Manager

(appellate Authority) of the Oriental Insurance

Company Ltd. is justified, legal & proper for awarding

a punishment of Removal from service which shall

not be a dis-qualification for further employment to

the applicant workman Sh. P.S. Shende? If not, then

what relief the deprived applicant workman is entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were

noticed to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement.

It is necessary to mention here that before filing

statement of claim, the workman committed suicide on

08.06.2008. So, the legal heirs of the deceased P.S.

Shende, namely, Poornima (widow), Kumari Vidhya

(daughter), Abhijit and Shobit (the two sons) filed an

application on 10.09.2008 for their substitution and the

same was allowed.

The legal heirs of the deceased P.S. Shende filed the

statement of claim challenging the legality of the termination

of the deceased workman and to give them all consequential

benefits.

3. The party No. 1 filed the written statement denying

the allegations made in the statement of claim and pleading

inter-alia that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.

4. On 01.10.2013, the date on which the reference was

fixed for cross-examination of petitioner, Poornima, an

application supported with affidavit was filed on behalf of

the petitioner alongwith two pursises to close the reference

and to dispose of the same, on the ground that they do not

want to proceed with the same. Copies of the application

and pursises were served on the advocate for the

management, who made "no objection" on the same.

As the petitioners did not want to proceed with the

case, in the interest of justice, the application was allowed.

5. As the petitioners, who have raised the dispute and

have also filed the statement of claim don't want to proceed

with the reference, the reference is liable to be dismissed

without grant of any relief to the petitioners. Hence, it is

ordered:—

O R D E R

The reference is dismissed as not pressed by the

petitioners. The petitioner are not entitled to any

relief. No leave is also granted to the petitioners to

raise the dispute again or to revive the present

reference. The application supported with the

affidavit and pursises filed by the petitioners are

made part of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2217

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 827.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 144@2000½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@32@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 827.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 144/2000) 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 Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-29012/32/2000-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/144/2000

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The President,

Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union,

In front of Tehsil office,

PO Dalli Rajhara,

Durg (MP)

... Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager (Mines)

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai (MP)

... Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of January, 2014)

1. As per letter dated 27-7-2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L 29012/

32/2000-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of the Pragatisheel Mazdoor

Union for change of date of birth of Shri Rambharose,

S/o Shri Ful Singh, employed at Dalli Manual Mines

as 19-10-54 is justified? If so, to what relief the

workman is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted Statement of claim at

Page 2/1 to 2/5. The case of 1st party Union is that the

workman Shri Ram Bharose, S/o Ful Singh was working in

Dalli Mines, Gang No. 94, P. No. 873693, the date of birth of

said workman is 19-10-1954 as recorded in Death-Birth

of workman has been recorded in Birth Register of Police

Station, Thana Dondi for the year 1954. This date of birth

has also been recorded in declaration and nomination for

Provident Fund. Workman requested employer for

recording his date of birth 19-10-54 but he was informed

that he joined as contractual worker from 7-4-74 and

subsequently regularized as DPR from 31-5-96. That in Form

B register, his date of birth is recorded as 2-4-47. Same date

of birth was recorded at the time of Medical Examination

signed by him. Union submits that workman is illiterate

and not conversant to the language. That the signature of

workman on medical card have been obtained having

attended the medical examination. Subsequently workman

raising dispute about his date of birth with Labour Welfare

Officer. When management demanded documents

regarding his date of birth, the copy of birth register

maintained at Thana Dondi, Distt. Durg was submitted. In

declaration form of Provident Fund, workman has

submitted. In declaration form of Provident Fund, workman

has submitted his date of birth was 19-10-54. Said date was

accepted. It is further submitted that the management of

Bhilai Steel Plant not accepting his date of birth as 19-10-54

has denied his date of birth 2-4-47. The dispute was raised

before ALC. On such ground Union is prying for correction

of date of birth of workman Ram Bharose as 19-10-54 instead

of 2-4-47.

3. Management filed Written Statement at Page 6/1 to 6/7.

Management denied that the date of birth of workman

Rajbharose is 9-10-54. Management submits that

Rambharose was initially working as contract worker from

2-4-75 in the captive mines in Rajhara Tehsil. That as per

provisions of Mines Act, Form B register is maintained.

The date of birth of workman is recorded 2-4-47. Said date

of birth was accepted by management for all purpose. The

date of birth of Rambharose is mentioned in Declaration

Form for Provident Fund as 19-10-54 is not acceptable. All

other material contentions of workman that his date of birth

is 19-10-54 as per entries in Birth Register in Thana Dondi

are denied. IInd party reiterated that date of birth of

workman is 2-4-47 as recorded in record mentioned as per

Mines Act. IInd party refers to ratio held in various cases

and emphasized that workman is not entitled for correction

of his date of birth. IInd party prays for rejection of claim of

workman.

4. Union has filed rejoinder at Page 7/1 to 7/6 reiterating

its contentions that date of birth of workman Rambharose

as per entry in birth register is 19-10-54. That date of birth

recorded in Declaration Form and Form B Register as

2-4-47 is incorrect. Union prays for correction of his date of

birth.

2218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 demand of the

In Affirmative

Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union

for change of date of birth of

Shri Rambharosa, S/o Shri Ful

Singhy, employed at Dalli Manual

Mines as 19-10-54 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman

As per final orders.

is entitled to?"

REASONS

6. Interim application for stay was rejected by my

predecessor as per order dated 28-3-2006 observing that if

the workman succeeds finally, he may get the consequential

benefits.

7. Affidavit of workman Rambharose is filed. He has

started that his date of birth recorded in death and birth

his date of birth is recorded as 2-4-47. In Medical

Examination Form signed by him, the date of birth is sown

2-4-47. He has stated that he is illiterate person, not

conversant with language. Medical Examination Form was

never filled by him individually. Medical officer fills the

Form. That he had not written that his date of birth was

2-4-47. In his cross-examination, he says he is illiterate and

knows to sign. His statement of claim is submitted by Union.

Office bearer of the Union did not explain him the contents

in Statement of Claim. He also claims ignorance about

contents of his affidavit of evidence. That he was employed

as contract labour on 2-4-75. He was regularized on

31-5-96. He has not submitted documents to the

management at that time. That document No. 2/8 was

received by him from office of Birth and Death register,

Durg. He has submitted said document to the management

around 1990-91. He did not recollect name of the official to

whom he had handed over the document. The document

produced by workman is certified copy of entry in death

and birth register, Thana Dondi of 1954. The date of birth

is shown as 19-10-54. Name of father's Ful Singh and name

of son is Rambharose. The document bears dated 31-10-

90. The declaration form for nomination for Provident Fund

shows date of birth of workman Rambharose as 21-20-54.

Said document was submitted by workman on 24-4-93. In

his further cross-examination workman claims ignorance

whether entries in the service book shown to him were

filled on information given by him. He has stated that his

date of birth recorded by management as 2-4-47 is incorrect.

That his signature was obtained on Form B Register. His

name and father's name were recorded after enquiring from

him. That his age was not inquired from him at the time of

filling Form B. that he got knowledge very late about his

age recorded in Service Book.

8. Management's witness Shri Rajesh Kumar in his

affidavit of evidence has stated that workman was working

as piece rated employee and he recorded his date of birth

as 2-4-47. That alleged date of birth of Rambharose as

19-10-54 is not acceptable. His evidence is silent why the

date of birth recorded in Birth and Death Register is not

accepted. The evidence of management's witness is not

cogent on what basis the date of birth of workman was

recorded in service book as 2-4-47. The service book was

prepared on 18-2-96. Any record was not received from the

contractor by management when his service book was

prepared. The Circular No. M&R-13/2004 is produced at

Exhibit M-5. The guidelines regarding determination of date

of birth are provided.

Para 3(ii) provides—

"No change in date of birth shall be allowed if such

requests are received from employee during the last

five years of their service for any reason whatsoever."

The evidence shows that workman submitted

declaration for Provident fund Nomination on 12-4-

93 claiming his date of birth was 19-10-54. Workman

produced certified copies of entries in Birth and

Death Register. His date of birth is shown as 19-10-

54. As per his evidence, he has produced document

around 90-92. Management did not accept his date

of birth. The dispute is referred in 2000.

Clause 3(v) of guidelines provided—

"If there is a conflict between original declaration in

the Attestation Form/Service Book, Employment

Index Card, Personal Data form and various other

documents submitted by the employee during the

course of employment the declaration given in the

earliest Attestation Form/Service Book, Employment

Index Card, Personal Data form and various other

documents and accepted by the management, shall

be relied upon."

Clause 3(vi) provides......

Clause 3(vii) provides—

"If there is a conflict between the date of birth

declared by the worker in the earliest Form B of Mines

and the date of birth declared subsequently in order

papers/documents, the earliest document indicating

the age shall be accepted."

The service book was prepared on 18-2-96 whereas

declaration Form for Provident Fund was submitted on

12.4.93 earlier in time. The date of birth was recorded as

19.10.43 in Death and Birth earlier in time i.e. 31-10-90. As

per Para 3(vii) of the guidelines, the earlier documents

deserves to be accepted therefore the date of birth of

workman recorded in Register of Death and Birth as 19.10.54

needs to be accepted.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2219

9. Learned counsel for IInd party relies on bunch of

judgments, copies produced on record.

"In case of Surendra Singh Versus State of MP and

others reported in 2007(I) MPLJ - 286, his Lordship

held correction of date of birth in service record not

permissible at the fag end of service of the employee."

In present case as per Form B register, date of birth

of workman is shown as 2-4-47. Dispute is raised in

the year 2000 almost 7 years prior to the date of

superannuation. As per Rule 3(ii) of guidelines, the

enquiry during last 5 years about date of birth is not

permitted. The dispute is raised before 7 years of the

superannuation. Therefore the ratio in above cited

case cannot be beneficially applied to case at hand.

In case of State of UP and another versus Shri Narain

Upadhyaya reported in 2005(6) supreme court Cases

49. Their Lordship held challenge to the date of birth

as recorded in the service book, made on the eve of

retirement should not normally be entertained."

The ratio cannot be applied to present case as the

dispute is raised almost 7 years before date of

superannuation.

For same reasons ratio held incase of State of Tamil

Nadu versus T.V.Venugopalan reported in 1994(6) supreme

Court Cases 302 cannot be applied. The correction in date

of birth can be entertained before 5 years of the

superannuation as per rule 3(ii) discussed above. For the

same reasons, ratio held in Case of G.M. Bharat Coking

Coal Ltd. versus Shib Kumar Dushad reported in AIR-2001-

SC-72 cannot be applied to present case.

10. Learned counsel for IInd party also relies on ratio

held in:

“Case of Burn Standard Company Ltd. versus

Dinabandhu Majumdar reported in 1995(4) supreme

corut Cases 172. The ratio held in case relates to date

of birth entered in service and leave record on the

basis of voluntary declaration made by the employee

at the time of appointment authenticated by him and

never objected upto the fag end of service. In such

circumstances, Writ Petition seeking correction of

the date of birth filed at such stage shall ordinarily

be not entertained.”

The facts of present case are different. The dispute is

raised 7 year before the date of superannuation. Rule 3(ii)

of guidelines shows no change in the date of birth shall be

allowed if such requests about date of birth is received

before 5 years of superannuation. Therefore I did not find

substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel

for IInd party. For the reasons discussed above, the demand

of the Union for correction of date of birth is justified. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Affirmative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) The demand of the Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union

for change of date of birth of Shri Rambharose, S/o

Shri Ful Singh, employed at Dalli Manual Mines as

19-10-54 is justified.

(2) The date of birth of Rambharose, S/o Ful Singh

employed in Dalli Manual Mines as per entries in

Death and Birth Register is 9-10-54. IInd party is

directed to take and allow consequential benefits

to first party workman.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 828.— vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fHkykbZ LVhy IykaV ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 153@2000½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@31@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 828.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 153/2000) 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 Bhilai Steel Plant and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-29012/31/2000-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/153/2000

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

The President,

Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union,

In front of Tehsil officer,

PO Dalli Rajhar,

Durg (MP)

.......Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager (Mines),

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 16th day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 27.7.2000 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

2220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-29012/

31/2000-IR(M). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the demand of the Pragatisheel Mazdoor

Union for change of date of birth of Shri Joharit Ram,

S/o Ramsai, employed at Dalli Manual Mines as

14.10.52 is justified? If so, to what relief the workman

is entitled?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issue to the

parties. Ist Party Union filed statement of claim at Page 2/1

to 2/5. The case of Ist Party Union is that the workman Shri

Johit Ram was working in Dalli Manual Mines in Gang No.

94 having P.No. 873593. His date of birth is 14.10.1952 as

per School Certificate. That he requested his employer with

regard to his date of birth. However employer intimated

him that he joined as contract workman on 2.4.74 and

regularized as DPR from 31.5.96. That is Form B register, his

date of birth is recoreded as 28-5-86. Management of Bhilai

Steel Plant informed him that he himself had mentioned his

date of birth as 28.5.46 in Medical Examination Form duly

signed by him. Workman further submits that while

conducting Medical examination, his signature might have

been obtained. That workman working as raising Mazdoor

has been placed as DPR Dalli Mines and his date of birth

was recorded. It is emphasized that workman had written

his date of birth as 14.10.52 while submitting nomination

and declaration of PF Form. That his date of birth 14.10.52

was not accepted by Bhilai Steel Plant. Workman requests

management be directed to record his date of birth as

14.10.52 and consequential reliefs.

3. IInd Party management filed Written Statement at

Page 7/1 to 7/7. All material contentions of the workman

that his date of birth as per School Certificate is 14.10.52 is

denied. That in Form B register, the date of birth of workman

is recorded 28.5.1946 at the time of Medical Examination,

same date was recorded on 1.11.95. IInd party denies that

while conducting medical examination, signature of

workman was obtained on medical card. Workman himself

submitted personal details, age, date of birth and signed.

Workman is a literate person. Date of birth of workman is

28.5.1946. IInd party reiterates that workman himself had

disclosed his date of birth and same date of birth was

accepted in the record. It is denied that date of birth of

workman is 14.10.52. It is denied that workman is entitled

for correction of date of birth in Service Record.

4. IInd party submits that as per circular dated 2.8.74,

dated of birth cannot be changed within last 5 years of

service of employees. IInd party referred to ratio held in

various cases in the matter of correction of date of birth

and submits that correction of date of birth prayed by

workman cannot be accepted. IInd Party prayed for rejection

of the claim.

5. Ist Party Union filed rejoinder at Page 10/1 to 10/9

reiterating his contentions in Statement of claim that his

date of birth is 14.10.1952. The date of birth was wrongly

recorded as 28.5.1946. He prays for corrections of his date

of birth.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the demand of the

In Negative

Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union

for change of date of birth of

Shri Joharit Ram, S/o Shri Ramsai,

employed at Dalli Manual

Mines as 14.10.52 is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

Workman is not

workman is entitled to?"

entitled to relief

prayed by him.

REASONS

7. The demand of Union for change of date of birth of

Shri Joharit Ram as 14.10.52 is referred for decision. The

claim of the Union that date of birth of workman Shri Joharit

Ram was wrongly recorded as 28.5.46. The correct date of

birth as per school record is 14.10.52 is denied by the

management. The Affidavit of evidence of workman Shri

Joharit Ram is filed. Workman has stated that his date of

birth as per School record is 14.10.52. In Form B, date of

birth is wrongly recorded as 28.5.46. That while conducting

medical examination, he had not filled the form. The date of

birth was recorded on the basis of physical observation. In

his cross-examination, workman says he was working under

contractor from 28.5.74 to 31.5.96. When he started working

with contractor he was of 22 years of age. No document

was produced by him while working with the contractor.

He was regularized in Bhilai Steel Plant in June 96. At that

time, he had submitted certificate of Higher Secondary

School. At the time of regularization, his medical

examination was conducted. He admits that he had filled

the form for medical examination. He further says that he

had not written date of birth in the form, it was written by

the clerk after enquiring with him. After regularization, Form

B register was prepared, his date of birth was recorded as

28.5.46. He had submitted declaration for Provident fund

Nomination. He has written his date of birth was 14.10.52.

At the time of regularization in service, he had passed

Higher Secondary. He had submitted certificate of passing

middle school of village Bharda. That he was admitted in

Ist standard in 1962. In 1968 he had passed 8th standard.

Documents Exhibit M-2 to M-7 are admitted by the witness.

Exhibit M-7 was submitted by him for correction of his date

of birth in 1997. That he retired from service in 2006.

Workman has produced zerox copy of his marksheet. No

case is taken to produce certified copy of the original

marksheet of Secondary school or higher Secondary. Zerox

copy of the form for declaration of Provident Fund is

produced. The Union has not taken steps to prove those

documents.

8. In Exhibit M-5, age of workman in written 49 years. In

Exhibit M-7, date of regularization is shown 31.5.96 and

date of joining 28.5.74. In Exhibit M-1 from B register, date

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2221

of birth of workman is recorded as 28.5.46. In Exhibit M-2

&3, date of birth is recorded as 28.5.46 educational

qualification is shown SSC passed. Circular produced

Exhibit M-4, Para 5 provides that no change in date of birth

is allowed in a request during last 5 years of retirement of

the employees. Exhibit M-6, date of regularization and

retirement were recorded. Though the workman is claiming

that as per school record, his date of birth is 14.10.52. The

workman has not proved same document.

9. In evidence of management's witness Babanrao is on

the point that date of birth of workman is recorded 28.5.46

in the record mentioned by the office. The witness of the

management in his cross-examination says workman was

appointed as contract labour in 1974, he was regularized in

1976. Workman knows to the put his signature. As per

regulations, if there is dispute about date of birth, the

certificate of High School is considered sufficient proved.

That the entry of date of birth was taken in Form B Register.

Proof of High Secondary Certificate was not called from

workman. That Paper No. 2/10 was submitted as declaration

of Provident fund was not of the department.

10. Burden lies on workman to prove that his birth is

14.10.52 and that incorrect date was recorded in Form B

recording his date of birth. Merely zerox copy of mark sheet

are produced without taking care to prove the document.

The evidence is not sufficient to prove correct date of birth

of workman. Though counsel for IInd part has relied on

plenty of judgments, I am not inclined to discuss ratio held

in all those cases. The copy is produced on record. As the

evidence adduced by workman is not sufficient to prove

his date of birth is 14.10.52 therefore I record my finding on

Point No. 1 in Negative.

11. In the result, award is passed as under:

(1) The Demand of the Pragatisheel Mazdoor Union

for change of date of birth of Shri Joharit Ram,

S/o Shri Ramsai, employed at Dalli Manual Mines

as 14.10.52 is not justified.

(2) Union is not entitled to relief prayed by them

regarding correction of date of birth of workman

Shri Johit Ram.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 829.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dksphu fjQkbujh ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ,ukZdqye ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@59@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, 13th February 2014

S.O. 829.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Cochin Refinery and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11/2/2014.

[No.L-30011/59/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 27th day of September, 2013/05th

Asvina, 1935)

I.D. 25/2013

Union

The General Secretary

Cochin Refinery Workers

Association

Ambalamugal

Cochin, Kerala

Management

The General Manager

BPCL

Kochi Refinery

Ambalamugal

This case coming up for final hearing on26.09.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.09.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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, the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its Order No-L-30011/59/2012-IR(M)

dated 08.02.2013 referred this industrial dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication.

2. The dispute is:

''Whether the action of the management of the BPCL-

KR, in deferring the merger of 50% DA with basic

wages is justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?''

3. After appearance of both the parties and before

submission of pleadings they have filed a joint memo stating

that the above industrial dispute does not require any

adjudication in view of clause 5(ii) of the Long Term

Settlement signed between the management and the

2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recognized trade unions before the Conciliation Officer on

30.05.2013 and hence an award to be passed to that effect.

4. As there exists no industrial dispute a 'No Dispute

Award' is passed in this case. The joint memo will form part

of the award.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day of

September, 2013.

D. SREEVALLA BHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 830.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsjyk feujYl ,aM

esVYl fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,ao Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

28@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 830.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Kerala Minerals and Metals Limited, and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

11/2/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri. D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Monday the 26th day of August, 2013/

04th Bhadrapada, 1935)

I.D. 28/2013

Petitioner

Shri Sivankutty Nair K

Empl: No. 120686

Senior Grade Accountant, KMML

Visakh

Near Milk Society Ltd.

Thamarakulam P.O.

Alappuzha-690530

By Advs. Shri R. Rajasekharan Pillai

& Shri K. B. Dayal

Respondent

The Managing Director

The Kerala Minerals and Metals Ltd.

Sankaramangalam P.O.

Chavara Pin - 691583

Kollam District

By M/s. B. S. Krishnan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 26.08.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on the same day passed

the following:

AWARD

Challenging the order of his dismissal from service by

the management, the workman filed this petition under

Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. In the petition it is alleged that the workman was

appointed in the post of Accountant Grade II in the

Titanium Dioxide Pegment Unit of the management w.e.f.

19.06.1985 and later he was promoted to the post of

Accountant Grade I and then to the post of Senior Grade

Accountant. While he was working in the post of Senior

Grade Accountant he was placed under suspension w.e.f.

01.10.2010 and disciplinary proceedings was initiated

against him. After conducting enquiry, he was dismissed

from service on 07.07.2011. Against that order he preferred

an appeal before the Board of Directors and in the appeal

he was allowed to get the financial benefits without altering

the imposition of the punbishment of dismissal from service.

The enquiry as well as imposition of penalty are illegal and

hence he is to be reinstated in service with full back wages.

3. At the time when the case stood posted for written

statement workman filed IA 85/2013 with the prayer to

withdraw the petition in view of the order of reference made

by the Govt. of India/Ministry of Labour with regard to the

same issue and now pending as ID 32/2013 of this tribunal.

The IA has been allowed without any objection.

Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 26th day of

August, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 831.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] dksphu fjQkbujh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2223

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,ao Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 24@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@58@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 831.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2013) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Cochin Refinery and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11/2/2014.

[No.L-30011/58/2012-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

(Friday the 27th day of September, 2013/

05th Asvina, 1935)

I.D. 24/2013

Union

The General Secretary

Refinery Employees Union

Kochi Refinery

Ambalamugal

Cochin, Kerala

Management

The General Manager

BPCL

Kochi Refinery

Ambalamugal

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 26.09.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.09.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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, the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its Order No-L-30011/58/2012-IR (M)

dated 08.02.2013 referred this industrial dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication.

2. The dispute is:

''Whether the action of the management of the BPCL-

KR, in deferring the merger of 50% DA with basic

wages is justified? What relief the workmen are

entitled to?''

3. After appearance of both the parties and before

submission of pleadings they have filed a joint memo stating

that the above industrial dispute does not require any

adjudication in view of clause 5(ii) of the Long Term

Settlement signed between the management and the

recognized trade unions before the Conciliation Officer on

30.05.2013 and hence an award to be passed to that effect.

4. As there exists no industrial dispute a 'No Dispute

Award' is passed in this case. The joint memo will form part

of the award.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her,corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day of

September, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 832.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ckYej ,aM ykWjh

daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ,ukZdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

87@2006½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30012@36@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 832.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 87/2006) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management

of Balmer Lawrie & Company Limited and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

11/2/2014.

[No. L-30012/36/2001-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B,

Presiding Officer

2224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Tuesday the 30th day of July, 2013/

08th Shravana, 1935)

ID 87/2006

Workman

Shri H. D. Gangadhara Bhandari

CC VIII/1611

Kannadiparambil

Cochin

By Adv. Shri P. Jacob Varghese

Management

The Assistant General Manager

(P & A)

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.

Manali, Chennai

Chennai-600068

By M/s. V. S. Rajan Associates

This case coming up for final hearing on 28.07.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 30.07.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the Government

of India/Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-30012/36/

2001/IR(M) dated 18.06.2001 had referred this industrial

dispute for adjudication to the CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai and the same was later on transferred to this

tribunal by the Ministry of Labour as per Order No.

L-30012/36/2001-IR(Misc) dated 20.08.2001.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Balmer

Lawrie & Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of the

workman Sh. H.D. Gangadhara Bhandari by order

dated 28.2.98 is justified? If not, to what relief is he

entitled to?"

3. Workman filed claim statement alleging that he was in

continuous employment in the management company from

1989 to 1997 and that he was illegally terminated from the

employment based on a namesake enquiry conducted

without affording opportunity to properly defend and in

violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Management filed written statement denying the

allegations in the claim statement with regard to the

challenge made as to the validity of the enquiry and

contending that the workman was validly terminated from

service after initiating disciplinary proceedings and

conducting a fair and proper enquiry.

5. As the validity of the enquiry was under challenge it

was heard as a preliminary issue and this tribunal vide

order dated 29.03.2007 found that the enquiry is vitiated on

account of violation of principles of natural justice and

perversity of findings.

6. Challenging that order management filed WP(C)

No. 13054 of 2007(D) before the Hon'ble High Court of

Kerala. During the pendency of that petition there was a

full and final settlement between the parties. The same was

accepted by the Hon'ble High Court and thereby it was

disposed of vide order dated 16.08.2012. As per the

settlement workman is to be paid an amount of ` 1,50,000/-

as compensation.

7. Management has produced the certified copy of the

order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in this case.

Afterwards workman was continuously absenting himself

from appearing before this tribunal. As the matter was

settled between the parties there is no necessity to further

proceed with this case. Hence 'no dispute' award is passed

in this case.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day of

July, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX — NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 833.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] dksphu fjQkbujh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ,ukZdqye ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@21@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 833.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Cochin Refinery and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-30011/21/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B, Presiding

Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2225

(Friday the 27th day of September, 2013/

05th Asvina, 1935)

I.D. 14/2012

Union

The General Secretary

Kochi

Refineries

Workers'

Association

VPP/1/427, Ambalamughal

Ernakulam-682030

By Adv. Shri M. Rajasekharan Nayar

Management

The General Manager

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Kochi Refinery

Ambalamugal

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 26.09.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 27.09.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-30011/21/

2011/IR(M) dated 03.03.2012 referred this industrial dispute

to this tribunal for adjudication.

2. This dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL-

KR, in denying the benefit of annual increment over

and above the promotional increment, is legal and

justified? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"

3. After appearance of the parties union filed claim

statement challenging the legality of the withholding of

the benefits for which the workman are eligible as clause 13

and 14 of the Conciliation Settlement entered into by the

workmen and management on 28.08.2002 providing for

increment and promotional increments.

4. Management filed written statement denying the claim

of the union and contending that there is no violation of

any of the provisions of the "Long Term Settlement" for

the fixation of promotional increment.

5. Union filed rejoinder denying the contentions in the

written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the claim

statement.

6. At the time when the case stood posted for evidence

union and management filed a joint memo stating that the

above industrial dispute does not exist in view of clause

5(ii) of the Long Term Settlement signed between the

management and the recognized trade unions before the

Conciliation Officer on 30.05.2013 and hence an award to

be passed to that effect.

7. As the matter is settled between the parties a 'No

Dispute Award' is passed in this case.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day of

September, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX — NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 834.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr isVªksfy;e

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM dksphu fjQkbujh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ,ukZdqye ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1@2012½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&30011@72@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

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

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Cochin Refinery and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Governmnet on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-30011/72/2010-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT NDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT : Shri, D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 14th day of May, 2013/

24th Vaisakha, 1935)

I.D. 1/2012

Workman

The General Secretary

Cochin Refineries Employees'

Association

Ambalamugal

Kochi-682302

By Adv. Shri C.S. Ajith Prakash

Management

The General Manager

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Kochi Refinery

2226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ambalamugal

Ernakulam-682302 (Kerala)

By M/s. Menon & Pai

This case coming up for final hearing on 13.05.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 14.05.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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, the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-30011/72/2010-IR(M)

dated 16.12.2011 referred this industrial dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication.

2. The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of BPCL

Cochin Refinery, in delaying the promotion to Shri C.

Jayan from the date of selection is justified? To what

relief he is entitled?"

3. After the receipt of this industrial dispute both the

Union and management entered appearance on receipt of

summons and submitted their pleadings. Afterwards Union

filed IA 32/2013 with the prayer to pass an award treating

the industrial dispute as not pressed since the workman is

not interested to prosecute the matter. The IA was allowed

without any objection from the side of the management.

Hence, the reference is closed.

The Award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 14th day of

May, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX - NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 835.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj fjyk;al ykbQ

bU'kqjUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ,ukZdqye ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@5@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 835.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ernakulam

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited and their

workman, which was received by the Central Governmnet

on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-17012/5/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, Presiding Officer

(Tuesday the 31st day of December, 2013)

I.D. 5/2012

Workman

Shri Anand Paul

Kannampuzha Veedu

St. Vincent, 2nd Cross Road

Kacherippady

Kochi-18 Ernakulam

By M/s A.V. Xavier

Managements

1. M/s. Reliance Life Insurance

Company Ltd.

Reliance House

6th Floor, No. 6

Haddows Road

Nungambakka

Chennai-600006

2. The Regional Manager

Reliance Life Insurance Company

Ltd.

Regional Office

Kadavanthara

Kochi, Ernakulam

This case coming up for final hearing on 26.12.2013 and

this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 31.12.2013 passed the

following:

AWARD

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

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

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

of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-17012/5/

2011-IR(M) dated 24.01.2012 referred this industrial dispute

for adjudication to this tribunal.

The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the Management of M/s.

Reliance Life Insurance Co. Ltd. with its Head Office

at Mumbai-400710 in terminating the services of

Shri Anand Paul, EMP-ID Code 70024319, Customer

Care Executive, Chavakkad, District Thrissur, Kerala

vide notice dated 15.01.2009 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2227

3. The workman was appointed in the operation wing of

the management industry after due selection process as

per order dated 17.09.2007. He was on probation for a period

of six months after joining duty on 22.09.2007. He was

terminated from service on 27.02.2009 as per order dated

15.01.2009.

4. It is his case that though he was designated as an

executive for practical purposes he was employed for

processing insurance policies, collecting insurance

premiums by cash or cheque and arranging its remittance

to the bank. After completion of probation he was in regular

service and his service was illegally terminated by the

management since he did not accede to the persistent

demands made by the management for his resignation on

the plea of recession. As the termination of service is illegal

he is continuing in service and is entitled to get the relief of

reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service

and all other attendant benefits.

5. In the joint written statement filed by the respondents

it is contended that the workman was engaged as a

Customer Care Executive on 22.09.2007 after interview. He

was hired and necessary training was given. Initially his

performance was rated above average but afterwards it

came down to below average and thereby his service was

terminated as provided under clause 8(iv) of his appointment

order by paying three months' notice period pay and his

pending dues. Hence his claim is totally unsustainable and

is liable to be rejected.

6. Workman filed rejoinder denying the contention in

the written statement and reaffirming the allegations in the

claim statement. After the case was posted for evidence,

managements were continuously absenting and hence set

ex-parte. From the side of the workman, the workman was

got examined as WW-I and Exbts. W-I to W-4 were got

marked.

7. The points for determination are:

(i) Whether the service of the workman was illegally

terminated by the management?

(ii) Whether he is entitled to get any relief?

8. Point No. 1: At the outset it is to be pointed out that

the prayer for reinstatement is given a go by at the time of

adducing evidence by the workman by filling proof affidavit

expressly stating that he is not pressing the claim for

reinstatement since he has been confirmed in the better

services of HDFC. His claim is limited to full back wages for

the months upto September, 2009 and thereafter half the

back wages including the loss in insurance benefits and

Provident Fund benefits till 30.06.2012, the date on which

he got the better employment in the HDFC, after adjusting

the three months' salary remitted in his bank account by

the management towards the salary for the months of

February and March, 2009. For the purpose of deciding the

present claim also it is necessary to consider whether his

service was illegally terminated by the management.

9. It is not in dispute that he was engaged by the

management as Customer Care Executive on 22.09.2007 and

his service was terminated as per order dated 15.01.2009.

Challenge is made as to the validity of the termination of

service by putting forward the plea in the claim statement

that it is without complying with any of the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act and in violation of the principles

of natural justice. After denying the allegations as to the

illegality of termination in the claim statement it is contended

by the managements that he was hired and as his work

after giving training was found to be below average he was

terminated from service after having discussions with him

by invoking the termination clause 8(iv) in his appointment

order by paying three months notice period pay and all his

pending dues. In the rejoinder filed by the workman no

challenge is made with regard to clause 8(iv) in his

appointment order. Instead it is pleaded that there was no

circumstances to terminate the service of the workman by

invoking that termination clause. The payment of money

by the management is also admitted by him in the pleadings

and the proof affidavit filed by him. Clause 8(iv) of his

appointment order is extracted in the written statement and

no challenge is made with regard to it in the rejoinder or in

the proof affidavit. It reads thus:

"On satisfactory completion of the probation period

and after your confirmation in writing except for the reasons

mentioned in this appointment letter, this contract of

employment can be terminated by either side by giving to

the other 3 (three) months notice in writing or salary in lieu

thereof. However, in events of your resignation, the

Company in its sole discretion will have an option to accept

the same and relieve you prior to completion of the

stipulated notice period of 3 months, without any pay in

lieu of the notice period."

10. So the termination is in accordance with clause 8(iv)

of his appointment order. It is pertinent to note that there is

no express plea either in the claim statement or in the

rejoinder that he is a workman coming within the purview

of Section 2(s) of ther Industrial Disputes Act and he is

terminated from service without complying with the

conditions under Section 25F of the said Act. Such a plea

might not have been put forward since he may not be a

workman coming within the definition of Section 2(s) of

'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

11. There is no challenge as to the validity of clause

8(iv) of his appointment order either in the rejoinder or in

his proof affidavit. In the rejoinder it is only stated that

there were no circumstances to terminate the service of the

workman by invoking the power under that termination

clause. It will also go to show that the service of the

workman can be terminated by resorting to that clause in

the appointment order. The appointment order is not

produced in this case to satisfy that there existed any

circumstance preventing the management from invoking

that termination clause. The termination is effected by

2228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

complying with the procedure provided therein. Three

months' salary is admitted to have been remitted in his

bank account. So the termination of service is in accordance

with clause 8(iv) in the appointment order. Even if it will be

said that the termination of service is in violation of Section

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, then also his claim can

be only for one month's salary and compensation. It cannot

be more than that of the amount received by him. Even

though he does not want reinstatement due to his

subsequent employment he has put forward the claim for

full back wages upto September, 2009 and thereafter half

back wages till 30.06.2012. Such a claim is also not liable to

be entertained since he got employment in September, 2009.

Exhibit W-3 will go to show that he was employed as

Process Associate in Outsource Partners International with

a total monthly salary of ` 11,270/-. Later he got employment

as Senior Associate-Medical in HDFC Life with a salary of

` 2,60,144/- per annum. As it is a case where no reinstatement

is to be made there is no need to make any payment as

compensation especially in view of the payment of three

month's salary and the subsequent employment of the

workman from September, 2009 onwards. Hence it cannot

be held that the termination of service of the workman is

not legal and justified. Even the order of termination dated

15.01.2009 is not produced and exhibited in this case to

satisfy that there is any illegality in the termination of

service. The termination is in accordance with the terms of

the appointment order. Even if it is treated to be under

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, then also it

cannot be said that the termination is not legal. Hence, the

termination of service of workman by the management is

legal and justified.

12. Point No. 2: In view of the above finding the workman

is not entitled to any relief.

13. In the result an award is passed holding that the

action of M/s. Reliance Life Insurance Limited in

terminating the services of the workman vide notice dated

15.01.2009 is legal and justified and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Office Gazette.

Dictated to the Personnel Assistant, transcribed and

typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 31st

day of December, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the workman

WW1

30.09.2013

Shri Anand Paul

Witness for the managements

NIL

Exhibits for the workman—

W-1

Copy of the salary slip of the workman for the

month of December, 2008

W-2

Copy of Death Certificate of Paulachan dated

26.05.2010 issued from the Corporation of Cochin

W-3

Copy of the Employment offer letter dated

07.09.2009 issued by the Outsource Partners

International to the workman

W-4

Copy of Employment offer letter dated 30.06.2012

issued by the HDFC Life to the workman

Exhibits for the managements

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 836.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr xksYM ekbu

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

05@2002½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 11@2@2014 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&29012@02@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼,e½]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 836.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2002) 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

Bharat Gold Mine Limited and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 11/2/2014.

[No. L-29012/02/2002-IR (M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

"Shram Sada",

G G Palya, Tumkur Road,

Yeswanthpur, Bangalore-560 022.

Dated

9th January 2014

Present

Shri S.N. Navalgund

Presiding Officer

C R No. 05/2002

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2229

I Party

II Party

Sh. A Desan, S/o Shri Sanjeevi, The Managing

Director.

287, New Orient Line,

Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.,

Coromandel Post,

Swarna Bhawan.

K G F 563 118

Oorgaum.

Since deceased represented by

Kolar Gold Fields.

Legal Representatives

D. Munisway, S/o A Desan

aged about 44 years.

D. Loganathan, S/o A Desan

aged about 40 years

Smt. D Rajlakshmi D/o A

Desan aged about 30 years

D Jagadeesan, S/o A Desan

aged about 28 years

D Muruganand, S/o A

Desan, aged about 25 years

Residing at No. 287, New

Oriental Line, Coromondal

Post, K G F - 563 118.

APPEARANCES

I Party

Shri K.V. Sathyanarayana

Advocate

II Party

Shri T. Raja Ram

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-29012/2/

2002-IR(M) dated 09.01.2002 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of BGML is justified in

terminating the services of Shri A Desan, S/o Shri

Sanjeevi w.e.f. 21.12.1980 on the basis of the wrong

date of birth as alleged by the workman is justified?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

05/2002 when the notices were issued to both parties to

appear on 07.03.2002, on that day the four sons and a

daughter of I Party appeared through Sh. K.V.

Satyanarayan, advocate submitting that I Party is expired

on 02.10.2001 filed an application to bring them on record

as his legal representative and as management submitted

no objection to the said application my learned predecessor

by his order dated 07.05.2002 allowed that application and

permitted them to come on record and thereafter they filed

their claim statement on 25.06.2002, whereas, the II Party

which appeared through Sh. A.S. Boppanna, advocate and

his associates filed their counter statement on 10.08.2004.

3. In the claim statement filed by the legal representatives

of the deceased I Party workman, it is alleged that deceased

I Party workman was appointed by the II Party management

in the year 1949 and issued him notice of superannuation

dated 01.01.1981 whose services were entitled to be

continued upto 02.07.1989 as his medical record disclose

his date of birth was being 02.07.1931. It is further alleged

the II Party has wrongly entered his date of birth as 1922 in

his service record at the time of joining without any basis

and when the same came to his knowledge he had given

representation to correct the date of birth in the Service

for declaration his date of birth as 02.07.1931 against the II

Party in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), KGF, the same

was dismissed and even the first appeal filed in the court of

Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) also came to be dismissed in the Second

Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court though it was also

dismissed an observation was being made that the suit

was not maintainable on the basis of law which was in

force at that time and he has to seek remedy under ID Act,

1947 by order dated 24.07.1985, thereafter, he raised dispute

submitting representation to the jurisdictional labour and

conciliation officer as contemplated under the provisions

of the ID Act, 1947 who submitted failure report on

28.02.1986 and Government of India refused to refer the

dispute for adjudication in the Writ Petition filed by him in

W P No. 5754/1990, the Hon'ble High Court by order dated

01.08.1997 since directed to refer the dispute to appropriate

labour court under 10(1)(c) of ID Act the present reference

came to be made. With these averments they have prayed

for passing an award holding that the II Party management

is not justified in superannuating him w.e.f. 01.01.1981 and

to treat and he was in service till 02.07.1989 the date on

which he was attaining 58 years of age and to pay the

monetory benefits, pensionary benefits and all other

consequential benefits. Inter-alia, in the counter statement

filed by the II Party it is contended since it has incurred

loss consistently the BIFR considering the matter in detail

formed an opinion that it is viable to windup recommended

for winding up of the company and referred to the Hon'ble

2230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

High Court of Karnataka and same is pending under

Company Petition No. 180/2000 and in the meanwhile

Government of India by its order dated 29.01.2001 passed

the order for closure under Section 25(o) of ID Act, and

accordingly it has been closed from 01.03.2001 and the

said order being challenged by the Unions Representing

the workmen in W P No. 1343/2001 the learned single judge

was pleased to allow the said writ petition and when the

same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of

Karnataka in W A No. 1747-1757/2001 by order dated

26.09.2003 the order passed by the learned single judge

came to be set aside thereby the closure of the company

w.e.f. 01.03.2001 by the order of the Government of India

stands good as such the reference is liable to be rejected. It

is further contended the deceased I Party workman while

getting appointment on 04.08.1949 having declared his age

as 27 years without producing any evidence at his age

date of birth, his date of birth was recorded as 1922 and

subsequently on 17.08.1963 when he made by the pension

fund nomination he mentioned in the column of Date of

Birth as 1922 and accordingly he attained the

superannuation age of 58 years on 31.12.1980 he has been

superannuated w.e.f. 31.12.1980. Therefore, the contention

that his date of birth was 02.07.1931 and he was entitle to

continue in service till 02.07.1989 is baseless as such the

reference is liable to be rejected.

4. After completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for evidence the learned advocate appearing

for the II Party filed the affidavit of J Isaac, Assistant

Personnel Manager reiterating the contents of the counter

statement and after his cross-examination by the learned

advocate for the LRs of the I Party his side was being

closed, the learned advocate appearing for the LRs of the I

Party filed the affidavit of D Loganathan one of the son of

the deceased workman reiterating the contents of the claim

statement and in his cross-examination by the learned

advocate appearing for the II Party two circulars issued by

the Managing Director of the II Party dated 02.12.1963 and

03.04.1964 on the subject of alteration in the date of birth of

the employees are got marked as Ex M-1 and Ex M-2.

5. With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence when the matter was posted for arguments the

learned advocate appearing for the I Party filed his written

arguments, whereas, counsel for II Party while addressing

his oral arguments cited the decisions reported in.

(i)

ILR 1992 KAR 554—R Kuppurak vs. BGML

(ii) 1994 AIR SCW 3947—State of Tamilnadu vs. T.K.

Venugopalan

(iii) (1995) 4 SCC 172—Burn Standard Co. Ltd., &

others vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar and another.

6. Having regard to the reference schedule and the

pleadings of the parties the points that arise for my

consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether the LRs of the deceased I Party

workman proved that his actual date of birth was

02.07.1931 and he was entitle to continue in service

till 02.07.1989?

Point No. 2 : What Order/Award?

7. On appreciation of the pleadings and evidence placed

on record by both the sides in the light of the arguments

addressed by the learned advocates, my finding on Point

No. 1 is in the negative and Point No. 2 as per final order for

the following.

REASONS

8. There being on dispute the deceased I Party workman

having joined the service of II Party company on 04.08.1949

and in the service record his date of birth was being

recorded as 1922, in the year 1980 i.e. after about 31 years

of joining the service he disputed the entry in his service

record pertaining to date of birth as wrong and approached

the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), KGF in OS No. 394/1980

and became unsuccessful in getting declaration his real

date of birth being 02.07.1931 and the same was also affirmed

by the first appellate court i.e. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), KGF in

RA 01/1984 and when same was assailed before the Hon'ble

High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 193/1985 that

also came to be dismissed with an observation such a suit

was not maintainable as settled by the Supreme Court in

the case reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238 and that the remedy

available is under the ID Act, thereafter, the deceased I

Party workman approached the conciliation officer on

whose submitting FOC and direction by the Hon'ble High

Court in W P No. 5754/1990 this reference came to be made,

it is for the legal representatives of the I Party to prove that

as per his medical records his correct date of birth was

02.07.1931 as such he was attaining 58 years of age which

was superannuation age on 02.07.1989. But in this regard

no evidence being made available for appreciation, only

on the basis of the allegation in the claim statement and

self sworn statement of one of his son B Lognathan filed in

lieu of his evidence it is not possible to accept the same.

Under the circumstances, I have arrived at conclusion the

management of BGML being justified in terminating his

services w.e.f. 31.12.1980 on attaining the age of 58 years

as per the entry in the Service Record. Accordingly, while

answering Point No. 1 in the negative, I pass the following.

ORDER

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

BGML is justified in terminating the services of Shri A

Desan, S/o Shri Sanjeevi w.e.f. 31.12.1980 on the basis of

the wrong date of birth as alleged by the workman and his

LRs are not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to U.D.C. transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 9th January, 2014).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2231

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 837.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,ñ ,lñ vkbZñ ds

izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 76@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@263@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 837.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 76/2004) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Archaeological Survey

of India, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 13/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/263/2003-IR(CM-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 76/2004

Ref. No. L-42012/263/2003-IR(CM-II)

dated: 03.08.2004

BETWEEN

Shri Sipahi Lal, S/o Late Shri Prabhu Niwasi

Through Shri Ashok Kumar Singh

80, Lorries Complex

Agra (U.P.)

AND

The Superintendent Archaeologist

Archaeological Survey of India

22, Mall Road

Agra (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/263/2003-IR(CM-II) dated:

03.08.2004 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 Shri Sipahi Lal, S/o Late

Shri Prabhu Niwasi, Through Shri Ashok Kumar Singh, 80,

Lorries Complex, Agra (U.P.) and the Superintendent

Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, 22, Mall

Road, Agra (U.P.) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Adikshan Puratatvavid, Bharitya Buratatv

Sarvekshan, Agra Dwarka Karmkaar Shri Sipahi Lal

Atmaj Swa. Shri Prabhu Ko Sewa Main Niyamit Nahi

Karke Dinank 13.11.2002 Se Sewa Se Nishkaasit Karna

Nayayochit Hai? Yadi Nahi, to Sambandhit Karmkaar

Kis Anutosh Ka Hakdaar Hai?

3. The case of the workman, Sipahi Lal, in brief, is

that he has been engaged with the opposite parties viz.

Archeological Survey of India (hereinafter referred to as

ASI) as Safai Karmchari from 01.01.1984 to 12.11.2002 and

completed 240 days in a year; but the management of the

ASI, instead of regularizing him, has illegally terminated

his services without any rhyme or reason and also without

any prior information or notice w.e.f. 13.11.2002, in violation

to the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial disputes

Act, 1947. Also, it has been alleged by the workman that

the opposite party has engaged six new Safai Karmchari

after his disengagement and thereby have violated

provisions of section 25 G & H of the Act. Accordingly, the

workman has prayed that the termination of his services

w.e.f. 13.11.2002 be set aside and he be reinstated with

continuity of services, full back wages and other

consequential benefits.

4. The management of the Bank of the ASI has

disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written

statement; whereby it has taken the objection that the ASI

is discharging sovereign function; hence is not an industry

within the provisions of the Section 2 'J' of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The management has further, submitted

that the workman was never engaged by the management

w.e.f. 01.01.93; rather he was engaged as casual labour

much after 10.09.93 as and when required. It is also submitted

that there is no rule in the department to regularize the

services of casual labourers, who completed 240 days of

work under the establishment of the ASI. However, the

existing scheme of temporary status provides for grant of

temporary status to casual labourers who had completed

240 days of work during the period of 10.09.92 to 09.09.93

and who were present on duty on 10.09.93. It is submitted

by the management that the casual labour are engaged in

the department as and when required basis and also soon

as the sanctioned item of work, against which such casual

labourers are engaged, is completed, the casual labourers

are disengaged forthwith, which does not amounts to

violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act, 1947;

and accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim

of the workman be rejected ad devoid of merit.

5. The workman has field rejoinder whereby apart

from reiterating his averments in the statement of claim has

submitted that the ASI is an industry. He has also submitted

2232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the management did not extend the benefit of order

No. 54016/2/90-Estt. (C) dated 10.09.1993 and 49022/2/97-

Estt. (C) dated 24.10.1997.

6. The parties have filed documentary proof in

support of their respective cases. The workman has

examined himself whereas the management examined P.N.

Kulshresth, Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma and Shri P.S. Rana,

in support of their respective stands. The parties availed

opportunity to cross-examine the each other's witnesses

apart from forwarding oral arguments.

7. Heard authorized representatives of the parties

and perused entire evidence on record.

8. The learned representative on behalf of the

workman has contended that the workman had worked for

more than 240 days in each calendar year from 01.01.1984

to 12.11.2002 continuously and was entitled for grant of

temporary status as per office memorandum No. 54016/2/

90-Estt. (C) dated 10.09.1993 and 49022/2/97-Estt. (C) dated

24.10.1997; despite this his services have been terminated

in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. He has also

submitted that the management of the ASI is an índustry'

within the provisions of Section 2 'J' of the Act.

9. In rebuttal, the authorized representative of the

management has contended that the opposite party is not

an industry as it is discharging sovereign function. He has

also contended that the workman was engaged with the

management as casual worker as and when required much

after 10.09.93 and his services automatically came to an

end with the end of the sanction; hence there is no violation

to the provisions of the Act. Further it has also submitted

that the scheme for grant of temporary status was applicable

w.e.f. 01.09.1993 for those who were on the rolls on the date

of issue of office memorandum dated 10.09.1993 and since

the workman had been engaged much after 10.09.1993 he

was not entitled for grant of temporary status.

10. The workman has examined himself as witness in

support of his case; whereby he has stated that he worked

continuously from 01.01.84 to 12.11.2002 and his attendance

was marked on Muster Roll. it is also stated that he was

paid Rs. 2040/- per month and some time he was paid less

than Rs. 2000/- in a month. In cross-examination he has

admitted that he was not given any appointment letter and

his name was not sponsored from the Employment

Exchange.

11. In rebuttal, the opposite party has examined Shri

P.N. Kulshreshth, who stated that he worked from 07.04.2000

to June, 2000 at Bareily region where the workman worked

for 70 days as daily wager. Another witness, Shri Umesh

Chandra Sharma stated that he was posted in the year

91-92 and the workman did not work under him. However,

Shri P.S. Rana, MW-3, stated that he worked from 1992 to

2000. It was stated that Labour Register brought by him,

which is for duration 1988 to 1994, there is no entry in the

name of Sipahi Lal. The workman worked in 1998-1999 for

some time but was not kept on Muster Roll. In cross-

examination he could not state as to why the register from

1994 to 2000 could not be produced by the management.

12. In the light of the aforesaid rival statements of

both the sides I have scanned the material available on

record.

13. After going through the rival contentions of the

parties it becomes apparent that before entering into the

merit of the case this Tribunal has to decide as to whether

the opposite party is an 'industry' or not within the meaning

of the Section 2 (J) of the Act. In this regard the workman

has relied on verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore

Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs. A Rajappa &

others case; wherein it has been observed that

"absence of profit motive on gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector."

Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that

"Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise."

It is well known that the Archaeological Survey of

India is indulged in upkeep of the ancient monuments in

order to preserve the cultural heritage of this country. For

achieving this aim the ASI is being funded by the

Government of India and it most of the times charges entry

fee from the visitors, which is being utilized for the

maintenance and upkeep of the monuments and its gardens

etc. The workman has contended that the work carried out

by the ASI is similar to CPWD and PWD, which are industry

within the purview of the Act. Also, it has indicated that

the nature of work carried out by ASI qualifies the triple

test, formulated by Hon'ble Apex Court in Bangalore Water

Supply case. Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of

the case and above legal prepositions, I am of the opinion

that ASI is at par with the CPWD, PWD and other

municipalities, which are covered under Industrial Dispute;

and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the opposite

party is an 'industry' within the provisions of Section 2 (j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

14. Admittedly no appointment letter was issued to

the workman and he was engaged by the management of

ASI as a casual labour. The workman in his pleadings and

evidence has come up with the case that he worked

continuously from 01.01.1984 to 12.11.2002 and his services

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2233

have been terminated w.e.f. 13.11.2002 and in order to

substantiate his pleadings he has filed photocopy of some

attendance sheet for intermittent duration, for August, 99

to 11.11.2002. The workman also moved an application on

affidavit to summon the Muster Roll and Duty Register

from January, 1984 to 2002 the management did not file any

written objection to the application; however after hearing

the parties, the management was directed vide order dated

07.03.2005 to produce Muster Roll for the period 01.01.1984

to 12.11.2002 within a month. The management did not file

any document/Muster Roll in compliance of the order dated

07.03.2005. The management also did not file any affidavit

stating the obstacle in filing the Muster Rolls for the period

01.01.1984 to 12.11.2002.

15. The management of the ASI in his pleading has

submitted that workman has been engaged as casual

worker as when required much after 10.09.93; but has neither

disclosed his date of initial engagement nor his working/

payment details nor has produced the Muster Rolls, it was

ordered to produced.

Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in Director, Fisheries

Terminal Division vs. Bhakubhai Meghajibhai Chavda 2010

AIR SCW 542; has observed that for proving 240 days'

continuous working, the workman would have difficulty in

having access to all official documents, muster rolls etc., in

connection with his service, therefore, the burden of proof

shifts to the employer to prove that he did not complete

240 days of service in requisite period to constitute

continuous service.

However, the workman has filed the attendance sheets

from August, 99 to 11.11.2002 to corroborate his pleadings.

The management witness, Shri Umesh Chandra Sharma

stated that he was posted in Ahikhetra Region in the year

91-92 but the workman never worked under him. He failed

to produce the Muster Rolls of the relevant time, in support

of his statement.

16. It is the case of the workman that the management

of ASI has terminated his services without observing the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In Surenderanagar Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai

Pitamberbhai 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Hon'ble Apex Court

came to the conclusion that the workman would be entitled

for the protection of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 provided he is successful in establishing the fact

that he had been in employment with the employer for a

period of 240 days uninterruptedly. It was held by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court that in such cases, the scope of the

enquiry before the Labour Court was confined only to 12

months proceeding the date of termination to decide the

question of the continuous service for the purpose of

section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further,

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or

engagement for that year to show that he has worked

with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. it

is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead

evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days

in a year preceding his termination."

In the instant case the workman has pleaded that he

worked continuously from 01.01.1984 to 12.11.2002 and has

filed photocopy of attendance sheet in support of his claim;

and also prayed Tribunal to summon the Muster Rolls for

the period he worked with the management so the

management was directed to file the Muster Rolls for the

period 01.01.1984 to 12.11.2002; but it did not file any not

file muster roll of the relevant period nor any affidavit

regarding non-filing of the same.

In view of the non-submission of the Muster Rolls

for the relevant period in spite of specific order by this

Tribunal, there leaves no option but to draw adverse

inference against the management and rely on the pleadings

and documents filed by the workman in support of his

claim. On scrutinizing the working details for the 12 calendar

months preceding the date of alleged termination i.e. from

11.11.2001 to 12.11.2002 the working details of the workman

comes as under:

Sl. Month

Days of working

No.

November, 2001

Details not

Available

December, 2001

-do-

January, 2002

February, 2002

March, 2002

April, 2002

May, 2002

June, 2002

July, 2002

10. August, 2002

11. September, 2002

12. October, 2002

13. November, 2002

Total

269

2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Also from the photo copy of the documents filed by

the workman it is very much clear that the workman worked

continuously with the management up to 11.11.2002 and

worked for 269 days the twelve months preceding the date

of his termination, therefore, management was liable to

comply the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947 before terminating his services of the

workman.

Here it is relevant to mention that the management

neither filed the Muster Rolls for the period 1984 to 2002, in

spite of specific order or the Court' hence, taking adverse

inference, it can be assumed that the workman was on the

rolls of the management on 10.09.1993 and had rendered

240 days services as required by the office memorandum

dated 10.09.1993 for grant of temporary status for him.

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in number of its verdicts

has emphasized this fact that the Tribunal/Labour Court,

while awarding reinstatement to the casual labours or daily

rated workers who have been engaged by the management

without following prescribed procedure for recruitment,

and it comes to the conclusion that the alleged non-

compliance of provisions of Section 25-F or any provision

of the Act has been done, it must consider many aspects,

such as the time for which the workman had been out of

service and change in the industrial scenario, his age; and

on reinstatement his capability to contribute the industry.

It was observed by the Apex Court that the person when is

out of service for a long time gets blunt, therefore, in such

cases instead of awarding reinstatement, an order for

compensation would do the justice.

Admittedly, the service of the workman was

terminated on 13.11.2002, therefore, it comes out that the

workman had been out of services for 11 years and as per

his own application his age as on 04.04.2005 was 39 years,

and accordingly, only 13 years services remains. In between

Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591;

2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon'ble Apex Court while considering

the question regarding award of back wages has observed;

"There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of section 25-

F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded

........................................ However, where the total

length of service rendered by a workman is very small,

the award of back wages for the complete period i.e.

from the date of termination till the date of the award,

which our experience shows is often quite large,

would be wholly inappropriate. Another important

factor, which required to be taken into consideration,

is the nature of employment. A regular service of

permanent character cannot be compared to short or

intermittent daily wage employment though it may

be for 240 days in a calander year."

18. In Deepak Ganpat Tari vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd.

2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon'ble Bombay High Court relying on

the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in APVK

Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC) Telephone DM

vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC) JDA vs. Ram

Sahai 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45 in view of the fact

that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has

observed as under:

"It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of section 25-F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon'ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only."

19. Also in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v.

Santosh Kumar Seal and Others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:

"However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a along line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of termination,

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be

proper by this Court and instead compensation has

been awarded."

20. In the light of principle laid down in

aforementioned case laws and the facts and circumstances

of the case, it would not be just and proper to direct that

the workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice

would meet by paying compensation to the workman

instead in place of relief of reinstatement in service.

21. Having regards to these facts that the workman

has worked as casual worker and he was getting Rs. 2000 or

Rs. 2040 per month the time of his alleged termination and

keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the law, the

interest of justice would be subserved, if, management is

directed to pay lump sum amount of compensation only.

22. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 80,000 (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) to the

workman as compensation for termination of his services

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2235

in violation of section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The said amount

shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication

of the award, failing which; the same shall carry interest @

8% per annum.

23. The reference is answered accordingly.

Lucknow

31st January, 2014

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 838.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñlhñlhñ,yñ

ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 18@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@1@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 838.—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/18/2007)

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 13.2.2014.

[No.L-22013/1/2014-IR (C-II)]

B.M. PATNAIK, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-VI ADDL. DISTRICT &

SESSIONS COURT, GODAVARIKHANI

PRESENT: Shri. G.V. Krishnaiah,

Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

Wednesday, the 20th Day of November, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 18 OF 2007

Between:—

Balla Jagadeeshwar, E.C. No. 1155531,

Ex. Gen. Mazdoor, GDK 9 Incline, S/o Odelu,

Aged about 45 years, R/o H. No. 11-2-159, Laxminagar,

8 Incline Colony, Godavarikhani, Dist. Karimnagar.

....Petitioner

And

The General Manager,

SCCo. Ltd. Ramagundam Area-II.

The Superintendent of Mines,

GDK 9 Incline, SCC Ltd.,

The Chairman & Managing Director,

SCC Ltd., Kothagudem.

..........Respondents

This Industrial dispute petition coming on before me

for final hearing in the presence of Shri G. Komuraiah,

Advocate, for the petitioner and Shri D. Krishna Murthy,

Advocate, for the respondents, and the matter having stood

over before me for consideration till this date, the Court

passed the following:—

AWARD

1. This petition is filed U/Sec. 2-A(2) of I.D. Act to

set aside the dismissal order dated 05.08.1998 passed by

R-1 against the petitioner and to direct to reinstate the

petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and

back wages. The petitioner who worked as General Mazdoor

in the respondent company was dismissed from service on

the misconduct of unauthorized absence vide dismissal

order dated 05.08.1998.

2. After the dismissal of the petitioner he kept quiet

for almost 6½ years and then served demand notice on

10.03.2007 on the respondent for recommendation of his

case. After receiving on demand notice on 12.03.2007 reply

was given on 03.04.2007 that the notice is vague. Petitioner

contended in his application that he maintained more than

180 musters every year from 1988 to 1994 and he was

confirmed as General Mazdoor at the time scale during the

year 1995. He further contended that in the year 1993 his

wife filed a case for divorce and parents of the petitioner

also filed for maintainance. Maintainance of Rs. 750 per

month and Rs. 300 to the parents was ordered to be paid by

the petitioner. Petitioner paid sum of Rs. 700 more to the

parents as per settlement out of Court as his employment

was on the ground of a dependant of his father. Petitioner

suffered financially during the period 1995 to 1998 and as

such he could not maintain the minimum number of musters

during the year 1995, 1996 and 1997. Petitioner had to attend

panchayats conducted by the elders of the community.

Petitioner could not maintain minimum number of musters

due to not granting of leaves. Petitioner attended the

departmental enquiry on 28.7.1998 which continued on the

next day. The enquiry was an eye wash and formality to

strengthen the decision already taken by the management.

Enquiry is one sided and biased. Order of the management

remaining the petitioner is very harsh and an act of

victimization. Petitioner was forced to draw some savings

payable to him during the year 1998. Petitioner made several

representations for reinstatement and he was ultimately

called to appear before competent authority at

Kothagudem on 08.11.2000. The matter is pending with the

management and therefore the petitioner did not approach

this Tribunal in time. In the meantime petitioner's wife was

2236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

granted divorce and petitioners parents died. Petitioner is

now mentally and physically settled, hale and healthy to

perform his duties in all respects. Therefore he served a

demand notice on 09.03.2007 for which vague reply dated

12.03.2007 was given. Since there is a reasonable cause for

the absence from his duties, he may be resinstated.

Petitioner quoted three decisions in the petition itself.

3. Respondent No. 1 filed counter questioning the

jurisdiction of the Tribunal on the ground that the

respondent company is managed by Central Government.

Regarding the absence of the petitioner, it is pointed out

that in the year 1994 petitioner had put in 54 musters, 82

musters in the year 1995, 58 musters in the year 1996, 46

musters in the year 1997 and 28 musters in the year 1998 up

to 23 October, 1998. As against minimum of 190 musters in

a calendar year. Therefore he was charge sheeted for

misconduct under the company stands under 25.25 vide

order dated 03.04.1998 for which petitioner did not submit

any explanation to the charge sheet. Petitioner participated

in the departmental enquiry and pleaded guilty to the

charges leveled against him. Therefore after issuing the

show cause notice dated 10.09.1998 for which the petitioner

did not submit explanation he was dismissed from service

vide orders dated 05.11.1998. A decree against the petitioner

for payment of maintainance to his parents and his wife is

true and maintainance is deducted from the salary of the

respondent and deposited in the Court. This has nothing

to do with unauthorized absence of the petitioner. Petitioner

is unable to place any valid reason like major ill health or

accident. The departmental enquiry was conducted fairly

when the petitioner did not chose to cross examination the

management witness even though opportunity was given

to him. Petitioner never communicated the reasons for his

absence and did not seek any relief. Respondent company

cannot put up with highly irregular employees since the

attendance of the workers is very much essential to carry

on production.

4. However interviews were conducted on 08.11.2002

to the ex-workmen who were dismissed on account of

absenteeism from 01.01.1997 to 31.12.1999 as per memo of

settlement dated 21.02.2000. The criteria for age

consideration was an employee should be below age of 55

years as on 21.02.2000 and must have put in at least 190/

240 musters (undergound/surface) in 2 calendar years or

150/240 musters (underground/surface) in 4 calendar years

during the period of 5 years preceding the year of dismissal.

Since the petitioner did not fulfill the above criteria he was

not recommended for reappointment. Petitioner moved the

Tribunal after lapse of 9 years and therefore the petition

may be dismissed.

5. On 04.08.2012 the departmental enquiry was held

to be valid and binding on the charges. Subsequently the

documents were on either side were marked. Ex W-1 to

W-11 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Ex.M-1 to M-8

were marked on behalf of the respondents. Ex.W-3 is the

salary recovery order dated 11.01.1994 in MC No. 34 of

1993. Ex.W-4 is the salary recovery order dated 05.01.1994.

Ex.W-5 is the charge sheet showing the unauthorized

absent for the year 1997 and pointed out that during the

year 1995-96 also attendance was poor with 82 and 52

attendance respectively and Ex.M-5 is the enquiry report.

It clearly states that petitioner respectively and Ex.M-5 is

the enquiry report. It clearly states that petitioner did not

submit his explanation to the charge sheet. During the

enquiry pay sheets from January 1997 to December, 1997,

pay sheets from December, 1995 to December 1996 and

attendance registers from January 1997 to December 1997

was verified in the presence of the petitioner. During the

enquiry petitioner admitted his poor attendance during the

years 1995, 1996 and 1997. The enquiry indicated the

petitioner for charge against him. Then the enquiry report

was sent to the petitioner and the acknowledgement for

the same is marked as Ex. M-7. Petitioner did not submit

representation to the show cause notice, then he was

terminated. Thus the following undisputed facts emerge:

(I) Petitioner did not give explanation to the charge

sheet.

(II) Petitioner did not put forth any valid reason for

his absence except family disputes.

(III) Petitioner did not reply to the show cause notice

issued by the respondent regarding the

disciplinary action taken against him.

(IV) Petitioner was considered by the High Power

Committee but he did not fulfill the entering for

reinstatement.

(V) Petitioner kept quiet for almost 9 years and

received the savings consequent on his dismissal

from service.

6. This is a strange case where the petitioner did not

even look after his parents and he was paying maintenance

to them. Once can understand disputes between the

petitioner and his wife but neglecting parents reflects on

the irresponsible attitude of the petitioner. Now the

petitioner wants to take advantage of family disputes to

explain his unauthorized absence. The reason put forth by

the petitioner cannot be accepted as a valid reason.

7. Regarding the decisions cited on behalf of the

petitioner, the first decisions reported in 1996 FLR Page

1582 between Richardson and Cruddas (1972) Ltd and

Association of Engineering Workers & others. In this case

the workman was irregular in attending his duties and was

a habitual late comer. A charge sheet was issued by the

employer to which workman's Advocate gave reply stated

that the absence on the part of the workman was not

deliberate. Regular enquiry was ordered and employee

pleaded guilty in the enquiry. Charge sheet was served in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2237

November, 1984 and workman was dismissed with effect

from 13.02.1985. On 16.2.1985 petitioner sought

reinstatement which the employer turned down.

Conciliation proceedings failed. Then the dispute was

referred to the Labour Court U/Sec. 10 of the ID Act. The

Labour Court held that enquiry was valid. There was no

deliberate breach of rules by the workman. It was found

that the workman gave medical certificate along with leave

application to the company. Under these circumstances

the award of the Labour Court was upheld. It is apparent

that the facts of the above case are completely different

from the facts of this case.

8. The next decision is AIR 1987 Supreme Court Page

No. 104 between Baldev Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Patiala and another. This is case where the service

of the driver of a bus belonging to the Roadways was

terminated for causing damage to the roadways to the extent

of Rs. 22.50 on account of some deviation in the route.

Labour Court held that the punishment was

disproportionate and granted relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service but without back wages. The award

of the Labour Court was upheld. Workman filed a Writ

Petition in High Court of Punjab and Haryana which was

dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the High

Court. The facts of this case are completely different.

9. Third decision is AIR 1999 Supreme Court Page

698 between Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour

Court and another. In this case the workman was dismissed

from service on the basis of the departmental enquiry.

Labour Court recorded a finding that the enquiry was not

conducted in accordance of the rules of the natural justice

when the Labour Court gave an opportunity to the

management to produce its evidence. Management did not

produce any evidence on mertis except producing the

termination order. Workman reported no evidence as the

management produced no further evidence. The main

question that was considered by the Supreme Court was

whether the Tribunal can call upon the management to

justify the action taken against the workman. Whether

enquiry has been held to be defective or held properly, it

was also observed that the departmental enquiry having

been held as invalid, the record produced by management

constitutes fresh evidence. In these circumstances the

matter was remanded to the Labour Court for fresh enquiry.

This decision does not help the petitioner in any way in

view of the admitted facts of the petitioner's case. Regarding

delay also, it is to be observed that though limitation is not

prescribed for invoking the jurisdiction of the Industrial

Tribunal, petitioner has to approach to the Tribunal within

a reasonable period. Therefore I do not find any merits in

the plea of the petitioner.

10. Another decision cited on behalf of the petitioner

in WAP No. 244 of 2013 regarding the guidelines of

re-engaging of contract employees, is entirely different

situation and it is not applicable to the present case.

11. With regard to the memo of statement dated

21.02.2000, Photostat copy of which is filed it has already

been considered by the respondent. Advocate for petitioner

quoted three other decisions in the Written Arguments.

Two decisions are not cited by way of placing the full

decisions before this Tribunal. The decisions in Janardhan

case in that WAP No. 244 of 2013 on the file of High Court

of A.P. is already considered in the preceding paragraphs.

Therefore, I have no hesitation to dismiss the petition.

Accordingly, the reference is answered against the

petitioner.

12. In the result, this ID is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 20th day of November,

2013.

G. V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer

For Workman :

For Management :

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman :

Ex.W-1

Dt.

30.12.1995

Appointment order as

General Mazdoor

Ex.W-2

Dt.

05.11.1998

Dismissal order

Ex.W-3

Dt.

11.01.1994

Letter issued to the petitioner

by respdt., for recovery of

Rs. 100 p.m., towards arrears

undcer court attachment order

in Crl. MP. No. 7138/1993 in

MC No. 34/1993

Ex.W-4

Dt.

05.01.1994

Letter issued to the petitioner

by respondent for recovery of

Rs. 300 p.m.

Ex.W-5

Dt.

03.04.1998

Charge sheet.

Ex.W-6

Dt.

01.11.2000

Letter issued to the petitioner

by respondent to attend High

Power Committee at Head

Office, Kathagudem.

Ex.W-7

Dt.

09.03.2007

Demand notice o/c.

Ex. W-8.

Dt.

Postal receipt No. 4771, 4772

Ex. W-9

Dt.

12.03.2007

Postal Ack. of R-3

Ex. W-10

Dt.

12.03.2007

Postal Ack., of R-2

Ex. W-11

Dt.

03.04.2007

Petitioner's representation

rejection order.

For Management :

Ex. M-1

Dt.

03.04.1998

Charge sheet

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M-2

Dt.

19.07.1998

Enquiry notice

Ex. M-3

Dt.

28.07.1998

Acknowledgement

Ex. M-4

Dt.

29.07.1998

Enquiry proceedings

Ex. M-5

Dt.

03.09.1998

Enquiry report

Ex. M-6

Dt.

10.09.1998

Show cause notice

Ex. M-7

Dt.

18.10.1998

Ack. to show cause notice

Ex. M-8

Dt.

05.11.1998

Dismissal order.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 839.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,lñ lhñ lhñ ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;

xksnkojh[kUuh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 111@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22013@01@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 839.—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/111/

2004) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 13.02.2014.

[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.

Saturday the 23rd day of November, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 111 of 2004

BETWEEN:

Rekula Rajaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 42 years.

Ex-Coal Filler, E.No. 0932304, R/o. Eklaspur village,

Mandal Shankarapatnam,

Dist: Karimnagar.

...Petitioner

-AND-

The Chief General Manager,

Ramagundam Division-I,

Singareni Collieries Company Limited,

Godavarikhani, Dist.

Karimnagar (A.P.)

...Respondent

This Industrial Dispute petition coming on before

me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Vishweshwar

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:—

AWARD

1. This dispute is raised by workman who was coal

filler in the respondent company and who was dismissed

from service as per order dated 27.03.2001 on the ground of

unauthorized absence. Subsequently petitioner filed this

I.D.

The allegations in the petition are as follows:—

2. Petitioner was appointed as Coal Filler in the year

1981 and worked to the utmost satisfactions of his superiors

till his illegal dismissal dated 29.03.2001. Petitioner met

with an accident and due to his ill health and health problems

he was compelled to be on leave. Consequently respondent

issued a charge sheet to the petitioner on the ground of

absenteeism without prior permission. Petitioner submitted

his explanation but the respondent conducted an enquiry

in an eye wash manner and dismissed the petitioner.

3. Petitioner met with an accident in the year 2001,

fell seriously ill and could not perform his duties properly.

Enquiry was conducted by one of the subordinate officers

of the respondent company and enquiry was against the

principles of natural justice. Therefore petitioner may be

directed to be reinstated as Coal Filler with continuity servie

with all attendant benefit and full wages.

4. Counter was filed on behalf of the respondent

denying the allegations and contended that the respondent

company being a Central Government undertaking, this

Tribunal has no jurisdiction regarding the specifications

of the petitioner. The respondent says that during 1998

petitioner worked for 106 days, during the year 1999 worked

for 87 days and during the year 2000, he worked for 57

days. He was issued charge sheet dated 10.03.2000 under

clause 25(25) of approved standing year of the company

for habitual absence of duties without sufficient cause.

Petitioner submitted his explanation admitting his absence

and stated that due to ill-health of his wife he could not

attend his duties regularly during the year 1999. As the

explanation is not satisfactory departmental enquiry was

conducted on 19.06.2000 in which the petitioner

participated. Petitioner did not choose to cross examine

the management witnesses and admitted the charges

leveled against him. He requested the management to

excuse him and says that he will be careful in future. As

charges against the petitioner are proved, show cause

notice dated 03.12.2000 enclosing copy of enquiry report

and proceedings was sent to the native address by

registered post. That letter returned un-served. Later a letter

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2239

was published in Vaartha daily newspaper on 23.01.2001

advising him to collect the copy of show cause notice and

enquiry report to enable him to make representation.

Petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2001 with

effect from 29.03.2001. Charge sheet was issued in the month

of March, 2000, but subsequent to that also he failed to

improve his attendance. Petitioner did not apply for leave,

he had not taken treatment either for himself for his family

members in the chain of hospitals maintained by the

respondent. If employees habitual abstaining from their

duties production targets will not be achieved. Petitioner

had withdrawn the terminal benefits payable to him and

the master-servant relationship was already severed.

5. Preliminary issue was framed regarding the validity

of the departmental enquiry. My predecessor appreciated

the validity of the departmental enquiry as per order dated

09.04.2007. Subsequently the matter is once referred to Lok

Adalat and the petitioner was offered appointing as Fresh

Badli Filler and he did not agree for the settlement.

6. During the course of enquiry the following

documents were marked on behalf of the petitioner.

(i) Mercy petition dated 17.11.2001 and dismissed

order dated 17.03.2011. On behalf of the respondent,

Ex. M-1 to M-10 are marked.

7. During the course of arguments, Advocate for

petitioner cited some decisions in support of his case. First

decision is (2002) 4 GLR 3199 between Gujarat State Road

Transport Vs. Sarfudin K. Saiyad. In this case the workman

was absent from 01.09.1983 and after charge sheet and

departmental enquriy workman was dismissed from service

from 08.03.1984. Workman was absent from 01.09.1983 to

01.10.1983 and after receiving charge sheet workman replied

that he was suffering from malaria and he will attend duty

after recovery from illness by producing necessary

certificate. There was also material that workman was

injured. The Labour Court granted reinstatement with

continuity of service with 25% back wages. That award

was challenged before the Gujarat High Court. This case is

different on facts. It is to be noted here that that the

Photostat copy of the decision cited on behalf of the

petitioner is not available at the last page. Page Number 8

is inconclusive and two pages of 8 page numbers are given.

8. Second decision is also of the Gujarat High Court

(2005) 1 GLR 187 between Virendrakumar Jayantilal Vs

Gujarat Electricity Board from 01.04.2004. This case arose

out of summary discharge of workman from service on the

ground of continued absence despite warning to return to

duty. The workman was discharged under Regulation 113

of Regulations governing the services of the workman.

The validity of Regulations 113 was challenged before the

High Court. One of the workman applied for leave. Before

any decision could be taken on the same she went abroad

and applied for extension of leave. The termination of

services were set aside. In that case there is a definition

finding that Regulation 113 was applied in an arbitrary

manner. Therefore this decision cannot be applicable to

the facts of the present case.

9. Third decision is Indian Iron & Steel Company

Ltv. Vs. Their Workmen reported in AIR 1958 Page 130. In

this case the management declared lock out and discharged

workers. Subsequnetly lock out was lifted. The principles

that were considered regarding the power of the Industrial

Tribunal to interfere in case of dismissal of workman by the

company are as follows:—

1. When there is want of good faith,

2. When there is victimization or unfair labour practice,

3. When the management has been guilty of a basic

error or violation of a principle of natural justice, or

4. When on the materials the finding is completely

baseless or perverse.

10. On facts this decision is not applicable but the

above principles can be considered in the present case.

Admitted facts are as follows:—

1. Petitioner actually worked for 87 days in the

year 1999 and 57 days in the year 2000. The working

days in the year 2000 included the period subsequent

to the issuing of charge sheet on 10.03.2000 regarding

his poor attendance.

2. In the enquiry, petitioner submitted explanation

which is marked as Ex- M-2. The explanation was

submitted on 14.04.2000. The reasons given in the

Ex. M-2, explnation is illness of the wife of the

petitioner in the year 1999. It is also stated that she

became lunatic and he had look after his 3 minor

children. It is further stated that in the month of

November, 2009, she became seriously ill and

admitted in hospital. In the whole of December he

was at her bedside. Petitioner further stated that she

got her treated and she gained normalcy and he

regularly appeared. There is no evidence from the

side of the petitioner regarding the mental illness or

other illness of his wife. This explanation was

submitted in English language. During the enquiry

also no material was placed in support of the reasons

given in the explanation.

3. In the petition it is stated that the petitioner met with

an accident and due to his ill health he was compelled

to be on leave. When he was injured in an accident,

is not mentioned in the petition in Para No. 2. In Para

No. 2 (2) it is mentioned that the petitioner met with

an accident in 2001 and not performed his duties

properly. This is quite surprising as the charge sheet

was issued in the year 2000 itself regarding

absenteeism of petitioner. Even in these proceedings

2240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

petitioner did not place any material either regarding

his illness or injuries due to accident or illness of his

wife.

11. From the above it is clear that the petitioner failed

to come forward with valid and consistent reason for his

absenteeism. Any one of the four conditions to be fulfilled

for interfering with dismissal are not present in the case of

the petitioner herein.

12. The respondent has certain guidelines to absorb

dismissed work again on the basis of certain criteria. Since

the respondent came forward to appoint the petitioner as

Afresh Badli Filler, the same offer can be considered. Further

considering reasonable attendance of the petitioner during

the years 1997 and 1998, he can be directed to appoint as

"Afresh Badli Filler" subject to medical fitness. Petitioner

is not entitled to any other relief.

13. In the result, the order of dismissal passed by the

respondent is set aside. The respondent is directed to

appoint the petitioner into service as "Afresh Badli Filler"

subject to medical fitness. The petitioner is not entitled to

any other relief.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of November,

2013.

C.V. KRISHNAIAH, Chairman-cum-Presiding

Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Workman :

For Management :

Nil

-Nil-

EXHIBITS

For workman :

Nil

For Management :

Ex. M-1

Dt.

10-03-2000

Charge sheet o/copy

Ex. M-2

Dt.

14-04-2000

Explanation to the charge

sheet

Ex. M-3

Dt.

04-06-2000

Enquiry notice

Ex. M-4

Dt.

19-06-2000

No objection letter given to

the enquiry officer conducting

enquiry in English.

Ex. M-5

Dt.

19-06-2000

Enquiry proceedings

Ex. M-6

Dt.

21-06-2000

Enquiry report

Ex. M-7

Dt.

03-12-2000

Show cause notice

Ex. M-8

Dt.

23-12-2000

Un-delivered postal returned

cover

Ex. M-9

Dt.

23-01-2001

News paper publication in the

Vaartha Telugu

Ex. M-10

Dt.

27-03-2001

Dismissal order

ubZ fnYyh] 13 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 840.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ ,yñ

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 07@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 13-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@206@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 13th February, 2014

S.O. 840.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 07/2002) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of WCL, and their workman, received by

the Central Government on 13.02.2014.

[No. L-22012/206/2000-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/07/2002

Date: 27.09.2013.

Party No. 1 :

The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur. (MS).

Party No. 2 :

The General Secretary,

Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh

(SKMS),

WCL Coal Estate, Civil Lines,

Nagpur (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 27th 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

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of WCL and their workman Shri Bhikku

Vishwanath & 149 others (as per list enclosed) for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-22012/206/2000-IR(CM-II)

dated 28.12.2001, with the following schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Nagpur in converting Sh. Bhikku Vishwanth & 149

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2241

others (as per list enclosed) PR loaders to TR/MR

(Time Rated/Monthly Rated) category without

protecting their P.R.—group wages, as per the

Tripartite conciliation settlement dated 2.11.1992 is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief they are

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were notices

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, Samyukta Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (SKMS)", ("the union"in short) filed the

statement of claim, on behalf of the workmen, Shri Bhikku

Vishwanath & 149 others (as per list enclosed), ("the

workmen" 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 workmen by the union that the workmen are entitled

to full pay protection from the date of their conversion

from loader to Time rated categories or in other categories.

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

the allegations made in the statement of claim and pleading

inter-alia that the workmen are not entitled for any relief.

4. On 27.09.2003, the date on whcih the reference

was fixed for adducing of evidence on affidavit for the side

of the petitioner, the petitioner (the union representative

who has filed the statement of claim on behalf of the

workmen) filed an application supported with affidavit for

permission to withdraw the case on the ground that the

Party No. 1 was finally assured to find out a solution after

mutual discussions with all the operative central trade

unions and therefore, the union doesn't want to proceed

with the case. Copy of the application was served on the

advocate for the Party No. 1. As the petitioner did not want

to proceed with the case, in the interest of justice, the

application was allowed.

5. At the union (petitioner) who has raised the

dispute on behalf of the workmen and has also filed the

statement of claim doesn't want to proceed with the

reference, the reference is liable to be dismissed without

grant of any relief to the workmen. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The reference is dismissed as not pressed by the

petitioner. The workmen are not entitled to any relief. No

leave is also granted to the union or the workmen to raise

the dispute again or to revive the present reference. The

application supported with the affidavit and documents

filed by the petitioner are made part of the award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 841.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkaMyk iksVZ VªLV

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 110@2010½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&37011@3@2008&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 841.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. 110/2010)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus-Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of Kandla Port

Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-37011/3/2008-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 22nd October, 2013

Reference: (CGITA) No-110/2010

Reference: (I.T.C) No. 1680/2008 (Old)

The Chairman,

Kandla Port Trust,

Post Box No.-50,

Gandhidham, Kutch (Gujarat)

AND

Their Workman

Through The General Secretary,

Transport & Dock Workers Union, 21,

Yogesh Building Plot No. 586,

12-C, Gandhidham,

Kutch-370201

For the 1st party:

Shri Yogi Kishor Gadhia, Advocate

For the Second Party:

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi vide adjudication order No. L-37011/3/2008 (IR (B-II)

dated 01.09.2008 referred the dispute for adjudication to

the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) on the terms

of reference in the Schedule:

2242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the chairman, Kandla Port

Trust, A.U. Building, P.O. Box No. 50, Gandhidham,

Kutch in forcibly asking to operate heavy duty pumps

provided at Oil Jetties and not paying operational

allowances to the Pump Operator-cum-Drivers of the

Brigade section is legal and justified? What relief the

pump operator-cum-Drivers are entitled?"

2. Even upon notice by the Industrial Tribunal,

Ahmedabad, the 2nd party (Union) neither appear nor filed

statement of claim. When the case record received in this

CGIT-cum-Labour Court on transfer by order of M.O.L.,

New Delhi again fresh notice were sent to the parties and

the 1st party (K.P.T) appeared and filed Vakilpatra in favour

Gadhia Associates vide Ext.3, but the 2nd party (Union)

failed to appear in this case.

3. The 2nd party (Union) who raised the Industrial

dispute is duly bound to file statement of claim since burden

of proving that the action of the management of K.P.T. in

not paying operational allowances to the Pump Operator-

cum-driver of fire Brigade section is illegal, is upon the

2nd party (Union). But the 2nd party has lost interest in

this case. So the reference is fit to be dismissed.

The terms of reference is answered in favour of the

1st party that the action of the chairman, K.P.T. in forcibly

asking to operate heavy duty pump provided at Oil Jetties

and not paying operation allowances to the Pump operator-

cum-Driver of Fire Brigade is legal and justified.

This Reference is, therefore, dismissed.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 842.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,y vkbZ lh vkWQ+

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 312@2004½

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&17012@45@99&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 842.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 312/

2004) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of LIC of India

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/02/2014.

[No. L-17012/45/99-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

AHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

BINAY KUMAR SINHA,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Ahmedabad, Dated 24th December, 2013

Reference: (CGITA) No-312 of 2004

Reference: (I.T.C) No. 73/2000 (Old)

The Senior Divisional Manager,

L.I.C. of India, Jeevan Prakash,

Behind Telephone Exchange,

Ch Road, Sector-II,

Gandhinagar-382010

.... First party

AND

Their Workman

Shri Rajendrakumar Manilal Bhutedia

Outside Makrani Darwaja,

Bhangiva, Vijapur,

Mehsana (Gujarat)

.... Second Party

For the 1st party:

Shri Kishor V. Gandhia, Advocate

For the 2nd party:

None

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour, New

Delhi by its order No. L-17012/45/99 (IR (B-II) dated

22.06.2000 in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute for

adjudication of Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

on the terms of reference in the Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India in appointing Shri Rajendra Kumar Manilal

Bhutedia for 120 days period and thereafter

appointing another workman and so on against the

vacancies of peons not filled up due to ban on

recruitment of permanent peons under LIC

(Employment of temporary staff) instructions, 1993

is legal and justified? if not then to what relief the

concerned employee is entitled to?"

2. The workman 2nd party in spite of notice failed to

appear and to file statement of claim whereas 1st party

(employer) appeared in response to notice and on the pursis

(Ext. 9) of the 1st party dated 19.01.2001 that the workman

is not present and has not filed statement of claim, order

was passed below Ext. 9 as to dismissing the reference and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2243

thereafter award dated 30.01.2001 was passed that due to

absent of workman the reference is set side and dismissed

without any cost vide Ext. 10. Thereafter on filing of misc.

application by the workman vide misc. case No. 5/2001 in

reference (I.T.C.) No. 73/2000, the misc. case was allowed

after hearing both sides lawyer vide order (Ext. 11) passed

on 23.03.2004 and the reference. (I.T.C. No. 73/2000, was

restored to original file and number directing the applicant/

workman to submit his statement of claim. The workman

executed power (Vakilpatra) in favour of Shri B.B. Thesia,

Advocate (Ext. 12). But thereafter again failed to submit

statement of claim whereas the 1st party remained in

attendance through its lawyer on date. Even giving several

adjournments the workman and his lawyer remained absent.

3. There is reasons to believe that the workman has

lost interest in this reference and failed to submit statement

of claim. As such following order is passed.

ORDER

The terms of reference in the schedule is answered

in the affirmative justifying the action of the management

of LIC of India.

The reference, is therefore, dismissed. No order of

cost.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 843.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj LVsV cSad vkWQ

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 33@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@05@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 843.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. 33 of 2012) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Mumbai

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/05/2012-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT : JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT 1/33 of 2012

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of State

Bank of India

And

Their Workman (Devdatta V. Prabhu)

Appearances:

For the first party:

Mr. Nadkarani, Adv.

For the Union:

Mr. Umesh Nabar, Adv.

State:

Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 7th day of March, 2013

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section (1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947. The terms of the reference given in the

schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of State bank

of India, Thane in considering that Shri Devdatta V. Prabhu

has voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 13.8.2008 vide

their order dated 26.2.2009 is legal and justified? To what

relief the workman is entitled?"

2. According to the Statement of claim the workman

Devdatta V. Prabhu joined the State Bank of India

(hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on 26.10.1986 and was

confirmed on 27.4.1987 as messenger. He proceeded on

leave on and from 12.1.2008 intimating about his wife's

serious illness. He could not report for duty and this was

taken as deemed voluntary retirement by the Bank without

giving him any opportunity of being heard. The Bank was

made aware that there was nobody to look after his wife

and he had no intention to abandon the employment or

voluntarily retire from service. Thus there was no ground

for invoking the provisions of clause 33 of the 8th Bipartite

Settlement. After final notice was served upon the workman

on 26.2.2009 he reported for work within 30 days i.e. on

23.3. 2009 with explanation as well as medical certificate

but the Bank did not allow him to resume his duties. It has,

therefore, been prayed that the Bank be directed to reinstate

the workman with effect from 13.8.2008 with full back

wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

3. According to the written statement the leave record

of the workman was for from satisfactory and several memos

were issued to him on account of his unauthorised absence.

Clause 33 of the 8th Settlement stipulates that when an

employee absents from work for a period of 90 or more

consecutive days without prior sanction from the

2244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Competent Authority or beyound the period of leave

sanctioned Originally including any extension thereof or

where there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up

employment in India or outside, the management at any

time thereafter may give a notice to the employee at his last

known address calling upon him to report for work within

30 days of the date of notice. Unless the employee reports

for work within 30 days or gives an explanation for his

absence satisfying the management that he has not taken

up another employment or vocation, the employee shall be

given a further notice to report for work within 30 days

failing which the employee will be deemed to have

voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the

said notice. The workman was unauthorisedly absent from

duty from 12.1.2008. The Bank, therefore, issued notice

dt. 2.6.2008 to the workman as the workman did not report

for duty despite the communication. A further notice dt.

12.7.2008 was sent to the workman. Both the notices were

sent to the workman at his last known address but were

returned by the postal authorities with the remark 'left'. As

the workman did not report for duty by 12.8.2008 the

workman was deemed to have voluntarily retired from

service on 13.8.2008 and this position was communicated

to the workman vide Banks's memo dt. 26.2.2009. According

to the written statement the Union has raised dispute after

a period of 26 months and thus the Union is now estopped

from questioning the Banks' action. According to the written

statement the workman at no point of time during his

unauthorised absence from 12.1.2008 till his deemed

retirement sent any application or intimation to the Bank

about the reasons for his absence. The Bank has, therefore,

prayed that the reference be answered in favour of the

Bank.

4. The workman has filed an application on 25.2.2013

that the workman and the Union do not desire to prosecute

this reference and lead evidence and that the reference be

dismissed as withdrawn by the Union.

5. In view of the above application the action of the

Bank appears to be legal and justified.

6. The workman is, therefore, not entitled to any relief.

Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 844.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj U;w cSad vkWQ

bf.M;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼52@93½ izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@352@92&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II)]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 844.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 52/93) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of New Bank of India and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

14.02.2014.

[No. L-12012/352/92-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/52/93

PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Manohar Chandwani,

New B-29, Qr. No. 318,

Gidwani Park,

Bairagarh,

Bhopal

.........Workman

Versus

Regional Manager,

New Bank of India,

Press Complex,

Bhopal

.........Management

AWARD

Passed on this 27th day of September 2013

1. As per letter dated 3.3.93 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-

12012/352/92-IR (B-II). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"whether the action of the management of New Bank

of India, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri

Manohar Chandwani w.e.f. 15.4.91 is justified or not?

If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Case of workman is that he was working as

clerk cum typist in the Bank of India, Bhopal branch.

Chargesheet was issued to him about

misappropriation of Rs. 40,500 from Account of

M/s. Johnson Agencies. Cheque No. 224498 bearing

forged signature was issued.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2245

Cheque was Account Payee. The amount of cheque

was paid. Amount was deposited under D.D. No.

228636 and 44550 on 3.12.1989. Though charges were

denied by him, he was suspended during pending

enquiry. It is alleged that he was forced to admit the

charges assuring that enquiry would be completed

at the earliest and the suspension would be revoked.

His financial condition was poor. Under such

circumstances, he was forced to admit the charges.

That there is no question of receiving amount under

the cheque. That enquiry conducted against him was

not proper. Signatures on cheque were sent for

verifying before payment to holder. That he was

acquitted in the Criminal case No. 319/90 on 15.11.91.

That he was not given opportunity for his defence in

enquiry proceedings. Principles of natural justice

were not followed. Punishment of dismissal were

legal. On such grounds, he prays for reinstatement

with consequential benefits.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 13/2 to 13/5.

Preliminary objection is raised by IInd party that the

disciplinary action is taken against Ist Party workman

as per bipartite settlement. Penalty imposed is proper.

That Ist party workman had died on 10.1.94. The

workman is not entitled to any relief. That Ist party

was working as clerk cum typist in the Bank. On

1.12.89, he remoed one signed cheque from account

of M/s. Johnson Agency and withdraw amount of

Rs. 40,500/- thus the Ist party workman had

committed gross misconduct withdrawing the

amount. Chargesheet was issued by the Bank. As

per Bipartite settlement enquiry was conducted

against him. Workman admitted misconduct on his

part. Enquiry Officer submitted his report. Showcause

notice was issued to him. Considering the gravity of

misconduct, punishment of dismissal was imposed.

The principles of natural justice were followed. IInd

party prayed for rejection of claim of workman.

4. Workman died during pendency. His LRs are brought

on record. The enquiry was held properly and legally

as per order dated 23.4.96. My predecessor had

passed award on 18.5.98 setting aside the order of

dismissal of Ist party workman directing his

reinstatement etc. The said award was challenged

by management of IInd party in W.P. No. 4656/98.

The matter is remanded by Hon'ble High Court

observing that it was obligatory to consider

perversity of findings and quantum of punishment.

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 alleged

misconduct on part of

deceased Ist party is

proved from evidence and

whether findings of

Enquiry Officer are

perverse?

(ii) Whether punishment of

dismissal imposed against

deceased workman is

proper?

(iii) What order as to relief?

REASONS

6. As discussed above, the enquiry conducted against

workman was found legal and proper. The matter is

remanded for decided perversity of the findings of

Enquiry Officer and quantum of punishment. The

record of Enquiry Proceeding is produced at Page 90

of Enquiry Proceedings, deceased delinquent has

admitted charges against him. At Page 90 also charges

were again explained, he has voluntarily admitted

the charges. The enquiry conducted against

workman is found legal. There is no evidence to hold

that admission of charges by deceased workman

suffered from any king of illegality. Therefore I record

my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

7. Point No. 2 is whether the punishment of dismissal

imposed against deceased workman is proper or not?

The charges against deceased workman were related

to withdrawal of amount under the cheque from

account of M/s. Johnson Agencies. The deceased

workman had admitted the charges. The misconduct

is of serious nature.

8. Learned counsel for IInd party Shri N.B. Sharma

submits that when the charges proved relates to

misappropriation, punishment of dismissal cannot

be interfered. In support of his arguments, learned

counsel relies on ratio held in—

Case of Janatha Bazar (South Karara) Central

cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and others versus

Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others

reported in 2000(7) Supreme Court Cases 517. The

Lordship of Apex Court dealing with scope of judicial

review under Section 11-A of I.D. Act considering

the charge of misappropriation of goods was

established in domestic enquiry and the delinquent

employee was dismissed. The Lordship held erred in

directing his reinstatement with 25% back wages on

the ground that his past record was without blemish.

Their Lordship held proved case of misappropriation

does not call for any sympathy.

Next reliance is placed on ratio held in case of

Narendra Nath Bhalla versus State of Uttar Pradesh

Alleged misconduct is

prayed.

Affirmative

Workman is not entitled

to any relief.

2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and others reported in 2007(15) Supreme Court Cases

775. Their Lordship of the Apex Court dealing with

judicial review in matter of Departmental Enquiry held

charges of misappropriation of money and issuing

false receipt on plain paper proved against appellant

in departmental enquiry, money appropriation given

back by appellant. Merely repayment of money would

not absolve him of the serious charges proved.

Considering ratio in above cases and the serious

charges of misappropriation of amount proved as

per report of Enquiry officer as per admission by the

deceased workman, the punishment of dismissal from

service cannot be said disproportionate. No

interference is called for. For above reasons award is

passed as under:—

(1) Action of the management of New Bank of India,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Manohar

Chandwani w.e.f. 15.4.91 is legal.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per

rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 845.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaVªy cSad vkWQ+

bafM;k ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] vgenkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

386@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14-02-2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@18@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 845.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 386/2004

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central

Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/18/2001-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

AHMEDABAD

Present:

Binay Kumar Sinha,

Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court,

Ahmedabad,

Dated 7th October, 2013

Reference (CGITA): 386/2004

Reference (ITC): 315/2008

The Dy. General Manager,

Central Bank of India,

Zonal Office, Lal Darwaja,

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380001

.....First Party

And

Their Workman

Shri Harish A. Vaghela

Through the General Secretary,

Central Bank Staff Union,

C/o. Central Bank of India

Lal Darwaja Branch

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) 380001

....Second Party

For the First Party:-Shri K.J. Macwan, Advocate

For the Second Party:-Shri Jayantilal J. Shah, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government/Ministry of Labour by its

order No.-L-12011/18/2001/IR(B-II), New Delhi dated

27.04.2001 under Cl. (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 referred the dispute

for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Gujarat)

under the terms of reference in the Schedule:—

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal

Manager, Central Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Ahmedabad in denying officiating allowance to Shri

H.A. Waghela, AC Plant Helper, Gandhi Road Branch,

Ahmedabad w.e.f. 07.08.1996 is legal and justified? If

not, then what relief the concerned employee is

entitled to?"

2. The case of the workman (2nd party) as per

statement of claim (Ext. 4) is that H.A. Waghela a sub staff

was working as AC plant helper at Gandhi Road branch of

Central Bank of India and was forced to work as Air

condition plant operator from 07.08.1996 as per the written

order of the employer (Bank). He was performing extra

duties of AC plant operator without being paid officiating

allowance against the bipartite settlement-If a member of

subordinate staff officiates in clerical cadre he shall be

paid officiating allowance. "The Union (2nd party) raised

demand on 18.09.2000-Mr. Vaghela working as AC plant

operator at Gandhi Road branch must be paid salary and

wage as being paid for identical duties in other branches at

Ahmedabad from 07.08.1996". No reply from Bank with

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2247

regard to the demand and so dispute was referred to

conciliation officer and on failure report to appropriate

authority followed by reference for adjudication. Further

case is that at Ahmedabad three branches of Central Bank

of India have Air Conditioner plants-(1) Lal Darwaja (2)

Maskati Market and (3) Gandhi Road Branch. The post of

air condition plant operator is in clerical cadre and AC plant

operator are posted at Laldarwaja Maskali branch but no

AC plant operator in clerical cadre is posted at Gandhi

Road branch. But workman Harish A. Vaghela is performing

the duties of A.C. plant operator at Gandhi Road branch

but is no being paid officiating allowance. But in the past

such officiating allowance was paid by the management of

the 1st party to the A.C. plant helper working at Zonal

office at Ahmedabad. On these scores prayer is to direct

management of Central Bank of India to pay officiating

allowance to Shri H.A. Vaghela A.C. plant helper, applicable

to clerical staff and he be paid salary and wages as being

paid for identical duties in other branches at Ahmedabad

from 07.08.1996 with cost.

3. As against this, the contention of the 1st party as

per written statement (Ext. 7) is that the grievance made by

the second party wholly unjustified, enoneous and

contrary to the provisions of the bipartite settlement and

the reference is not maintainable. The case of the 1st party

is that Shri Harish A. Vaghela joined the 1st party bank as

subordinate staff w.e.f. 01.10.1982. He subsequently

engaged as liftman cum peon w.e.f. 01.09.1983. subsequently

he was selected as air conditioning plant helper vide order

dated 27.02.1993 and he was asked to work as an air

conditioning plant helper at the Muskati market branch at

Ahmedabad. Thereafter Shri Vaghela was transferred as an

air conditioning plant helper to Gandhi Road branch w.e.f.

01.07.1996 Gandhi Road branch of Central Bank of India is

a very small branch of the bank and considering the

requirement of work regarding overall repairing and

maintenance of the air conditioning plant at Gandhi Road

branch as an air conditioning plant helper Shri Vaghela

was asked to operate the A.C. plant vide order dated

07.08.1996 and the duty of Shri Vaghela was to switch on

and off the air conditioning plant once in a day. Such

decision was taken by the management of 1st party keeping

in view that there was no regular sanctioned post of air-

conditioning plant operator a clerical cadre, Gandhi Road

branch, Ahmedabad. Further decision was taken by the

management of the 1st party to provide special allowance

of Rs. 524/- per month to Shri Vaghela working as AC plant

helper. Further contention is that in the absence of the

existence of a regular sanctioned post of A.C. Plant operator

at Gandhi Road branch, Ahmedabad, Shri Harish A. Vaghela

cannot claim officiating allowance as a matter of right. More

so, the provision of bipartite settlement would apply only

in a case of a person who officiates in the higher cadre on

a regular sanctioned post. On these score, prayer is that

the reference is devoid of merit and is fit to be rejected.

4. In view of the rival contention of the arties the

following issues are taken up for determination and

adjudication of the case?

ISSUES

(i) Is the reference maintainable?

(ii) Whether the 2nd party (workman/Union) has got

valid cause of action to raise dispute?

(iii) Whether Shri Harish A. Vaghela is entitled to get

officiating allowance of air conditioning plant

operator in addition to his duty of A.C. Plant helper

w.e.f. 07.08.1996 at Gandhi Road branch of the 1st

party?

(iv) What orders are to be passed?

FINDINGS

5. ISSUE NO. III: The 2nd party with a list dated

24.04.2006 (Ext. 18) produced eleven documents upon

which the 1st party lawyer on 10.10.2008 endorsed no

objection as to documents as Sl. Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (7

documents) and so those were marked Ext. 22, 23, 24, 25,

26, 27 and 28. Subsequently documents at Sl. No. 3, 4 and

11 were marked Ext. 32,33 and 34 respectively on 04.03.2010.

The workman deposed in oral evidence (vide Ext. 19). His

examination in chief was held on two dates 20.04.2006 and

on 04.03.2010 and thereafter his cross examination by the

1st party was made on 09.04.2010. In the meantime, the 2nd

party again filed 9 documents as per list Ext. 29 on 18.12.2008

and seven documents were taken in documentary evidence

with objection of the 1st party and were marked Ext.

35,36,37,38, 39, 40 and 41 on 04.03.2010.

On the other hand, the 1st party has relied upon four

documents by a list (Ext.44) and were produced on

04.10.2012 and its copy furnished to the 2nd party having

endorsed no objection.

7. Now coming to examine the documents of the 2nd

party. Ext.22 is letter dated 20.04.1987 of chief officer.

Central Bank of India addressed to Mr. S.L. Ellis, A.C. Plant

helper, Zonal Office, Ahmedabad, informing that whenever

you work as A.C. plant operator, you will be given officiating

allowance as per Bipartite settlement. This is not disputed

that at Ahmedabad there were two regular sanctioned post

of A.C. Plant operator one at Zonal Office and 2nd at

Muskati Market branch. This Ext.22 shows that as there

was sanctioned post of A.C. Plant operator at Zonal office

and during leave of A.C. Plant operator Mr. S.L. Ellis, a sub

staff (A.C. plant helper) was officiating so he was allowed

officiating allowance.Ext.32 is letter dated 02.06.1987 that

go to show that Mr. Ellis, A.C. plant helper had officiated

from 03.06.1987 to 05.06.1987 as A.C. Plant operator. Ext.33

is office order dated 11.04.1989 of the 1st party shows that

Mr. S.L Ellis, A.C. Plant helper was directed to report for his

duty at Muskati Market branch till regular A.C. plant

2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

operator Mr. Patel reports his duty at Muskati branch and

he will be paid officiating allowance. This go to show that

as there was also sanctioned post of A.C. Plant operator at

Muskati branch of Central Bank of India and so Mr. Ellis

was allowed officiating allowance for certain period. Further,

it is not disputed that Gandhi Road branch of Central Bank

of India, Ahmedabad had no regular sanctioned post of

A.C. Plant operator. Vide Ext. 23, the workman Harish A.

Vaghela vide 1st party letter dated 18.02.1993 was called in

interview for selection of A.C. plant helper and vide Ext. 24

dated 27.02.1993 he was selected for the post of A.C. Plant

helper and was posted to work as A.C. plant helper at

Muskati Market branch and was provided with special

allowance of Rs. 276/- per month. Ext. 25 is office order of

1s" Party relieving Mr. Vaghela on 27.02.1993 from Zonal

office and to join at Muskati market branch on 28.02.1993.

Ext. 26 is office order of Muskati branch of Central Bank of

India dated 29.06.1996 regarding transfer of Harish A.

Vaghela, A.C. plant helper to Gandhi Road Branch on the

same post was relieved on 29.06.1996 after office hours

directing to report on duty on 01.07.1996. Ext.27 is office

order of Gandhi Road Branch, Ahmedabad of Central Bank

of India dated 07.08.1996 directing him duty for routine

maintenance and repairing works of A.C. plant in addition

to all other duties as specified in Bipartite settlement

amended from time to time and directing him to on A.C

plant at 10:30 a.m. and close at 4:45 p.m. and to close at 2:00

p.m. on Saturday. Ext. 28 is reply letter of Gandhi Road

branch to Harish A. Vaghela that his letter for getting

officiating allowance of A.C. plant operator for Gandhi Road

branch was forwarded to Regional office and it has been

conveyed that there is no sanctioned post of A.C. plant

operator at Gandhi Road branch and so officiating

allowance cannot be given to Mr. Vaghela. Now coming to

examine the document of the 1st Party vide Ext. 44/1 which

is letter of Ahmedabad Regional office addressed to Gandhi

Road branch dated 08.10.1996 A.C. plant at Gandhi Road

branch can be maintained by a Helper (A.C. Plant helper)

and so we have provided a helper special allowance of Rs.

524 per month for additional operation of switching on and

switching off only as there is no vacancy for any A.C plant

operator. Ext. 44/1 proves that for performing duties of A.C.

plant helper as per office order dated 07.08.1996 (Ext. 27)

Shri Harish Vaghela was also getting Rs. 524/- per month

as special allowance. Ext. 44/2 is copy of vacancies dated

09.03.1992 for the post of Air Condition plant helper and as

per this vacancies Shri H.A. Vaghela was selected as A.C.

plant helper as per Ext. 24 having responsibilities for routine

maintenance and repairing of A.C plant of the Bank. Ext.

44/3 is vacancy dated 27.03.1987 for the post of A.C. plant

operator in clerical cadre at Zonal Office, Ext. 44/4 is letter

of voltas limited addressed to Asst. General Manager, Zonal

office. Ahmedabad. Central Bank of India on the subject as

to installation of 2 No. 7.5 TR, split type Air cooled package

units in 1995 at Gandhi Road Branch and the same is under

annual maintenance service control and the person with

minimum qualification of wireman can operate these units

and no requirement of skilled grade person/Engineer. This

also go to the support the 1st Party that there was no

requirement of skilled person rather there was duty of Mr.

Harish A. Vaghela to switch on and switch off of A.C. plant

at Gandhi Road Branch.

8. Ext. 35 is copy of appointment letter dated

18.02.1983 of Gopal Paras Jayantilal and posting at Regional

office, Lal Darwaja of Central Bank of India, on the post of

air conditioning plant operator at Zonal/Regional office,

Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad in clerical cadre. This go to show

only that due to regular sanction of post of Air conditioning

plant operator at Zonal office, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad,

appointment and posting in clerical cadre was made. Ext.

36 is certificate dated 12.05.1984 granted by Chief Officer

(P&S) Central Bank of India, Regional office, Lal Darwaja,

Ahmedabad to Shri Harish A. Vaghela regarding gross

salary for the month of April 1984. This does not go to

prove his case for demand of officiating. Pay of A.C. plant

operator to him. Ext. 37 is copy of vacancy dated 27.03.1987

for the post of A.C. plant operator at Zonal officer. This is

the same document as that of lst Party at Ext. 44/3. Requisite

qualification of A.C. plant operator in clerical cadre in having

a diploma in air conditioning. This does not help to the 2nd

party. Ext. 38 is duty order of A.C. plant helper dated 02.07

1996 at Gandhi Road branch that he will start A.C. Plant

Monday to Friday and on Saturday close it at 2:00 p.m.

This shows that H.A. Vaghela designation was of A.C.

plant helper at Gandhi Road branch. Ext. 38 dated 07.08.1996

is same document as that of 27 already discussed. Ext.39 is

dated 11.05.1999 also same document as that of Ext. 34

already marked. Through this office order of Gandhi Road

branch of Central Bank of India workman H.A. Vaghela

was instructed to attend Maskati Market branch from

13.05.1999 to 08.06.1999 along with his duties here as A.C.

operator of Maskati Market branch is going on leave during

the above period and he was allowed Auto charges for the

duties at Maskati Market branch during 13.05.1999 to

08.06.1999. Ext.40 is reply of Zonal office of Central Bank of

India, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad to ALC(C) that there is no

provision in bipartite settlement for payment of any

officiating allowance to sub-staff for performing the higher

duties in clerical cadre as claimed by Union and the member

concerned (indicating to Mr. HA Vaghela) is working as

A.C. plant helper only and that only two branches, Zonal

and Muskati Market branch are having post of Air

conditioning plant operator. There is no justification for

creating such post at Gandhi Road branch.

9. More so, the Union has raised dispute demanding

for officiating allowance of A.C. plant operator to Sh. Harish

A. Vaghela, helper at Gandhi Road Branch only and so Ext.

34/39 is of no avail for strengthening demand of officiating

allowance for his duties for the period 13.05.1999 to

08.06.1999 at Maskati Market branch along with his duties

of A.C. plant helper at Gandhi Road branch for which he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2249

was getting special allowance of Rs. 524/- per month. He

was allowed Auto charges during period 13.05.1999 to

08.06.1999 also. The deputation for that period along with

his duty at Gandhi Road branch was made by office order

of Gandhi Road branch and not by Zonal/Regional office,

Ahmedabad. So even for that period Shri Harish A. Vaghela

is not entitled for officiating allowance of A.C plant operator

for his duties at Muskati Market branch. Ext. 22, 32 and 33

concerning duties/office order for Mr. S.L Ellis A.C. plant

helper at Zonal office, Ahmedabad do not go to help as to

claim of officiating aflowance to Mr. H.A. Vaghela performing

duties of helper at Gandhi Road branch having no regular

sanctioned post of air conditioning plant operator in clerical

cadre.

10. As per discussion above of all the documentary

evidence, I find that those documents do not go to help

the workman Harish A. Vaghela raising dispute through

Union for officiating allowance of A.C. plant operator at

Gandhi Road branch of Central Bank of India. So the oral

evidence of Harish A. Vaghela (Ext. 19) is also not going to

strengthen his such claim. His oral evidence that he has

been deprived of grant of officiating allowance by the Ist

Party is of no avail in view of the documentary evidence

scrutinised above and more so, even as per Bipartite

settlement Shri Harish A. Vaghela A.C. plant helper at Gandhi

Road branch (being subordinate staff) was not officiating

in clerical cadre (A.C. plant operator ) at Gandhi Road

branch of the 1st Party has no regular sanctioned post of

air conditioning plant operator.

11. So after examining the evidences and material

discussed above, I am of the considered view that the

demand raised by Shri Harish A. Vaghela through Union

(the 2nd Party) for getting officiating allowance of Air

conditioning plant operator at Gandhi Road branch,

Ahmedabad is devoid of any merit and so the 2nd Party is

not entitled to get officiating allowance as claimed w.e.f.

07.08.1996. This issue is, therefore, decided against the

2nd Party Union/workmen.

12. ISSUE No. I and II:— In view of the findings in

the foregoings, I further find and hold that this reference is

devoid of any merit and is not maintainable and the 2nd

Party (Union/workmen) has no valid cause of action to

raise dispute.

13. ISSUE No. IV:— the reference is dismissed on

contest by the Ist Party (Management of Bank). No order

as to cost.

As such the terms of reference is answered in favour

of the 1st Party that the action of the management of Zonal

Manager, Central Bank of India, Ahmedabad in denying

officiating allowance to Shri Harish A. Vaghela, A.C. Plant

helper , Gandhi Road branch , Ahmedabad w.e.f. 07.08.1996

is legal and justified and the 2nd Party is not entitled to any

relief.

This is my award.

BINAY KUMAR SINHA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 846.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼53@93½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@355@92&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 846.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/93)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute

between the management of Dena Bank and their workman,

received by the Central Governmnet on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/355/92-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/L.C/R/53/93

PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri R.B. Patle

Shri Sanjay Waman Kale,

Gram Bhonsa, Post Kalimati,

Tehsil Aamagaon,

Disit. Bhandara,

Maharashtra

...Workman

Versus

Dy.Regional Manager (Dev.),

Dena Bank.

Nashik Region

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 11th day of November 2013

1. As per letter dated 3-3-93 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section -10 of I.D.Act, 1947 as per Notification No.L-12012/

355/92-IR-B-II. The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the claim of Shri Sanjay Waman Kale that

he was an employee of Dena Bank is correct? If so,

2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

whether action of the management of Dena Bank in

terminating his services is justified? If so, what relief,

if any, is Shri Sanjay W.Kale is entitled to?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist Party workman filed statement of claim at

Page 1 to 2, Case of workman is that he was appointed by

management as Driver from 26-6-91. The appointment was

given after due scrutiny for post of Driver. He was paid

wages Rs. 950 per month and Rs. 20 daily allowance. He

was required to work from 9.30 AM including Sundays. He

worked continuously for 380 days in the Bank. He was

required to work as Driver of the Car of Dy. Regional

Manager. Rest of the time he was required to do other

works in the Bank. That no showcause notice was issued

to him. His services were terminated orally from 26-7-92 in

violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. on such ground, he is

praying for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.

3. Written submissions are also submitted by

workman at Page 2/1 to 2/2 contending that he was

appointed in Bank as Driver. He was driving Car No. MHL-

7028 of Dy. Regional Manager. He was paid Rs. 950 per

month and daily allowance Rs. 20. The bills were paid by

the Bank. He was maintaining logbook. That his termination

is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D.Act.

4. Management of Ilnd Party filed Written Statement

denying claim of the workman. Ilnd party contented that

the workman was not employee of the Bank. He was

appointed as personal driver by Dy. Regional Manager.

The Dy. Regional Manager was entitled to allowance for

personal driver. There is no relationship of employer and

employee between parties. Therefore the dispute is not

tenable. Ist Party workman is not entitled to reinstatement

claimed by him.

5. Workman filed rejoinder. He has reiterated his

contentions in Statement of Claim about his appointment,

payment of salary, termination of service in violation of

Section 25-F of I.D. Act

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

(i) Whether the claim of Shri

Sanjay Waman Kale that he

was an employee of Dena

Bank is proper?

(ii) Whether action of the

management of Dena Bank

in terminating services of

Shri Sanjay Waman Kale is

justifled?

(iii) If so, to what relief the

workman is entitled to?

REASONS

7. Workman claiming to be driver working in the Bank

raised present dispute while working as a Driver of Car of

Dy. Regional Manager. His services were illegally

terminated. The claim of the workman was denied. The

reference was decided by my learned predecessor vide

Award dated 26-11-99. Management of Ilnd Party was

directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as exgratia to the workman and

ensure within 3 months that workman is absorbed in the

services of the Bank in or around Nagpur on a salary of not

less than Rs. 4000 per month. Said award was challenged

by management of Ilnd Party filing Writ Petition No. 6299

of 2000. Vide judgment dated 28-3-06, award passed by my

this Tribunal was set-aside observing that since there is

no discussion in the order of the CGIT that the facts of the

decision of Gularn Destgeer (supra) to tally with the present

factual scenario, the award of CGIT cannot be allowed to

remain stand and the same is hereby quashed. Case is sent

back to the CGIT to re-decide the matter in the light of the

observations made.

8. After remand of the matter, the parties did not

adduce any evidence. Both parties rely on the evidence

already adduced. At the time of argument, learned counsel

for 1st Party Shri H.R. Bharti submits that workman was

working as Driver of Dy. Regional Manager. The case is

fully covered by the ratio held in Case of Gulam Destgeer,

1st Party workman was not working as Personal Driver of

the Officer. Workman died in 2004. That compensation

amount Rs. 50,000 be enhanced. Learned counsel for Ilnd

party Shri Shashi submits that workman died, his LRs are

brought on record. As per the terms of reference, two

questions are required to be decided whether the workman

was employee of the Bank and to what relief the workman

is entitled?

9. In his affidavit of evidence, workman has stated

that he was appointed as Bank employee Driver and not as

a personal driver of Dy. Regional Manager. That after

termination of his service, Mr. Tambut was appointed as

per Waiting list of 1985, Tambut had given interview for

permanent post. In his cross-examination, above evidence

remained unchallenged. Rather workman in his cross-

examination says that in Written Statement filed by Bank, it

is not stated that Tambut was appointed from Waiting List

of 1985. That he was given appointment by Dy. Regional

Manager. Appointment letter in writing was not given to

him. He was not interviewed by any Committee. That he

was driving the car given to Shri Valimbe by the Bank. He

was not driving any other car. Thus from his evidence, it is

clear that the car driven by him was provided by Bank.

That he had passed receipt for the wages paid Exhibit M-I2

to M-18. In his further cross-examination, he says that he

had submitted application for Driver. That Mr. Pattalwar

In Affirmative

As per final order.

In Negative.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2251

was giving him slips and then amount was paid by the

Bank.

10. The evidence of management's witness Shri

Prakash Pattalwar is that workman was appointed by him

as Personal Driver. Such driver engaged by Officer doesnot

work under supervision and control of the Bank. That the

workman was engaged by Shri G.S.Vilimbe, the then Dy.

Regional Manager (Development) stationed at Nagpur. In

his cross-examination, he says that letter of appointment

was not given to the workman. Bank was not concerned

with his appointment. Bank was not paying salary. That he

was receiving amount from Bank. He admits that terminating

the services of workman, he has employed Mr. Tambut as

his personal driver. That salary paid to Driver was

reimbursed by Bank. Though copy of logbook is produced,

care is taken to prove the same.

11. Copy of rules Exhibit M-l produced by the Bank.

Dy. General Manager is entitled for Bank's Car. The rules at

Page 89 provides the Bank will make available driver to all

Top Executives, Asstt. General Manager, Regional

Managers and at centres where the facility of car is made

available. These officers would, however be permitted to

employ in place of Bank's driver their personal driver should

they so desire. Reimbursement of salary, subject to

submission of actual payment receipt from the drivers/

cleaners inclusive of cleaning charges for personal expenses

to the Executives provided with Bank's car are as Rs. 1200

for metropolitan towns and Rs. 1100 for other places.

12. The evidence discussed clearly shows that car

was provided by the Bank. Exhibit M-2 shows that amount

paid to the workman by the Chief Manager of the Bank.

Document Exhibit M-3 to M-ll shows that amount paid to

workman was from Saving Bank Account of Shri G.L.

Vakimbe and Shri Prakash Pattalwar. The vouchers are

bearing name of Dena Bank, Itwari branch, Nagpur as

personal driver. If car is provided by the Bank, car without

driver would be of no use. The payment of allowance

appears to be a device to deny the benefits of appointment

as Driver. In case of—

"Employees in relation to Punjab National Bank

versus Ghulam Dastagir. Their Lordship observed

that there is nothing on record to indicate that the

control and direction of the driver vested in the Bank.

After all the evidence is clearly to the contrary. In the

absence of material to make out that the driver was

employed by the Bank, was under its direction and

control was paid his salary by the Bank and otherwise

was included in the army of employees in the

establishment of the Bank, it cannot be assumed that

the crucial point has been proved. There is no

camouflage or circumvention of any statute. There

is no nexus between the driver and the Bank. Hence

the Tribunal's award has to be set aside."

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

evidence is clear that the car driven by workman was

provided by the Bank. The evidence remained

unchallenged. That after termination of services of

workman. Shri Tambut was appointed in his place from

Waiting List of the year 1985. It shows that the Bank was

concerned with appointment and termination of the services

of the workman. It appears to be reason that after termination

of services of workman. Mr. Tambut from Waiting List of

1985 was appointed. The payment vouchers Exhibit M-2 to

M-l1 produced on record bears the name of the Bank. The

receipts Exhibit M-12 to M-l8 are given by the workman.

The rules of the Bank provides for providing car to top

officers and also providing Driver or appointment of

personal driver and payment of the allowances. The rules

for providing payment of allowances and appointment of

personal drivers appears motivated to deny statutory

benefits. When car is owned by the Bank, their appears no

reason for appointing a personal driver by the officers.

The object behind payment of allowance for personal

drivers appears only to deny statutory benefits. Even in—

"Case of Ghulam Dastagir, their Lordship observed

in para-6 of the judgment that our whole approach

may not turn purely on technicalities of evidence

but on consideration of social justice. He readily

responded to the spirit in which we put this aspect

to him. On behalf of the management, Dr. Anand

Prakash gave us an assurance that this Driver, though

not an employee of the Bank, would be paid exgratia

a sum of Rs. 7500 (less a sum of Rs. 897.24 which has

already been paid on an earlier occasion). The

appellant Bank will further see that within three

months from today, the respondent driver is absorbed

in the personal service of one or other of the higher

officers of the Bank in or around Calcutta on a salary

of at less than Rs. 250."

Next reliance is placed on ratio held by Hon'ble

Calcutta High Court, Standard Chartered Bank and Asstt.

Labour Commissioner Central and others reported in I994-

2-LLJ-792. His Lordship held at no material point of time,

the petitioner Bank had appointed the driver and there

cannot be any conciliation proceedings. Admittedly there

was neither any letter of appointment nor termination order.

It appears from the records that the workman had obtained

employment from the employee of the Bank in this personal

capacity.

The facts of the present case are not comparable as

car driven by workman was owned by the Bank. After

termination of services of workman, Mr. Tambut was

appointed in his place. Vouchers Exhibit M-2 to M-ll were

bearing the name of Dena Bank. All those facts shows that

the deceased was working as Driver of the Bank and not

personal driver of Dy. Regional Manager. For above reasons,

I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Affirmative and Point

No. 2 in Negative.

2252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

13. Point No. 3.— In view of my finding in Point

No.1, 2 that the termination of services of deceased

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act, the

question arises to what relief, the workman is entitled?

Workman had died, reinstatement is not possible.

Considering short length of his service, compensation

Rs. 50,000 would be appropriate. Accordingly I hold and

record my finding on Point No. 3.

14. In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) Ist party Shri Sanjay Waman Kale was employee

of the IInd party Bank. Termination of his service

is in violation of Section 25-F of I.DAct as such

illegal.

(2) IInd party is directed to pay compensation Rs.

50,000/-.

Amount be paid with 9% interest from the date of

earlier award i.e. from 26-11-99.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 847.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bafM;k

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼18@2001½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@277@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 847.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 18/2001) of

the Cent. Govt. Indus. tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the management of Bank of India and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/277/2000-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case NO. CGIT/NGP/18/2001

Date: 15.01.2014

Party No. 1 :

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India,

Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Road, P.B. No.4,

Nagpur- 440001

Versus

Party No.2 :

The Regional Secretary,

Bank of India Workers Organization,

C/O BMS, 542, Congress Nagar,

Nagpur -440001

AWARD

(Daled: 15th January, 2014)

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

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) ("the Act" in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Bank of India and their workman, Shri Sanjay

Laxman Bihade, for adjudication. As per letter No.L-12011/

277/2000-IR (B-Il) dated 22.03.2001, with the following

schedule:—

"Whether the action of the management of the Zonal

Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur in

terminating the services of Shri Sanjay Laxman Blhade

w,e.f. 03.06.1999 is legal, proper and justified? If not,

what relief the said workman Is entitled to and from

what date?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the union, "Bank of India

Workers Organization" ("the union" in short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of the workman, Shri Sanjay

Laxman Bihade, ("the workman" in short), and the

management of Bank of India ("Party No. 1" in short) filed

their written statement.

The case of the workman as presented by the union

in the statement of claim is that the party No 1 is a Banking

industry and party No. l uses to engage daily wagers/badli

workers who are ordinarily from the Employment Exchange

and the provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and Bi-

partite settlements signed under the provisions of the Act

govern the service conditions of the employees of party

No. 1 and there are permanent vacancies of Sub staff in

almost every branch of party No 1 and the said facts can be

verified from the only fact that under the various

nomenclatures, .i.e. Badli, temporary and daily wagers,

workers are engaged on daily wages every day in every

branch of the party No. 1, but unfortunately, the said

employees are not given the status of permanent employee,

even though, the nature of work extracted from them

continuously for years together is that of permanent

employees. It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of

the workman that the workman was engaged by the party

No. 1, at Gandhi Baug branch w.e.f. 05-04-1991 and his

name was registered in Nagpur Employment Exchange and

he was engaged by party No.1after due interview, but he

was not given any appointment order and he worked at

Gandhi Baug branch. Nagpur Main branch and Extension

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2253

counter and the workman performed the duties of a

permanent employee and worked in cash department, cash

lodgments, in-ward and our-ward clearing in RCC and all

other works connected with the permanent class 4th

employee and he was in continuous service of party No. 1

for a period of more than nine years and party No. 1 gave

artificial and illegal breaks and by virtue of his having put

in more than 240 days in every break in service, his

termination from services without compliance of the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Act is illegal and by virtue

of the workman putting in six months of continuous service,

he was deemed to have been confirmed in the service of

the Bank as per the provisions of the Bi-partite settlement

and therefore, he was not only entitled for yearly increments,

but also, entitled for all the benefits of a permanent

employee of the Bank and the action of the. party No.1 is

illegal and unfair labour practice.

Prayer has been made by the union to regularize the

workman as a permanent Sub staff in the Bank from the

date of his first appointment with back wages and all

benefits as per the provisions of Bipartite settlement

including bonus.

3. The Party No. 1 in the Written Statement has

pleaded inter-alia that during the absence of the regular

subordinate staff (sepoy/sweeper) on leave or absence

due to any other reason, to meet the exigencies of

administration, such as cleaning of the branch premises

and to attend basic necessity, locally available person is

engaged on casual basis as coolli by the Manager and

casual workers are also engaged for attending work of

seasonal nature, such as bringing of water during summer

season or moving of cupboards and the coolli charges are

reimbursed to the Manager, who in turn makes the payment

to the coolli and these rasual workers are not ordinarily

drawn from the Employment Exchange as alleged by the

union and Employment Exchanges Sponsor Candidates

against permanent vacancies and they have to be intimated

after candidates are appointed and there is no practice for

calling candidates from Employment Exchange for the

purpose of casual engagement and it is also not feasible to

engage the candidates on casual basis from the list

sponsored by the Employment Exchange specially centers/

branches, where there is only one sub-staff and such

temporary engagement on casual basis is in no way

connected to the regular recruitment process and this

cannot be taken as a plea for backdoor entry by submitting

illegal claim. It is further pleaded by Party No. I that it is not

true to say that there are permanent vacancies of sub-staff

in every branch of the Bank and whenever, a permanent

vacancy arises in a branch, it is filled up at the earliest

opportunity by following the laid down procedure and the

provisions of Sastry Award, Desai Award and Bipartite

Settlements are not applicable to the workman, as he was

never been a permanent employee of the Bank and the

workman was not engaged at Gandhibag Branch from

5th April, 1991, after his name was sponsored by the

Employment Exchange and conducting of interview for

appointment by it and the workman was engaged only for

jobs of casual and seasonal nature, such as bringing of

water during summer season and he was not engaged

continuously against a permanent vacancy and he never

performed the duties of a permanent employee of the Bank

and he never signed any muster roll at Gandhibag or

University Extension Counter and the statement of the

workman that he worked in different departments on

different period is striking at the root of his own claim for

working against permanent vacancy and it being a

Government of India undertaking has no intention to avoid

any obligation or liability as alleged by the workman and

the wages paid to the workman cannot be shown in the

salary sheet due to the simple reason that he was not an

employee of the Bank and the Manager is empowered to

engage casual workers during the absence of permanent

sub-staff and the reimbursement is given to the Manager,

who in turn makes the payment to the casual labourer and

the vouchers are signed by the Manager as per the Bank's

procedure and it was pointed out by the branch at that time

that the workman had tempered with some of the vouchers

of the branch and surreptitiously signed on the back of

some of the vouchers with malafide intention to make his

claim at a later stage, showing the lack of integrity and

trustworthiness on his part and the claim of the workman

of working for 1848 days from 1991 is imaginary and not

supported by any evidence and he has not produced any

documentary proof in support of his claim and though the

workman has claimed that he was engaged for different

jobs in different branches, he has not given the specific

period of his work and the workman should have mentioned

about the documents available in the Bank in support of

his claim giving essential details, such as nature of the

document, date, period, branch, nature of the job etc. and

the management cannot be asked to bring document not

even in existence and the branches do not maintain

permanent records for casual engagement, as they are not

permanent employees of the Bank and it had never given

any artificial and illegal breaks and the workman had not

put in 240 days of continuous service and therefore, Section

25-F of the Act is not applicable to his case and the workman

is not entitled for confirmation and yearly increment as

applicable to confirmed employee and it is not involved in

any illegal or unfair labour practice and the workman is

trying to fabricate a case out of nothing for securing back

door entry and illegal appointment and as the workman

was engaged as casual worker and was disengaged after

completion of the specific work, it cannot be said that he

was terminated from services and he has no right against

the permanent post and he is not entitled to any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claim.

2254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Seven witnesses, namely, Shri Vinayak Joshi, Shri

Shirish A. Damle, Shri Sanjay Laxman Bihade. Shn Arvind

Madhukar Tamhaney, Shn Satyawan Atkar, Shri Rajendra

M. Dahikar and Shri Keshab Mahadeo Pahade have been

examined by the union in support of the claim of the

workman.

Only one witness, namely, Shri Ravindra S. Sirsikar

has been examined on behalf of the Party No 1.

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

union representative that the workman was engaged as a

peon on 05.04.1991 at Gandhibag Branch and the

appointment was made by the Branch Manager with

approval of the Zonal Manager and the name of the

workman was sponsored by Employment Exchange and

the worked as a full time peon, although he was paid on

daily wages basis and the workman worked continuously

for 9 years, from 1991 to June, 1999 and despite the existence

of permanent vacancy, he was not regularized by Party

No. 1 and the workman was terminated without any order

or reason in 1999 and there was violation of the mandate of

Sections 25-B, 25-G and 25-H of the Act and to prove the

case of the workman, seven witnesses including the

workman were examined and documents relating to the

existence of permanent vacancy and engagement of the

workman were filed by the union and the Party No. 1 only

examined one witness and it is clear from the materials on

record that though the workman worked for more than

240 days on many occasions in one calendar and he had

worked for more than 1848 days, the Party No. 1 instead of

regularizing his services, terminated him without following

the mandatory provisions of law and the termination of the

workman is illegal and the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages

and regularize lion w.e.f. April, 1992 i.e. the date on which,

he completed on year of continuous service.

6. Per contra, it was submitted by the management

representative that the workman was engaged as a casual

worker on daily wages and he was disengaged after the

specific work was over and the workman was paid wages

by the Branch Manager, as he was engaged by the Branch

Manager as and when required and though, it is pleaded

by the union that the workman was sponsored by the

Employment Exchange and he was interviewed before his

engagement, no document has been filed in support of

such claim and no document has also been filed to prove

that the workman infact had worked for 1848 days in total

as alleged by him or that he had completed 240 days of

work in any calendar year and in absence of the

documentary evidence in support of such claim, the oral

evidence is not sufficient to prove the same and the burden

to prove 240 days of service lies on the workman and in

order to prove the same, both oral and documentary

evidence is necessary and affidavits which are self serving

statements are not sufficient to prove the same and the

affidavits of witnesses, Vinayak Joshi, Arvind Tamhaney,

Shirish A. Damle and Rajendra M. Dahikar are general in

nature and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the

union does not prove the days for which, the workman had

actually worked and as the workman did not work for

240 days in any calendar year, the provisions of Section

25-F of the act are not applicable and the workman is rim

entitled to any relief.

In support of the contentions, reliance was

placed by the management representative on the

decisions reported in (2006) 1 SCC - 106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs

Asstt. Executive Engineer), (2006) 9 SCC-697 (Krisha

Bhagyajal Nigam Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Rafi), (2006) 6 SCC 221

(Reserve Bank of India Vs Gopinalh Sharma) (2006)

9 SCC - 132 (Surendra Nagar Distt Panchayat Vs Gangaben)

and judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Nagpur

Bench in Writ Petition NO. 1072/2002 (Bank of India Vs.

The Presiding Officer).

7. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it

proper to mention about the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of Sections 25-F and 25-B of

the Act, as in this case, it is claimed that before termination

of the service of the workman, the provisions of Section

25-F were not complied with.

In the decision reported in (2006) 1 SCC- 106 (Supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss, 25F,

25B, 11 and 10-Recruitment of 240 days continuous

service-Onus to prove Evidence to be led-

Applicability of Evidence Act, 1872 -Held, burden of

proof lies on workman-It is for workman to adduce

cogent evidence, both oral and documentary-Mere

affidavits or self serving statements made by workman

will not suffice-Evidence Act not applicable to

proceedings under S10, ID Act."

8. In the decision reported in (2006) 9 SCC-697 (Supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that:—

"Labour Law-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Ss 25B,

25F-Whetber workman worked or continuous

period of 20 days in a year-Held, burden of proof-

lies on the workman-So as to entitle him to benefits

of S.25-F- In this case, respondent workman having

failed to discharge the initial burden, award of

Labour Court holding termination of his service as

illegal on ground of non compliance with Section

25-F and directing his reinstatement in service was

erroneous."

9. In the decisions reported in (2006) 9 SCC -132

(Supra) and in Writ Petition No. 1072/2002 (Supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble Bombay High Court,

Nagpur Bench have taken the similar view, as mentioned

above.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2255

So, keeping in view, the principles enunciated

by the Hon'ble Courts as mentioned above, now, the

present case in hand is to be considered.

10. It is to be mentioned here that though as per the

schedule of reference, the legality and the propriety of the

termination of the workman from services w.e.f. 03.06.1999

is required to be adjudicated, in the entire statement of

claim, not a single word has been mentioned in regard to

the termination of the workman. It is also not pleaded that

the workman was terminated from services w.e.f. 03.06.1999,

though it was pleaded that the party No. 1 was giving

artificial illegal breaks and by virtue of having put in more

than 240 days of work, every break amounts to illegal

termination, it being contrary to the provisions of Section

25-F of the Act. However the date or dates of such alleged

artificial breaks have not been mentioned in the statement

of claim. No prayer has also been made in the statement of

claim for the reinstatement of the workman in service. Rather

prayer has been made for the regularisation of the workman

as permanent Sub-staff from the date of his first

appointment and payment of wages, bonus and other

benefits as per the provisions of the Bi -partite settlement.

So the statement of claim as filed by the union on behalf of

the workman is not in accordance with the terms of

reference.

11. So far the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the

workman is concerned, the workman in his evidence on

affidavit has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the

statement of claim. He has further stated that he was

interviewed by Mr. Dhole & Mr. R.N Nare, the officers of

Zonal office of the Bank along with some other candidates,

who came from Employment Exchange and after due medical

examination, he was selected by the Bank and his name

was sent by the Employment Exchange, Nagpur as per the

demand of the Bank. It is to mentioned here that there is no

such pleadings in the statement of claim. In absence of

such pleadings in the statement of claim, such statements

of the workman cannot be taken into consideration.

The workman in his evidence has stated that he was

terminated by the Bank in June, 1999 without any notice or

notice pay.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted

that he has not filed any document to show that his name

was sponsored by the Employment Exchange or that he

had received any call letter from the Bank to appear in the

interview. The workman contradicting the plea taken in the

statement of claim that he was not given any appointment

order, has tried to improve his statement saying that an

appointment letter was issued to him, but he has not filed

such appointment letter. The workman in his cross-

examination has further admitted that he does not have

any record or document to show that he worked for

1848 days with the Bank and Bank was making payment of

his wages on vouchers and Annexure 1 filed along with his

affidavit has not been authenticated by any officer of the

Bank and though he has claimed that he joined the Bank

on 05.04,1991, in Annexure 1, he has mentioned that he

worked for 24 days in January, 1991, 29 days in February,

1991 and 15 days in March, 1991.

On perusal of the evidence of the workman, it is found

that his claim that he worked continuously from 05 04.1991

for nine years till 1999 is not at all true. In the statement of

claim and so also in his evidence, the workman has stated

that he worked at Gandhibag Branch, Ramdeo Baba Extn.

Counter Nagpur, Main Branch and University Extn. Counter

It is never the case of the workman that he was transferred

from one branch in another branch Moreover, Annexure 1

filed by the workman himself alongwith his evidence on

affidavit also clearly shows that the workman did not work

continuously as claimed by him. The workman has not

mentioned the periods of his engagement in different

branches of Party No. 1.

Annexure 1 has been filed by the workman to show

that he worked for 1848 days. Annexure 1 had no

evidentially value as the same has been prepared by the

workman himself and a self serving statement and the same

has not been authenticated by the Bank. Moreover, on

bare perusal of the same, it is found that the said statement

is quite wrong on the face of it. Though, the workman has

claimed that his initial appointment was on 05.04.1991, in

Annexure 1, he has shown to have work in January. February

and March, 1991, Likewise, in Annexure, the workman has

mentioned that he worked 36 days in May, 1992, 43 days in

July, 1992, 32 days in May, 1994, 43 days in June, 1992,

36 days in May, 1994, 43 days in June, 1994 and 31 days in

June, 1995, which is quite impossible, as the days are more

than the total days of the respective months.

The workman has not stated the periods (in the

preceding 12 calendar months of the alleged date of

termination or in any 12 calendar months) of his doing

240 days of work.

12. The evidence of witnesses, Shri Vinayak U. Joshi,

Shri Shirish A. Damle, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney and Shri

Rajendra M. Dahikar is general in nature. Most of their

evidence is in regard to their claim that there are number of

permanent vacancy in the sub-Staff cadre in the Bank and

the Bank instead of taking steps to Till up the vacancy is

adopting illegal practice of engaging temporary employees

in the name casual, Badli and daily wage and taking the

work from them at permanent employee. It is well settled by

the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a

string of decisions that the Tribunal cannot travel outside

the terms of reference and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal

in industrial disputes is limited to the points specifically

referred for its adjudication and to matters incidental there

to.

Though the reference has been made by the Central

Government for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of

2256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the termination of the workman, Shri Sanjay Laxman Bihade

the union, in the guise of raising the dispute on behalf the

workman has tried to challenge the policy adopted by the

party No. l of engaging persons on temporary basis, in

spite of having number of permanent vacancies in the cadre

of sub-staff at different branches of the Bank. In view of

the settled principles that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond

the terms of reference as already mentioned above and in

view of the fact that such specific terms of reference has

not been made by the Government, such claim cannot be

adjudicated.

In his evidence, Shri Vinayak U. Joshi has not

mentioned anything in particular in regard to the

engagement of the workman by the Bank. In a general way,

he has mentioned that each and every workman covered

by this reference has worked with the Bank of India for

more than 240 days in a consecutive 12 months period,

even though, this is a reference in regard to the sole

workman.

In his cross-examination, Shri Joshi has stated that

though this reference is in regard to the termination of the

services of the workman, be has filed the statement of claim

for regularization of the workman and he cannot say if any

appointment letter was given by the Bank to the workman

or not. So, the evidence of Shri Joshi is of no help to the

case of the workman.

Likewise, Shri Damle in his evidence has stated that

workman covered by the terms of the preset reference are

such Badlee employees/daily wagers/temporary/casual

employees who have been continued for years. So, there is

nothing in the evidence of Shri Damle in regard to the issue

involved in this reference.

In his evidence, witness, Shri Arvind M. Tamhaney

has only stated that in the instant case, concerned

employee was given illegal breaks in the service by the

management on many occasions without any reason and

with malafide intention. The said statement is of no help to

the case of the workman.

In the evidence of witness, Shri Rajendra M. Dahikar,

there is nothing particular which is of any help to the case

of the workman.

The witness, Satyawan Atkar has stated that the

workman worked more than 240 days in every year and he

worked for more than 1800 days from 1991 to 1999. In his

cross-examination, this witness has stated that no

document has been filed to show that the name of the

workman was sponsored by the Employment Exchange

and that the workman was appointed as a sub-staff.

14. The most important witness in this case is Shri

Keshao Mahadeo Pahade, as because, through this

witness, the union has produced the documentary evidence

regarding the engagement of the workman in the Bank, i.e.

copies of the vouchers of payment of wages to the

workman. This witness in his evidence has stated that in

the year 1991, the workman joined the Bank at Gandhibagh

Branch after interview by the officers of the Zonal office

along with some other candidates, who came from

Employment Exchange and the workman worked at Ramdeo

Baba Extn. Counter, Nagpur Main Branch, University Extn.

Counter and he worked for more than 240 days in evey

year and as per his knowledge, the workman worked for

more than 1700 days in the Bank, till his retirement on

28-04.1999 and the workman was working even after 1998

and the workman used to get payment on vouchers and

the vouchers were shown as reimbursement to Manager

and he is producing Xerox Copies of 53 vouchers, which

were Xeroxed by the workman from 30th August, 1991 to

24th March, 1998 and which could not be produced by the

workman earlier due to pressure, as Annexures 1 to 53.

Demolishing his entire evidence, in the cross-

examination, this witness has stated that neither he has

seen any document nor any document is produced in

support of his claim that the name of the workman was

called for from the Employment Exchange and the workman

was working on daily wages and the workman was being

engaged by the Bank, when a permanent class-IV employee

was remaining absent on leave and no document has been

filed on record of this case to show that the workman had

worked for 240 days in any calendar year and the Branch

Manager of the Bank was engaging the workman as and

when required on daily wages and no appointment letter

was issued by the Bank to the workman and he does not

have any idea about the vouchers filed along with his

affidavit as Annexure 1 to 53.

15. The witness for the Party No. 1 in his examination-

in-chief on affidavit has stated that he was working as the

Administrative Officer in Gandhibagh Branch from 1992 to

1996 and while working as such, he had prepared and

approved the vouchers for reimbursement of the payment

made to the Branch Manager to casual workers and the

Manager was entitled to appoint casual worker in the event

of excegency of work or temporary increase in the work

and there was no procedure of obtaining the signature of

the casual employee on the vouchers, as payment was

being made in the Branch Manager as reimbursement and

the workman was engaged by the Branch Manager on

casual basis as and when required. Though this witness

has been cross-examined testimony. It is noteworthy to

mention that in the cross-examination of this witness, a

suggestion was given to him that at the time of the initial

date of engagement of the workman as a casual daily wager,

he was not working in Gandhibagh Branch and the name

was admitted by him.

16. It is clear from the evidence on record, the

pleadings of the parties and specifically the admission of

the workman in his examination in chief that he used to get

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2257

Rs. 50/- per day and nearly Rs. 1,600/- per month and so

also the payment vouchers, Annexures 1 to 53 produced

by witness, Keshao M. Pahade that the engagement of the

workman was by the Manager of the concerned Branches

as casual worker on daily wages as and when required

basis and he was not appointed by the Party No. 1 and he

did not work against any permanent vacancy.

It is settled beyond doubt that to get the benefits of

Section 25-F of the Act , it is for the workman to prove that

infact he had worked for 240 days in the preceding

12 calendar months of the alleged date of termination. So,

now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman has

been able to discharge the initial burden of proving of

working for 240 days in a given year.

As already mentioned, in the statement of claim, there

is no pleading about termination of the workman on

03.06.1999 as mentioned in the schedule of reference. There

is also no specific pleading in the statement of claim that

the workman infact had worked for 240 days in the

12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination

or even in which calendar year, he had worked at least for

240 days, though there is pleading that on many occasions

he had put in more than 240 days of work.

As already discussed above, the oral evidence of

the witnesses examined by the union on behalf of the

workman including the workman is of no help to find out

that the workman had infact worked for 240 days either in

the preceding 12 calendar months of 03.06.1999 or in any

calendar year between 1991 to 1999 in Gandhibagh Branch

or in any other branch, where the workman has claimed to

have been worked individually or combinedly.

17. So far the documentary evidence is concerned,

i.e. the vouchers (Annexures 1 to 53 filed by witness, Shri

Pahade along with his affidavit) it is found that vouchers,

Annexure 43 to 53 relate to the period of the workman as

casual daily wager from July, 1997 to June, 1998. On

verification of the said vouchers, it is found that the

workman had worked only for 64 days during the period

from July, 1997 to June, 1998 i.e. the preceding 12 calendar

months of 03.06.1999. On verification of the rest vouchers,

Annexures 1 to 42, it is found that the workman did not

work for 240 days in any calendar year.

From the evidence on record, it is found that the

workman has failed to discharge the initial burden of

proving of working at least for 240 days in a given year. As

the workman has not been able to prove that he worked for

240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date

of his termination i.e. 03.06.1999 or even in any calendar

year in between 1991 to 1999, it is held that he is not

entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Act. Hence,

it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of the Zonal Manager,

Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur in terminating the

services of Shri Sanjay Laxman Bihade w.e.f. 03.06.1999 is

legal, proper and justified. The workman is not entitled to

any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 848.—vkS|ksfxd vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼90@2011½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

14-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@22@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 848.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/

2011) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/22/2011 - IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 21st January, 2014

Present:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 90/2011

(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 Indian Bank and their workman).

BETWEEN

The General Secretary

Indian Bank Employees' Union

No. 6, Moore Street. Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

...1st Party/Petitioner Union

2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

The Asstt. General Manager (HRM)

Indian Bank,. 66, Raja|i Salai,

Chennai-600001

:2nd Party/Respondent

Appearance

For the 1st Party/ : Sri J. Thomas Jeyaprabhakaran,

Petitioner Union

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/ : M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/22/2011-IR (B-II)

dated 04.11.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Indian

Bank in recovering an amount of Rs. 2,000 each from

S/Sri T. Kettimuthu, P. Ramesh, S. Muruhesan and

Smt. N.S. Kamakshi to make good the alleged

shortage from their respective salaries is just and

legal? What relief the concerned workmen are

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 90/2011 and issued notice to both

sides. The petitioner has appeared through its Authorized

Representative and the Respondent through its counsel

and has filed claim and counter statement respectively.

The petitioner has filed a rejoinder also after the Counter

Statement was filed.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement in brief are

these:

The four employees named in the schedule of

reference were working in Sankari Branch of the

Respondent as Shroff. Every Cashier, on completion of

work, at the close of the day has to make out sections of

notes consisting of 100 pieces each and denomination wise.

The Shroff preparing the sections is solely responsible for

both quantity and quality of the lower denomination notes.

In the case of higher denomination, the Shroff and the

Officer who checked the sections are jointly responsible

for the quantity of notes. However, for the quality the Shroff

alone is responsible. Starting from January 2007 the Erode

Chest has made various claims on Sankari Branch for a

total sum of Rs. 50,850 alleging defective notes in the

sections remitted, all belonging to Rs. 500 denomination.

The certificates on these sections have been witnessed by

only one person against the stipulated two i.e. Shroff and

the Officer. The Sankari Branch administration had sought

explanation of the employees referred to in the schedule as

to how they have been receiving large number of fake or

defective notes. The employees have submitted their

explanation. Since fake notes are now fabricated in a very

clever manner, it has become impossible to identify them

by ultra violet lamp examination. Verification of the entire

currency piece by piece involves considerable time. So the

employees had to undertake verification by machines rather

than manually. In spite of explanation by the employees,

the Management had served memo on the employees asking

them to remit amounts to make good the alleged loss. The

action of the Respondent in recovering the amount from

the employees is illegal. The Respondent shall be directed

to release the recovered amount along with interest to the

employees.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

Every branch of the Respondent Bank will have to

remit excess cash over and above the prescribed limit into

the Reserve Bank by way of remittance to the notified

Currency Chest. The Staff of the Currency Chest will verify

the notes both for the quality and quantity and the Officer-

in-Charge will verify the quantity. In case there is shortage

in quantity or the notes are found forged the Currency

Chest will have to lodge a claim with the remitting branch

to make good the shortfall or replace the defective notes as

the case may be. On the basis of the particulars of the

Clerical Staff whose signatures are found in the slips

attached to the fake notes or defective notes, the value will

be recovered from the concerned staff who has signed the

slip for having verified notes for quality. The concerned

staff is not permitted to make any excuses or explanations.

The four Clerical Staff mentioned in the order of reference

were working in the Sankari Branch between 2005 and 2006.

The Currency Chest at Erode Main Branch made a demand

for Rs. 1,00,380 to be recovered from 11 members of the

Staff including the four Clerical Staff mentioned in the order

of reference. In the case of these four Staffs dispute was

raised challenging recovery of the amount before the entire

amount could be recovered. The recovery is sought from

these four Staffs, not for shortage but for the presence of

fake currency notes in the sections which were verified by

them. If the plea of the petitioner is accepted there would

be no one to take responsibility for the presence of fake

notes tendered for remittance. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder subsequent to

the filing of the Counter Statement, denying the statements

therein and also reiterating the case in the Claim Statement.

6. The evidence in the case consists of documents

marked as Exts. W1 to Exs. W26 and Ext. M1 to Exs. M17.

No oral evidence was tendered on either side.

7. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent in

recovering amount from salaries of the four

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2259

employees to make good the alleged shortage is

just and legal?

(ii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

8. Kettimuthu, Ramesh, Muruhesan and Kamakshi

had been working as Shroff in Sankari Branch of the

Respondent Bank during 2005 and 2006. Any branch of the

Respondent which is having excess cash will have to remit

it to the Reserve Bank through the Currency Chest. The

Sankari Branch had to make such remittances at the

Currency Chest of the Erode Branch. It seems the Currency

Chest had demanded Rs. 1.00.380 from the 11 Staff of the

Sankari Branch on the basis either that there was shortage

or that they were fake notes in the cash remitted by them in

the Chest. Except the employees referred to in the order of

reference, the other employees seem to have remitted the

amount claimed from them or recovered from their salary.

The four employees concerned have taken the stand that

they are not responsible for the fake notes that were

allegedly found in the sections that were verified by them.

In the Claim Statement it is stated by the petitioner union

who has taken up the case of the concerned employees

that because of technological improvement anti social

elements have started fabricating currency notes in a most

ingenious manner and it has become impossible to detect

them by exposing to the ultra violet lamp. It is further stated

that such cleverly fabricated notes could be identified only

by manual verification of the currency sections. According

to the petitioner, manual verification of each note piece by

piece involves considerable time and is impossible. It is

stated that in view of this, the administration itself has

instructed the Cashiers to do the verification by the

machines instead of doing it manually. It is stated that the

concerned Cashiers had carried out the instructions by the

Administration and could not be held responsible for the

fake notes that are detected in the bundles remitted in the

Currency Chest.

9. There is no dispute on the fact that the fake notes

were found in the bundles that were verified by the

concerned employees. Apart from the argument that there

is instruction by the Administration to undertake the

verification by machines only, the argument advanced is

that the counting of the cash from the chest was not done

on the basis of the standing instructions.

10. Ex.W26 is the instruction given by the

Respondent regarding detection and reporting of counterfeit

notes. Ex.W4 is the revised procedure for preparation of

currency notes in sections and bundles. In Clause-2 of this

regarding preparation of sections for lower denomination

it is stated that at the end of the day's transactions the

concerned Shroff shall prepare sections of notes separately

for each denomination containing 100 pieces each. It is

further stated that the Shroff should examine the notes to

satisfy himself for the quality and count the number of

pieces to ensure that each section contains 100 pieces.

Notes of the value of Rs. 50 and above are considered as

higher denomination notes while notes of the value of less

than Rs 50 are considered lower denomination notes.

Regarding higher denomination notes also at the end of

the day's transaction it is for the Shroff to examine the

notes to satisfy himself or herself for the quality and count

the number of pieces to ensure that each section contains

100 pieces. The Shroff should then hand over the section

to the Officer for verifying the correctness of the quantity

of the notes. The Officer is to verify correctness of the

quantity in the presence of a Shroff who prepared the

section. Clause-6 of the procedure states that in the case

of higher denomination notes the Shroff who prepared the

section and the Officer who recounted are equally

responsible for the quantity of notes, while in the case of

lower denomination notes, the Shroff preparing the sections

is solely responsible for both quantity and quality. It is

further stated that for the quality of the higher

denomination notes, the Shroff is solely responsible and

hence for defective notes detected in high denomination

sections, entire recovery should be made from the Shroff

who prepared the section. The responsibility continues to

rest with the Shroff and the Officer till the sections are

broken and counted by another Shroff in the presence of

an authorized official and found correct.

11. The Authorized Representative of the petitioner

has been vehemently arguing that the responsibility for

the defective notes could not be cast on the concerned

workmen for the reason that it would be impossible for

them to count each and every notes manually and verify

the genuineness of the notes. The Authorized

Representative has even referred to an article which states

that fake notes are now rampant and because of the clever

manner in which the notes are manipulated it has become

impossible to find out if the notes are genuine or not. Even

in the counter statement the respondent has stated that if

this case of the petitioner is accepted no one could be held

responsible for the quality of the notes.

12. Ex.W26 which is already referred specifies the

manner in which counterfeit notes are to be detected and

report regarding the same is to be given. Ex.W4 elaborates

the procedure for verification of quality and quantity of

the notes. As referred to earlier it is very clear from the

procedure prescribed that the Shroff who is to verify the

notes regarding the quality is having the responsibility for

the quality of the notes verified and counted by him.

Though regarding notes of higher denomination, equal

responsibility is placed on the Shroff who is counting and

the Officer who is verifying, regarding quality of the notes,

the Shroff who is verifying the notes is solely responsible

whether the notes are of lower denomination or of higher

denomination. When the circular places the responsibility

2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

for the quality of the notes on the Shroff in such a specific

manner, the concerned Shroff who did the verification could

not shirk away from his responsibly for the quality of the

notes verified by him. The Authorized Representative has

stated that the Administering Authority has given

instruction to the Staff to check the quality using machines

only in view of the heavy load of work upon them. However,

the petitioner has not produced any document showing

such instruction. So it is very much clear that the Shroff or

the Clerk or the Cashier who did the verification of the

notes is solely responsible for the quality of the notes

counted by him.

13. The responsibility put on the Bank workers who

are of the cadre of Clerks regarding quality of the notes is

very heavy. The circular marked as Ex.W4 specifically states

that if any notes are found defective or fake, he is to make

good the loss. The concerned branch is to take steps to

recover the amount from the person who has checked the

quality of the note. Thus it is apparent that the Shroff or

the Cashier who is checking the quality of the notes is

working in a very tense atmosphere He will always be

apprehending recovery from his pay in case of defection

of defective notes in the sections or bundles prepared by

him after checking for quality. When such heavy

responsibility is cast on the Shroff, there should be

sufficient protection for them from any malpractice also. It

is for such protection it is prescribed that the bundle should

be tied in such a manner and the signature of the counting

Shroff and that of the Supervising Officer also should be

there on the section. The circular marked as Ex.W4 specifies

the manner in which cash remittance from branches to

Currency Chest are to be made Para-7.1 states that sections

and bundles prepared as per the procedure detailed in Para-

2. 3 & 4 should alone be remitted by branches to Currency

Chest. After the Shroff has verified the quality and quantity

of the notes of higher denomination, he is to hand over the

section to the Officer for verifying the correctness of the

quantity of the notes.

The Officer should verify the correctness of the

quantity in the presence of the Shroff who prepared the

section. Thereafter the Shroff is to wrap the section as

prescribed. Then the Shroff is to complete the filling of the

details and sign in full, the denomination portion of the

paper band and the Officer who recounted the notes should

stamp indicating his or her own name in block letter for

having verified the correctness of the quantity of the notes.

Thus it could be seen that the sections that are being

remitted at the Currency Chest should have undergone the

above procedure if they have to be accepted at the Chest.

If at the chest, counting and verification could not be done

immediately then it can be done at a later date but it should

be within 1 month from the date of the remittance. Para-7.2

of the circular states that in addition to the date already

appearing, branches should affix the rubber stamp

specifying the date of remittance in the column provided

on denomination portion of the paper bands in all sections

sent in outward remittance to currency chest. This is to

ensure that cash remittance made by branches are verified

at currency chest within 1 month from the date of remittance.

Para-9 of the circular gives the manner in which the

verification of cash at Currency Chest is to be done at a

later date. Para-9.3 states that as and when the sections.

received from branches are taken out for verification. the

Shroff should break open the sections and verify the quality

and quantity of the notes in the presence of an Officer of

the Currency Chest. Before opening, each section should

be verified to ensure that the paper banding and sealing

are intact. It should also be assured that the denomination

portion of the paper band in each section contains all the

details and is duly signed by a Shroff in the case of lower

denomination notes and by a Shroff and an Officer for

higher denomination notes. In the case of shortage of notes

or defective notes the Chest is to take necessary steps to

recover the amount.

14. Now the question to be considered is whether all

the precautions specified as per the circular have been

taken before remitting the cash at the Currency Chest and

at the time when the sections were opened for verification

before communications were sent to the branches asking

for recovery. Ex.W20 is the certificate from Erode Currency

Chest alongwith copies of the fake currency sent to Sankari

Branch. Ex. W21. 23. 24 and 25 are also certificates issued

by Erode Currency Chest alongwith copies of the fake

notes. On examination of these notes it could be seen that

some of the paper bands of the currency sections contain

signature of the person who did the counting and also the

signature of the person who did the checking, as specified

in Ex.W4. However, several of them contain only one

signature in violation of the prescribed procedure. It could

not be deciphered if the signature is of the Shroff who

counted the sections or of the Officer who checked the

same. The counsel for the Respondent has of course

pointed out that the person who did the counting alone is

responsible for the quality of the notes and it will be of no

consequence even if the person who checked the counting

has not signed. Even though there is some force in the

submission of the counsel the above lapse in the procedure

denotes the negligent manner in which notes are counted,

verified and made into sections.

15. The Authorized Representative of the petitioner

has pointed out a still severe lacunae in the manner in

which certificate regarding shortage of effective notes has

been sent to Sankari Branch. I have already referred to the

circular which states that only if the procedure detailed in

paragraph 2, 3 and 4 of the circular are complied with,

currency should be received at the chest. In the normal

course the verification and counting of cash received at

branches should not be delayed and in any case should

not exceed 1 month from the date of remittance. If the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2261

verification and counting is carried out at the time of

remittance itself, the Currency Chest is to prepare a

certificate giving the details of shortage, excess or defect

in the notes and this certificate should be signed by the

receiving Shroff. The Officer present during counting and

the remitting Shroff. The form of the certificate is given as

Annexure-2 of the circular. However, in Annexure-2 there is

column for two persons only as witnesses, for signature of

receiving Shroff or officer of the Currency Chest and for

signature of Shroff of the chest remitting branch. There is

no column for the signature of the Officer present during

counting. Apart from this fact, the curious aspect is that

the formal given as Annexure-2 is prescribed to be used

even if verification of cash at the Currency Chest is done at

a later date. A perusal of the format shown as Annexure-2

would show that this could be used only if verification is

done immediately after remittance itself, in the presence of

the Shroff of the remitting branch. If verification is being

done on a later date, the concerned Shroff is to break open

the sections and verify the quality and quantity of the

notes in the presence of an Officer of the Currency Chest.

The Shroff who remitted the currency to the chest will not

be available if verification is being done on a later date.

This may be why Para-9.3 of the circular states that the

opening of the section itself should be done in the presence

of the Officer of the Currency Chest. In spite of this the

certificate prescribed to be used is the format in Annexure-

2 itself which is certainly not suitable for the occasion

since there is no column for signature of the Shroff who

does the opening and counting. On the other hand, the

signature is shown as that of the Shroff of the chest

remitting branch.

16. Even assuming that in the case of subsequent

verification, the signature of the second witness in the

certificate could be assumed to be that of the Shroff who

did the opening of the section and the counting, perusal of

the Ex. W20 to Ext. W25 would show that all these

certificates contain the signature of only one person as

witness. In all these the signature found is of the receiving

Shroff of the Currency Chest. There is no way to know if

this Shroff has done the opening and counting which has

taken place on a later date. The Officer in whose presence

the counting is supposed to have been done has not put

his signature in any of the certificates. It has been pointed

out by the Authorized Representative that because of this

there is no assurance that the opening of the section and

counting or the notes was done in the presence of the

Officer at all. Such elaborate procedure is prescribed and

the presence of an Officer is insisted to avoid any probable

malpractice. In the absence of the signature of the Officer

in any of the certificates, there is no assurance of the

opening and counting having been done in the presence

of the Officer and for this reason itself there is no assurance

that no malpractice has been committed. It has been stated

by the counsel for the respondent that the Shroff of the

branches are not entitled to raise any dispute in the manner

in which the counting was done. But this must be only in

cases where the prescribed procedure was followed. As I

have already stated the Shroff who is verifying the quality

of the notes is placed with a huge responsibility. So there

should be enough protection for him to see that malpractice

is not done and he is not put in trouble. For this the

procedure prescribed should be followed literally. There

cannot be two different measures regarding the following

of the procedure at the Chest and at the branch. In the

absence of the signature of the Officer in the certificates,

the Currency Chest could not said to have followed the

procedure for this reason itself the concerned Shroffs of

Sankari Branch are not liable to make good the amount

found to be in deficit because of the defective or fake notes.

17. I find that the Respondent is not entitled to recover

the amount from the persons named in the reference. The

Respondent is directed to return the amount if any

recovered from the four Shroffs named in the reference

within a month.

18. The reference is answered in favour of 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 21st January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date Description

Ex.Wl

06.09.2007 Letter of the Union addressed to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Chennai

Ex.W2

11.10.2007 HRM Deptt.'s letter addressed to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Chennai

Ex.W3

19.11.2007 Letter of the Union addressed to the

Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Chennai

Ex.W4

29.08.2003 Bank's circular about Clean Note

Policy

Ex.W5

28.07.2007 Circle Office, Salem letter addressed

to P. Ramesh, Clerk of Sankari Branch

Ex.W6

28.07.2007 Circle Office, Salem letter addressed

to T. Kettimuthu, Clerk of Sankari

Branch

Ex.W7

28.07.2007 Circle Office, Salem letter addressed

to N.S. Kamakshi, Clerk of Sankari

Branch

2262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.W8

28.07.2007 Circle Office, Salem letter addressed

to S. Murugesan, Clerk of Sankari

Branch

Ex.W9

08.08.2007 Letter addressed to Asstt. General

Manager, Circle Office, Salem by P.

Ramesh, T. Kettimuthu, Kamatchi, N.S.

and S. Murugesan

Ex.W10 29.08.2007 Letter of Circle Office, Salem

addressed to T. Kettimuthu

Ex.W11 29.08.2007 Letter of Circle Office, Salem

addressed to P. Ramesh

Ex.W12 29.08.2007 Letter of Circle Office, Salem

addressed to S. Murugesan

Ex.W13 29.08.2007 Letter of Circle Office, Salem

addressed to Mamatchi, N.S.

Ex.W14 30.08.2007 Letter from Sankari Branch addressed

to T. Kettimuthu informing about the

partial recovery of the amount from

his salary

Ex.W15 30.08.2007 Reply sent by T. Kettimuthu to the

Manager, Sankari Branch

Ex.W16 30.08.2007 Letter from Sankari Branch addressed

to S. Murugesan informing about the

partial recovery of the amount from

his salary

Ex.W17 30.08.2007 Reply sent by S. Murugesan to the

Manager, Sankari Branch

Ex.W18 30.08.2007 Letter from Sankari Branch addressed

to N.S. Kamatchi informing about the

partial recovery of the amount from

her salary

Ex.W19 30.08.2007 Letter from Sankari Branch addressed

to P. Ramesh informing about the

partial recovery of the amount from

his salary

Ex.W20 09.02.2007 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex.W21 09.02.2007 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex.W22 31.01.2006 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex.W23 12.02.2006 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex. W24 19.02.2007 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex.W25 22.01.2007 Certificate from Erode Currency Chest

alongwith the Xerox copies of the fake

currency to Sankari Branch

Ex.W26 03.07.2013 Circular of Indian Bank management

from Cell for Goverrnment Transaction

(Admn. 16/2013-14)

On the Management's side

Ex.M1

14.05.2005 Letter from Indian Bank, Currency

Chest, Erode to Indian Bank, Sankari

Ex.M2

10.10.2005 Letter from Indian Bank, Currency

Chest, Erode to Sankari Branch-reg.

defective/forged notes in cash

Remittance

Ex.M3

18.11.2005 Letter from Indian Bank-Currency

Chest, erode to Indian Bank, Sankari

Branch-enclosing copy of credit slip

dated 18.11.2005 for Rs. 12,69,000/-

Ex.M4

25/29.11.2005 Letter

from

Indian

Bank,

Currency Chest, Erode to Sankari

Branch

Ex.M5

22.05.2006 Letter from Senior Manager, Indian

Bank, Sankari to Dy. General Manager-

Audit Section-Circle Office, Salem

Ex.M6

07.06.2006 Letter from Deputy General Manager,

Indian Bank-Audit Section, Circle

office, Salem to Karuppannan

Ex.M7

29.06.2006 Note from Senior Manager, Indian

Bank to A.B.M. Mr. Rajagopal-to

recover amounts towards fake notes

found in receipts by respective Staff

Members

ExM8

12.07.2007 Letter from Indian Bank, Sankari to

Deputy General Manager, Indian

Bank, Circle Office—Salem

Ex.M9

18.07.2007 Letter from Indian Bank, Vigilance

Section, Circle Office, Salem to K.

Karuppannan-Sr. Manager/Branch

Manager, Sankari Branch

Ex.M10 21.07.2007 Letter from Indian Bank, Sankari to

AGM, Vigilance Section-Circle Office,

Salem

Ex.M11 02.08.2007 Circular from Indian Bank, Salem-C.O.,

SLM,: 2007-08-Proceedings of

Standing Committee on Currency

Management-to all branches and

Currency Chest in Salem Circle

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2263

Ex.M12 29.08.2007 Letter from Indian Bank, Vigilance

Section, Circle Office, Salem to Indian

Bank, Sankari Branch

Ex.M13 11.09.2007 Conciliation proceedings forbidding

bank from precipitating the issue

further

Ex.M14 April/May Further recovery effected in April and

May 2008 (Total amount so recovered

is: N.S. Kamatchi Rs. 3,000/-: S.

Murugesan-Rs. 5,500/-: T. Kettai

Muthu-Rs. 2,000/-: S. Ramesh-

Rs. 2,000/- and S. Periasamy Rs. 5,000/-

Ex.M15 26.02.2013 Letter from Zonal Office, HRM, Salem

to Deputy General Manager (HRM),

Chennai

Ex.M16

—

Chapter IV-"Cash Handling &

Remittance Manual"-Extract 4.15-

Clauses 121, 12, 13, 14 to 18

Ex.M17

—

Chapter V-"Cash Handling &

Remittance Manual"-5.1-clauses:

1 to 4

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 849.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj pSUubZ iru U;kl

ds izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼94@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&33011@8@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 849.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 94/2012) of

the Cent. Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute

between the management of Chennai Port Trust and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/02/2014.

[No.L-33011/8/2012-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 10th January, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 94/2012

(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 Chennai Port Trust and their workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary :

1st Party/Petitioner Union

The Transport and Dock

Workers Union

No. 9, Second Line Beach

Chennai-600001

AND

The Chairman,

2nd Party/Respondent

Chennai Port Trust

No. 1, Rajaji Salai

Chennai-600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

M/s Y.N. Venkatraj,

Petitioner Union :

G. Vijaya, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri S.P. Patel, Advocate

Respondent

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-33011/8/2012-IR (B-II)

dated 22.11.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Chennai

Port Trust, Chennai, in denying promotions to 308

Sr. Assistants to the post of Asstt. Superintendents

in accordance with the Shankaran Award is just, legal

and fair? What relief the workmen are entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 94/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively. After Counter Statement was filed the case

was posted for evidence, continuously. However, neither

the petitioner nor his counsel has cared to be present in

Court or pursued the matter. Apart from the Claim Statement

filed, no other material is available to substantiate the case

of the petitioner. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

3. The reference is answered against the petitioner.

2008

2264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 10th January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents marked

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 850.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWQ bf.M;k

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼126@05½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 14-2-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@77@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 850.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.126/2005) of

the Cent. Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Bank of India and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

14/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/77/2005-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/126/2005

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Kashi Ram Verma,

S/o Shri Ganpat Verma,

Vill. & PO Ojhar,

Tehsil Raipur,

Distt. Badwani,

Raipur

.....Workman

Versus

Chief Regional Manager,

Bank of India,

Regional office, Khandwa Region,

Anand Nagar,

Khandwa (MP)

...Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 26th day of September 2013)

1. As per letter dated 7-11-2005 by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section-10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-12012/

77/2005-IR(B-II). The dispute under reference relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Chief

Regional Manager, Bank of India, Khandwa Region,

Khandwa in imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service on Shri Kashi Ram Verma S/o Shri Ganpat

Verma w.e.f. 16-12-2000 is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/3. The case of Ist party workman is that he was

conducted properly. Principles of natural justice were not

followed by the IInd party. The enquiry was not conducted

as per the Bipartite Settlements. Clause 19.12 A,B were

violated. Clause 19.11 of Bipartite settlement dated 19-10-

66 was not followed. He was not given opportunity for his

defence. He was not allowed time for producing his defence

representative. The services were terminated without

issuing showcause notice after receiving report of the

Enquiry Officer.

3. That workman was working from 25-1-79. He was

in continuous service. Any memo or warning was not issued

to him. His service record was unblemished. On such

grounds, workman prays for setting aside order of his

termination and prays for reinstatement with consequential

benefits.

4. IInd party submitted Written Statement at Page

7/1 to 7/10. IInd party submits that General Secretary of

the Union Shri Nagwanshi has no locus standi to represent

the workman being dismissed employee of State Bank of

Indore. The workman was dismissed w.e.f. 16-12-02. The

dispute is raised in 2005 is highly belated. That chargesheet

was issued to the workman for serious misconduct of

mis-appropriation of amount and forgery of documents

details given in Para-4 of the Written Statement. Enquiry

Officer read over charges to the workman. The charges

were admitted by him. Therefore enquiry was concluded.

The Enquiry Officer recorded findings that charges were

proved, showcause notice was issued to workman on

7-12-2000. Then punishment of dismissal is legal. IInd party

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2265

denied violation of the bipartite settlement while conducting

enquiry. Adverse contentions of the workman have been

denied. The employee accepted charges unconditionally.

The charges stood proved. There was no necessity of

Enquiry Officer to ask management to produce evidence.

Para 19.5 j of Bipartite settlement provides for dismissal

without notice for different kinds of misconduct. IInd party

submits that workman is not entitled to relief prayed by

him.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 9/1 to 9/3

reiterating his contentions in Statement of claim. That

enquiry conducted against him was not proper. Principles

of natural justice were not followed.

6. As per order dated 28-2-2012 my predecessor found

enquiry conducted against workman as legal and proper.

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 misconduct

alleged against workman is

proved from evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings?

(ii) Whether punishment of

dismissal imposed against

workman in proper and

legal?

(iii) What relief the workman is

entitled to?''

REASONS

8. As state above, enquiry conducted against

workman was found legal and proper as per order dated

28-2-2012. The question remains whether the evidence in

Enquiry Proceedings is sufficient to prove misconduct.

Prior to legality 6 of enquiry was decided affidavit finds

reference that heavy punishment was imposed against him.

After enquiry is found legal, evidence is adduced by

workman filing affidavit on 26-2-2012. The said affidavit

also has stated that he was not given opportunity for his

defence. List of witnesses and documents were not

supplied to him. Said evidence in affidavit of workman

cannot be considered as enquiry is found legal. In para-8

of his affidavit, workman states that the admission of the

charges were obtained form him representing that the

enquiry would be completed earliest. Punishment of

dismissal was imposed without notice. In his cross-

examination, workman admits that both the affidavit of

evidence filed by him relates to the enquiry conducted

against him. Any specific circumstances are not stated in

his affidavit of evidence to point out how the punishment

is exorbitant.

9. The chargesheet is produced at Exhibit W-2. The

charges relates to fraudulently issuing Gramin Tara Deposit

Pass depsit to Shri Wahid Nizamuddin and taking fake

entries of Rs. 30,000 on 17-4-99 & 27,000 on 17-12-99

collecting monthly instalments of Rs. 3000/- but not

depositing said amount. In view of enquiry is found legal

and finding of Enquiry Officer that the delinquent workman

admitted charges, the misconduct was proved, the evidence

in Enquiry Proceedings only needs to be considered. The

admission of Ist party workman is referred in Exhibit W-6,

W-7. The misconduct alleged against Ist party workman is

proved from admission. I therefore record my finding on

Point No. 1 in Affirmative.

10. Issue No. 2—

The propriety of punishment of dismissal needs to

be considered. The charges against Ist party workman were

relating to forgery of documents and taking entries of

amount Rs. 30,000/-, 20,000/- collecting monthly instalments

as shown in Exhibit W-2. Showcause notice is issued to

workman as per Exhibit W-9. Learned counsel for IInd party

Mr. N.B. Sharma submits that as per findings of Enquiry

Officer, the charges are proved relates to misappropriation

of amount forgery of documents, punishment of dismissal

is proper. In support of his argument, learned counsel relies

on ratio held in 2008-II-LLJ-374. The ratio held in case of

Sunder Pathak versus General Manager Union Bank of

India. His Lordship of High Court dealing with the dismissal

from service of Head Cashier of Bank findings of Enquiry

based on evidence of misappropriation of funds held no

interference is called for.

1999-Vol-II LLJ 194 is relied by learned counsel in

case of management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. versus

Industrial Tribunal Madras 104 and others. His Lordship

of Madras High Court dealing with powers under Section-

11 of I.D. Act held Industrial Tribunal cannot interfere with

quantum of punishment if proved misconduct is grave in

nature warranting dismissal from service. Quantum of

punishment can be exercised only when it is established

that proved charges and penalties imposed are not

proportionate to each other after considering all aspects.

In 2008-LLJVol-II, Page 313 case of Uttaranchal

Transport Corporation versus Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal. Their

Lordship of Apex court dealing with dismissal of conductor

from service on charges of misappropriation held

interference with punishment on ground amount involved

was meager, not sustainable.

Considering ratio in above cases and charges of

forgery, misappropriation of mount proved as per report of

enquiry proceedings, no interference in the punishment of

dismissal is called for. For above reasons, I record my

finding in Point No. 2 in Affirmative.

11. In view of my finding in Point No. 1 & 2, workman

is not entitled to relief prayed by him. Accordingly I hold

and award is passed as under:—

In Affirmative

Relief prayed by work-

man is rejected.

2266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1) Action of the management of Chief Regional

Manager, Bank of India, Khandwa Region,

Khandwa in imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service on Shri Kashi Ram Verma S/o Shri

Ganpat Verma w.e.f. 16-12-2000 is legal.

(2) Relief prayed by workman is rejected.

12. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 851.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,vjost ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46 dk 2009½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@14@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 851.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. Jet Airways, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 14/02/2014.

[No. L-11012/14/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 29th November, 2013

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 46/2009

(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 M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their

workman)

BETWEEN

Sri S. Soundararajan :

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. M/s Sahara Airlines Ltd.:

2nd Party/1st Respondent

New Delhi-110057

2. M/s. Sahara India :

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Commercial Corpon. Ltd.

Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj

Lucknow-226024

3. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd. :

2nd Party/3rd Respondent

Andheri East, Mumbai-400059

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

Absent

For the 1st Party/

M/s. Gupta & Ravi,

1st Respondent

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/

Sri Devraj,

2nd Respondent

Authorized Representative

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. Gupta & Ravi,

3rd Respondent

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/14/2009-IR (CM-I)

dated 19.06.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of Sri S. Soundararajan for his

absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet

Airways with reference to the Share Purchase

Agreement of dated 01.04.2007 entered by the

Management of Jet Airways (India) Limited, Sahara

India Commercial Corporation Limited and others and

Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and legal? (ii) To

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?"

2. The petitioner has been continuously absent. He

has not made himself available for cross-examination. The

counsel for the petitioner has endorsed stating that he has

no instruction from the petitioner.

3. No material is available to substantiate the case of

the petitioner. So he is not entitled to any relief.

4. The reference is answered against the petitioner.

An award is passed accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 29th November, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management:

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

_____________N/A_______________

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

___________N/A________________

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2267

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 852.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,vjost ds

izca/kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 50 dk 2009½ izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 14@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@18@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 852.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2009)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. Jet Airways, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on 14/02/2014.

[No.-L-11012/18/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 9th January, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 50/2009

(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 M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd. and Two

Others and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri P.C. Rajesh Kumar:

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. M/s. Sahara Airlines Ltd.: 2nd Party/1st Respondent

L-70/329, Mahipalpur

Extension, New Delhi-110037

2. M/s. Sahara India Commercial

2nd Party/2nd

Corpon. Ltd.:

Respondent

Aliganj

Lucknow-226024

3. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.,

Andheri East, Mumbai-400059:

2nd Party/3rd

Respondent

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

Sri K. Sudalaikannu,

S. Annamalai,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st and 3rd

M/s. Gupta & Ravi,

Respondent:

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/2nd

Sri V. Devraj,

Respondent:

Authorized

Representative

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-11012/18/2009-IR (CM-I)

dated 19.06.2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the demand of Sri P.C. Rajesh Kumar for

his absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet

Airways with reference to the Share Purchase

Agreement of dated 01.04.2007 entered by the

Management of Jet Airways (India) Limited, Sahara

India Commercial Corporation Limited and others and

Sahara Airlines Limited is justified? (ii) to what relief

is the workman concerned entitled?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 50/2009 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed claim and counter statements

respectively. The evidence was recorded in the case also

and the matter has been posted for hearing. In the

meanwhile, the parties have settled the matter. They have

filed a joint memo stating that they have entered into a

settlement regarding the dispute and that the petitioner is

withdrawing the dispute.

3. In the above circumstance, the above ID is closed

with withdrawn.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 9th January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management:

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Nil

2268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 853.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ¼lanHkZ la[;k

14@2009½ Mk;jsDVj] lofujrj] dqêd ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa

vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 14@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@63@2008&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 853.—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/

2009) 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 The Director, SVNIRTAR, Cuttack and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/63/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 14/2009

Date of Passing Award - 28th October 2013

Between:

The Director, SVNIRTAR. At/Po. Olatpur, Cuttack.

...1st Party-Management.

(AND)

Their workman Shri Sridhar Behera,

S/o. Shri Baidhar Behera, AT Anthuari,

Po. Prataprudrapur, PS. Balipatna,

Khurda, Orissa.

...2nd Party-Workman.

Appearances:

Shri S.N. Majhi, Auth Representative.

For the 1st Party-Management.

Shri Sridhar Behera.

For himself the 2nd Party Workman.

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

management of SVNIRTAR and their workman in exercise

of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub section (I)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act vide its letter No. L-42012/63/2008 - IR (DU)

dated 02.03.2009 in respect of the following matter:

"Whether the action of the management of

Swami Vivekananda National Institute of

Rehabilitation and Research in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Sridhar Behera,

w.e.f. 14.09.2007 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. The 2nd Party-workman in his statement of claim

has averred that he was initially appointed in the post of

Helper on 01.01.1996 on daily wage basis @ Rs. 52,50 per

day in the maintenance section of the establishment of the

1st Party-Management. He had been working continuously

without any break except Sundays & Holidays sincerely

and honestly to the best satisfaction of the 1st Party-

Management. He had worked 240 days in each completed

year. He was paid salary by the 1st Party-Management

through the vouchers month-wise which are available in

the office of the 1st Party-Management. He had worked in

the post of Helper from 01,01.1996 to 05.02.2001. Thereafter

he was directed to join in the Library Section as library

attendant on 06.02.01 where he continued till 31.05.2004.

Then his services were terminated with effect from

01.06.2004. He was again engaged through the intervention

of the Union on 01.07.2004 in the Audit Wing of the

establishment in the post of attendant. He continued to

work there till 30,9,2004 and thereafter again he was directed

to work in the said Audit Wing on 01.07.2005, where he

continued till 30.9.2005. He was again engaged on 18.7.2006

and continued till 29.09.2006. Once again he was engaged

from 12.07.2007 to 13.09.2007. Thereafter his services were

terminated with effect from 14.09.2007. He approached the

Director for engagement who assured him to provide job.

But no action was taken by him. He also submitted an

application on 02 01,2009 requesting him to allow him to

continue in his employment, but his application was not

considered. The order of refusal of employment with effect

from 14.09.2007 is highly illegal and improper and violative

of the procedure of Law and standing order of the

Management There is enough work in the establishment.

Therefore there was no need to terminate his services, but

to avoid regularization of service his services were

intentionally terminated. His prayer is that he may be

reinstated in service with full back wages and other dues

after declaring the order of termination as illegal, improper

and unjustified.

3. The 1st Party-Management in its written statement

has stated that it is an autonomous Rehabilitation Training

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2269

and Research Institute registered under the Societies Act,

1860 to serve the persons with disabilities and to impart

training to the professionals in the field of rehabilitation of

disabled persons and having hundred bed hospital. The

establishment is not doing any business or trade to come

under the purview of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 and as such the reference is to be answered

negatively. The 2nd Party-workman was engaged for a fixed

period to assist the A.G. Audit party to bring the relevant

records from the concerned department to the audit party

and to place the same in respective place for a period from

11.7.2007 to 12.09.2007. He was paid Rs. 4480/- as wages

for the above period. All other averments made by the 2nd

Party-workman in his statement of claim are false, frivolous

and denied. It is false to allege that the 2nd Party-workman

was initially appointed in the post of helper on 01.01.1996

on daily wage basis at the rate of Rs. 52.50 per day in the

maintenance section of the establishment of the 1st 'Party-

Management, It is also false to allege that the 2nd Party-

workman has completed 240 days in service in each

completed year. The allegation of refusal of employment

with effect from 14.9.2007 does not arise at all and there is

no question of violation of any procedural law or the

standing order Therefore the reference is liable to be

dropped.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues

were framed:—

ISSUES

1. Whether Swami Vivekananda National Institute

of Rehabilitation Training and Research

(SVNIRTAR) will come under the purview of

Industrial Disputes Act?

2. Whether the action of the Management of Swami

Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation

and Research in terminating the services of

Shri Sridhar Behera with effect from 14.9.2007 is

legal and justified?

3. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

5. To prove his case the 2nd Party-workman has

examined four witnesses. W.W.-1 Shri Sridhara Behera is

the 2nd Party-workman himself W.W.-2 is Ajaya Kumar

Mohanty, Junior Assistant in the establishment of the

1st Party-Management. W.W.-3 Shri Sundar Mohan

Baskey, Junior Assistant in the establishment of the

1st Party-Management and W.W.-4 Mrs. Aparna Das is

the Asst Library & Inform Officer in the establishment of

the 1st Party-Management.

The 2nd Party-workman has also relied upon eight

documents marked as Ext.-1 to 8.

6. The 1st Party-Management has examined

Shri Biswanath Mallick as M.W.-1 and relied upon one

document marked as Ext-A.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

7. Although the 1st Party-Management has stated

that its establishment has not been doing any business or

trade and as such it is not amenable to the jurisdiction of

this Tribunal not being an industry, yet it is to be mentioned

that it is running a hundred bed hospital for rendering

service to the persons with disabilities and is also running

a mess for the hospital patients. It also imparts training to

the professionals in the field of rehabilitation and

manufactures artificial limbs and provides them to the

physically handicapped persons. It cannot be said that all

these facilities are provided free. Therefore, it cannot be

denied that the 1st Party-Management is an industrial

establishment and the employees engaged by it are

workmen. Further, it seems that the 1st Party-Management

has later given up this issue as nothing has been said by

its witness M.W.-l Shri Biswanath Mallick in his evidence

before this Tribunal, whereas the 2nd party-workman has

categorically stated that the 1st Party-Management is an

industry. The burden to prove this issue shifts on the 1st

Party-Management when the initial onus is discharged by

the 2nd Party-workman. But the 1st Party-Management

has failed to discharge this burden. As such it is held that

the Swami Vivekananda National Institute of Rehabilitation

Training and Research (SVNIRTAR) will come under the

purview of the Industrial Disputes Act. This issue is

accordingly decided in the affirmative.

ISSUE NO. 2

8. The 2nd Party-workman has alleged to have worked

with the 1st party-Management from 1.1.1996 to 13.9.2007

on different posts, first as helper in the maintenance section

of the establishment of the 1st Party-Management from

1.1.1996 to 5.2.2001, then as library attendant in the Library

Section from 6.2.2001 to 31.5.2004 in the Library section,

then as attendant in the Audit Wing of the establishment

from 11.7.2004 to 30.9.2004, 11.7.2005 to 30.9.2005, 18.7.2006

to 29.9.2006 and 12.7.2007 to 13.9.2007. This shows that he

was intermittently engaged, if his version is taken as true.

On the contrary the 1st Party-Management has admitted

to have engaged him only from 11.7.2007 to 12.9.2007 to

assist the A.G. Audit party in bringing the relevant records

from the concerned department to the audit party and to

place the said records in their respective place and for that

he was paid wages amounting to Rs. 4480/-. All other

allegations regarding his engagement have been denied

by the 1st Party-Management.

9. To prove his claim the 2nd Party-workman has

relied upon certain documents, which are in the shape of

xerox copies and marked as Ext-1 to 8. These documents

are inter-office notes. The 1st Party-Management has

denied their genuinity and alleged them to be forged. If

these documents are taken into account, they only go to

2270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

show that the 2nd Party-workman had worked for certain

days as contractual labourer in the month of January to

May, 2004. Therefore these documents are not of much

help to to prove that the 2nd Party-workman had worked

with the 1st Party-Management for a long span time as

alleged by him in his claim statement. On the other hand

the 1st Party-Management has filed a money receipt in

original, marked as Ext.-A bearing the signature of the 2nd

Party-workman regarding payment of Rs. 4480 for working

under the 1st Party-Management from 11.7.2007 to

12.9.2007. This document proves the stand taken by the

1st Party-Management. Its witness M.W.-l, Shri Biswanath

Mallick while proving this document has deposed that "the

disputant had only worked for two to three months for

audit work under the 1st Party-Management." He has denied

that the disputant had worked from 1996 to 2007. The oral

evidence led by the 2nd Party-workman is not trustworthy

being shaky and inconsistent with one another witness.

The 2nd Party workman examined as W.W.-1 has stated in

his cross examination that "it is a fact that I had worked at

the A.G. Audit for three to four months under the

Management from the year 2004 to 2007". But there is no

documentary proof of his working in the A.G. Audit from

2004 to 2007. He has admitted that the Management has

not given him any appointment order and his name was

not sponsored from the Employment Exchange. He has

also admitted that no letter was issued to him to work in the

library of the Management. The oral statement of his

engagement and working for such a long period cannot be

accepted without any documentary proof W.W.- 2

Shri Ajay Kumar Mohanty has although asserted that

"the disputant workman was working in the audit and

accounts work under the Management from the year 2004

to 2006", but he has no knowledge as to whether the

disputant workman was working in the library of the 1st

Party-Management or not. In his cross examination he has

resiled from his earlier statement by stating that "it is a fact

that, the disputant workman was working only for two

months when the A.G. Audit is being done at the

Management's office". How the evidence of this witness

can be believed? W.W.- 3 Shri Sundar Mohan Baskey has

stated in his evidence that "the disputant workman has

joined under the Management in the library on 6.2.2001"

and he was getting wages monthly from the management

directly. Even the 2nd party-workman has not stated that

he was getting wages from the management directly. He

could not tell as to whether there was any post called library

attendant. Although he was transferred to library in the

year 2001, as alleged by him, but he could not produce any

documentary evidence in support of the claim of the

disputant that he was working under the Management.

W.W.-4 Smt. Aparna Das has stated in her evidence that

the disputant workman was working in the audit wing, but

she could not tell the date from which she was knowing the

disputant workman and whether the disputant workman

had worked in the library during her tenure, though she is

the Asst. Library and Information Officer working under

the Management since 1996. Further she has denied that

the disputant had worked under her control as library

attendant while she was in-charge of library. Therefore the

evidence of all these witnesses is of no significance and

that cannot be relied upon. In my view the 2nd party

workman has failed to prove his case as to his engagement

by the 1st Party-Management since 1996 till September,

2007 on different posts and his disengagement from

14.9.2007. Admittedly he was engaged by the 1st Party-

Management to assist the A.G Audit party from 11.7.2007

to 12.9.2007 and thereafter he was disengaged. Since

engagement for a fixed period does not create any right in

his favour for reinstatement under the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 no question arises to assess the legality and

justification of the action of the management in terminating

his services with effect from 14.9.2007. This issue is decided

accordingly against the 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO. 3

10. In view of my findings recorded above the 2nd

party-workman is not entitled to any relief.

11. Reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 854.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,r}kjk phQ

tujy esustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ] Hkqous'oj ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 21@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@105@2012&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 854.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 21/2013)

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 The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited & Others, Bhubaneswar and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

06.02.2014.

[No. L-40012/105/2012-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2271

IDC/21/2013

No .L-40012/105/2012—IR(DU)

ORDER

No. L-40012/104/2012-IR(DU).—Whereas the Central

Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute

exists between the employers in relation to the management

of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, and their workmen in

respect of the matters specified in the Schedule hereto

annexed;

And whereas the Central Government considers it

desirable to refer the said dispute for adjudication;

Now therefore, 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 (14 of 1947)

the Central Government hereby refers the said dispute for

adjudication of the Cent-Govt. Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar. The said Tribunal shall give its award

within a period of three months.

SCHEDULE

'Whether the action of the M/s Shakti Electricals

(Prop. Sri Shakti Prasad Ray), Contractor, N/4, 148,

IRC Village, Nayapalli, Bhubneswar-15 in terminating

the services of Sri Bhem sen Muduli, Ex-AC Operator,

AC Plant, Telephone Exchange, BJB Nagar,

Bhubneswar w.e.f. 23.12.2011 without complying the

provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal

and justified? If not, what relief the Sri Muduli is

entitled to?"

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Office,

C.G.I.T. cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 21 /2013

Date of Passing Order-12th August 2013

Between

1. The Chief General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Orissa Telecom Circle, PMG Square,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

2. Shri Shakti Prasad Ray,

M/s Shakti Electricals,

N/4, 148, IRC Villages Nayapalli,

Bhubaneswar (Orissa)-15

...1st Party-Managements

(AND)

Shri Bhimsen Muduli,

AC Operator, BSNL,

Telephone Exchange, PKG AC Plant,

B.J.B. Nagar, Bhubaneswar (Orissa)

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None.

... For the 1st Party-

Managements.

None.

...

For the 2nd Party-

Workman.

ORDER

Case taken up. None of the parties is present. The

2nd Party-workman was required to file his statement of

claim in pursuance of the order of reference within fifteen

days of the receipt of the order. But the 2nd party-workman

has failed to file any statement of claim neither in pursuance

of the order of reference nor having been noticed twice

first on 6.5.2013 by ordinary post and second on 1.7.2013

by regd. post by this Tribunal. This reference was received

in this Tribunal on 1.4.2013 having been referred by the

Government vide its letter dated 26.2.2013. The statutory

mandate is to decide the dispute within three months of

the receipt of the reference. A period of more than four

months has expired, but the 2nd Party-workman has not

shown the least interest in prosecuting his case either by

putting in appearance or by filing his statement of claim.

Without pleadings of the parties the matter under dispute

cannot be adjudicated. It might be that the 2nd Party-

workman has settled his dispute with the 1st Party-

Management amicably out of the court. But instead of

passing a non-dispute award it would be expedient in the

interest of justice to return the reference unanswered to

the Government for taking necessary action at its end.

2. I order accordingly and return the reference

unanswered to the Government for taking necessary action

at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 855.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj izkstsDV Mk;jsDVj]

us'kuy gkbost vFkkWfjVh vkWQ bafM;k ,aM vnlZ] Hkqous'oj ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa

Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV lanHkZ la[;k 03@2014 dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lñ ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w ½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 855.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No 03/2014)

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 The Project Director, National Highways

Authroity of India & Others, Bhubaneswar and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06.02.2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Office, C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 3 /2014

Date of Passing Order-22nd January, 2014

Between

1. The Project Director,

National Highways Authority of India,

1st Floor, SETU Bhavan, Nayapalli,

Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar.

2. The Management of Egle Infra Ltd.,

Tool Plaza, Gangapada, Dist. Khurda,

...1st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Benudhar Nayak,

S/o Jaladhar Nayak,

Vill. Jahnipada

PO. Harekrushnapur, Ps. Itamati,

Dist. Nayagarh,

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None.

... For the 1st Party

Managements.

Shri Benudhar Nayak.

...

For Himself the 2nd

Party-Workman

ORDER

Case presented today before me. The 2nd Party-

workman is present in person. The 1st Party-Management

No. 1 and 2 are absent. The case is at initial stage. However,

notices have been issued to the 1st Party-Management.

The 2nd Party-workman on 6.1.2014 has moved a petition

before this Tribunal that an amicable setlement has been

arrived at with the company and the company has agreed

to re-appoint him in his previous service. So he is not willing

to continue with the case and permission to withdraw the

case be granted.

2. I have heard the 2nd Party-workman. He still wants

to withdraw the case on the assurance of the company to

re-appoint him. I find no legal impediment in allowing the

petition. Therefore the petition to withdraw the case is

allowed. The 2nd Party-workman is permitted to withdraw

the case.

3. The application filed under section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is accordingly dismissed as

withdrawn.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 856.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk

izkstsDV Mk;jsDVj] us'kuy gkbost vFkkWfjVh vkWQ bafM;k ,aM vnlZ]

Hkqous'oj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

02@2014½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06-02-2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w ½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 856.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No 02/2014)

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 The Project Director, National Highways

Authority of India & Others, Bhubaneswar and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06.02.2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Office,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2273

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 2 /2014

Date of Passing Order-22nd January, 2014

Between :

1. The Project Director,

National Highways Authority of India,

1st Floor, SETU Bhavan, Nayapalli,

Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar.

2. The Management of Egle Infra Ltd.,

Tool Plaza, Gangapada, Dist. Khurda,

...1st Party-Managements

(And)

Shri Braja Bihari Sethi,

S/o. Bhagaban Sethi,

Vill. Dampada, P.O. Dampada,

P.S. Bank, Distt. Cuttack.

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances:

None.

... For the 1st Party-

Managements.

Shri Braja Bihari Sethi

...

For Himself the 2nd

Party-Workman

ORDER

Case presented today before me. The 2nd Party-

workman is present in person. The 1st Party-Management

No. 1 and 2 are absent.

The case is at initial stage. However, notices have

been issued to the 1st Party-Management. The 2nd Party-

workman on 6.1.2014 has moved a petition before this

Tribunal that an amicable setlement has been arrived at

with the company and the company has agreed to re-

appoint him in his previous service. So he is not willing to

continue with the case and permission to withdraw the

case be granted.

2. I have heard the 2nd Party-worman. He still wants

to withdraw the case on the assurance of the company to

re-appoint him. I find no legal impediment in allowing the

petition. Therefore the petition to withdraw the case is

allowed. The 2nd Party-workman is permitted to withdraw

the case.

3. The application filed under section 2-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is accordingly dismissed as

withdrawn.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 857.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fMfLVªDV

eSustj] nwjlapkj] fetkZiqj ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 05@2003½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@187@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 857.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 05/2003)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The District Manager, Doorsanchar,

Mirzapur and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-40012/187/2002-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 05 of 2003

Sri Sanjai Kumar Yadav,

Son of Sri Kailash Nath Yadav,

Vishudarpur, PO Sadar,

Mirzapur.

Versus

The District Manager,

Doorsanchar,

PO Sadar,

Hana Kotwali Sahar,

Mirzapur.

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi, vide

notification no. L-40012/187/2002/IR/DU, dated 05.02.2003,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication—

2. Whether the action of the management of BSNL

Telecom, District Manager, Mirzapur, in terminating the

services of Sri Sanjai Kumar Yadav with effect from 15.12.96

is legal and justified? If not to what remedy he is entitled

for?

3. Brief facts are—

4. It is stated by the applicant that he was appointed

by the opposite party on 24.08.94 at the post of Jeep Driver.

He continued to be in the services of the opposite party

regularly and his work and conduct remained outstanding

that is why he was never served with any memo or charge

2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sheet by the opposite party. Although the nature of work

performed by the applicant was of regular nature but he

was paid at daily rate basis at the rate of Rs. 50/- per day. It

is stated that the claimant had worked continuously for

more than 240 days in each calendar year therefore was

liable to be declared as regular and permanent employee of

the opposite party. He raised his demand for declaring him

to be a permanent employee of the opposite party which

annoyed the officers of the department as a result of which

he was removed from the services of the department with

effect from 15.12.96, without offering him any retrenchment

compensation.

5. By way of amendment it has also been stated by

the claimant that under the opposite party there is a scheme

for providing temporary status to the daily rated workers.

As per this scheme whenever a casual labour works

continuously in the service of opposite party for a period

of one year he is conferred temporary status and thereby

he is entitled to be given appointment on regular and

permanent basis.

6. Therefore, the termination of the service of the

applicant is bad in law. He has therefore, prayed that he be

reinstated in the service of the opposite party with full

back wages.

7. The claim of the applicant has been contested by

the opposite party on a number of grounds. However, the

opposite party has not stated about the continuous working

of the claimant in their reply. Only this much has been

denied that the opposite party has flouted the provisions

of section 25F of the Act. It is also stated that the applicant

was never appointed against any regular and permanent

post by the department. He was kept for driving the Jeep

for short period due to non selection of a regular incumbent.

Payment of wages as claimed by the claimant has also

been admitted by the opposite party in their written

statement, therefore, he cannot claim for his regularization

of service. Here it may be made clear that as per reference

order it is not a case of regularization rather a case of

termination of the service of the claimant.

8. Further allegation have also been raised by the

opposite party but considering them it is not found

necessary to detail the same as to the tribunal they are not

found material for the purpose of deciding the case.

9. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant but

nothing new has been said therein.

10. The claimant besides adducing his evidence as

W.W. 1 has also filed documents per list dated 10.05.04

paper no. 11/2.

11. The claimant was also cross examined by the

opposite party thoroughly.

12. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence

oral as well as documentary in the case.

13. I have heard the arguments of the parties at length

and considering the evidence of the claimant coupled with

the documents filed by him, the tribunal has come to the

conclusion that the claimant has completed for more than

240 days preceding one calendar year from the date of his

termination. He has categorically stated the fact that at the

time of his termination no notice or notice pay was given to

him as provided under the provision of section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Nothing has come out in his

evidence which may make the claim of the applicant

unbelievable.

14. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence from

the side of the opposite party the tribunal is fully inclined

to believe the claim of the applicant.

15. Therefore, it is held that the termination of the

applicant by the opposite party with effect from 15.12.96 is

in breach of the provisions of section 25F of the Act, and

thus is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the termination

of the applicant is set aside.

16.It is further held that the applicant is entitled to be

reinstated in the service of the opposite party with 20% of

back wages.

17.Reference is answered accordingly in favour of

the applicant and against the opposite party.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 858.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Mk;jsDVj]

bafM;u bafLVV~;wV vkWQ iSysl fjlpZ] dY;k.kiqj] dkuiqj ds izca/kra=

ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 205@99] 206@99 vkSj

207@99½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@82@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½,

lañ ,y&42012@81@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

lañ ,y&42012@70@99&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 858.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 205/99,

206/99 and 207/99) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of The Director, Indian

Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur and their

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2275

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/82/99-IR (DU),

No. L-42012/81/99-IR (DU),

No. L-42012/70/99-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

I.D. Nos. 205/99, 206/99 and 207/99

Reference Nos.—

L-42012/82/99-IR (DU) dated 11.08.99.

L-42012/81/99-IR (DU) dated 11.08.99.

L-42012/70/99-IR (DU) dated 11.08.99.

Industrial Dispute between—

1. Ram Shanker C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla,

115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Kanpur.

2. Sri Ramesh Kumar C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad

Shukla, 115/193 A-2, Maswanpur, Kanpur.

3. Sri Ajai C/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Shukla, 115/193

A-2, Maswanpur, Kanpur.

And

The Director,

Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, G.T. Road,

Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi vide above reference

no. has referred the following dispute for adjudication to

this tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the Director Indian Institute

of Pulse Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur, in terminating the

service of—

a. Sri Ram Shanker

b. Sri Ramesh Kumar

c. Sri Ajai

is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman

is entitled?

3. Brief facts are—

4. These are the three I.D. Cases being numbered as

205/99, 206/99 and 207/99, All these three cases have been

consolidated vide order dated 26.05.04 and I.D. No. 205/99

has been made as leading case wherein evidence has been

recorded for all the three cases considering it a leading

case.

5. Because all the cases are based on almost similar

facts and common question of law is involved so in my

view I am reproducing the facts of I.D. no. 205/99. All the

three cases belongs to termination like termination is legal

justified or not.

6. In the case of Ram Shankar it has been alleged

that he was employed on 1.1.90 as a casual labour for the

permanent work by the Director of the opposite party. He

was being paid Rs. 2127/- per month before his termination

which was oral in nature. It is alleged that the work against

which the applicant was engaged was of permanent nature

which is there under the opposite party. It is also stated

that the opposite party had not paid the claimant the wages

of regular employee. He had worked continuously for more

than 240 days preceding 12 months from the date of his

termination. It is also alleged that the opposite party

without any reason and without complying with the

mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

like section 25F has terminated the services of the applicant.

7. Therefore it has been prayed that the workman is

entitled to be reinstated in the service of the opposite party

with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

8. Opposite party has filed reply wherein the entire

claim of the workman has been refuted by them on the

ground that there never existed any relationship of employer

and employee between the management and the workman,

these workmen had never been engaged either temporarily

or permanent, therefore, there was no need for compliance

of section 25F of the Act as the opposite party had never

terminated the services of the applicant. The work under

the opposite party was being taken through the contractor.

The work of the opposite party against which it is alleged

that the applicant was engaged was seasonal one and the

licensed contractor had provided the services of labour for

the work of Nirai, Guarai etc.

9. Therefore, it has been stated by the opposite party

that since the workmen were nevery in the employment of

the opposite party therefore, they are not entitled for any

relief as claimed by them.

10. Rejoinder has also been filed but nothing new

has been stated therein.

11. The claimant has moved an application for

summoning certain records photocopies which were

enclosed with the application.

12. This application was disposed of on merits by

my learned predcessor vide order dated 09.07.03, where in

the prayer of the claimants were not considered as the

application was also not supported by any affidavit.

13. Opposite party has also filed certain paper vide

list paper no. 12/1-3. These are the photocopies of the

license of the contractor issued by the ALCC Kanpur dated

13.05.93 onwards and photocopies of certain letters issued

by the desk officer.

2276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence.

Claimant has adduced himself as WW1 whereas opposite

party has produced Sri A.K. Saxena as M.W.1 who is an

officer of the establishment.

15. I have examined the oral as well as documentary

evidence of both the parties at length. M.W. 1 Sri Saxena

has specifically stated on oath that regarding these

claimants there had been no relationship of master and

servant. They had never been employed or engaged as a

casual labour temporary or on permanent basis directly by

the opposite party. it is also stated on oath that the work

which was being taken from the contractor like Anand

Enterprise and others who are the registered contractor

was of seasonal nature.

16. The statement of the management witness is un-

rebutted because after giving sufficient opportunity to

cross the witness the claimant has not cross examined him.

Therefore, in such circumstances his statement which is

on oath cannot be discarded.

17. Moreover I have examined the statement of

W.W. 1. In the cross examination he stated that he has

moved a application to the opposite party to be taken on

employment, but no such application has been filed. Further

he stated that his name was summoned from the

employment exchange but no such documentary proof has

been filed which was in the possession of the workman

himself. This could be the best piece of evidence which

has been withheld by the claimant.

18. As such there is no cogent documentary or oral

evidence in favor of the claimant from which it can be inferred

that there had been any relationship of employer and

employee between the disputants.

19. Therefore the evidence of the workman does not

inspire confidence and is liable to be discarded.

20. Therefore the workman has failed to establish

that they have been engaged or employed by the opposite

party on 1.1.90 and their services have been terminated on

30.05.98. They have also failed to establish that they had

worked for more than 240 days or more before termination

of their services.

21. It is also pertinent to mention that in all the three

references there is no date of termination and therefore,

the reference is also vague on this point.

22. Accordingly it is held that none of the workman

is entitled to any relief and the references are bound to be

decided against them and if favor of the opposite party.

23. Let a copy of this award be placed on the record

of each connected case and also two photocopies of the

award be sent to the Mol New Delhi for its publication.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 859.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk tujy

esustj] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj dkjiksjs'ku flaxjkSyh lqij FkeZy ikWoj

LVs'ku lksuHknz ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 16@2012½

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@92@2011&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 859.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 16/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The General Manager, NTPC, Singrauli

Super Thermal Power Station, Sonbhadra and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-42011/92/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

I.D. Nos. 16/12

President,

General Secretary

Pariyojna Shramik Sanghtahan,

1-A/59 Vidut Vihar Colony,

P.O. Shakti Nagar

Sonbhadra

AND

The General Manager NTPC,

Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station,

P.O. Shakti Nagar,

Sonbhadra.

AWARD

1. Central Govt. Mol, New Delhi vide above reference

no. L-42011/92/2011-IR (DU) dated 03.02.2012 has referred

the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

2. Whether the action of the management of General

Manager NTPC Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station

PO Shakti Nagar, District Sonbhadra, in not correcting the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2277

date of birth of Sri D N Mishra employee no. 012221 as

09.11.58 is just fair and legal? What relief the union/workman

is entitled to?

3. After receipt of the reference order as above

several notices were issued by the tribunal to both the

parties, but none has appeared from the side of the claimant

nor there any statement of claim.

4. None appeared from the side of the management.

On few occasion worker's side put their appearance but

have not filed any claim statement in support of their

claim.

5. It therefore, from the circumstances of the case

appears that the Union or the workman is not interested in

prosecuting its case. As such the tribunal is of the confirm

opinion that it is a case in which neither there is any

statement of claim nor the claimant is interested in

prosecuting his case, therefore, the case is bound to be

decided against the union and workman for want of

pleadings and proof.

6. Accordingly it is held that the workman/union is

not entitled for any relief pursuant to the present reference

order.

Dated : 31.7.2013

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 860.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk ;wfu;u

vkWQ bafM;k ¼lsØsVjh] fefuLVªh vkWQ+ fMQsUl½ ds izcaèra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 39@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 860.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 39/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Union of India (Secretary, Ministry of

Defence) and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 39 of 2011

Ram Nath,

Son of Late Gajju Lal,

117/37, Puran Basti,

Kakadeo,

Kanpur

AND

Union of India,

Through Secretary,

Ministry of Defence,

Government of India,

And others

AWARD

Brief facts are—

1. The claimant Sri Ram Nath has filed a statement of

claim under the amended provision of the Act under Section

2A read with sub section 2 of the Act against Union of

India through Secretary GoI, and the General Manager,

Ordnance Parachute Factory Kanpur, making a prayer that

the impugned order of punishment dated 9/4/83 passed by

the opposite party No. 2 be quashed and set aside and

consequential relief be given to him.

2. After exchange of pleadings and the evidence

adduced by the claimant himself as W.W.1, the claimant

himself along with his AR Sri Abhishal Srivastava prayed

before the tribunal on 28.2.3 that they do not want to press

this case.

3. In this respect they have also made an

endorsement for not pressing the case in the order

sheet.

4. Therefore, I have heard and considered all the

aspect of the case. In such circumstances there is no need

to repeat the pleadings of the parties.

5. Hence in lieu of, as the claim is not pressed

therefore, the claim is decided against the claimant as

withdrawn as not pressed.

6. Therefore, the case is decided accordingly in the

above terms.

Dt. 1.5.2013

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 14 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 861.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk tujy

esustj] us'kuy FkeZy ikWoj dkjiksjs'ku] fjgan ikWoj izkstsDV] lksuHknz

2278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjkas ds chp vuqcaè

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn ds dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k

,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 03@2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 06@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@166@2010&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 14th February, 2014

S.O. 861.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 03/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The General Manager, NTPC Rihand Power

Project, Sonbhadra and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 06/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/166/2010-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 03 of 2011

BETWEEN—

Sri Shiv Bhajan Pal S/o late Sri Jadunandan,

Village & Post Bijpur,

Tehsil Dundhi.

Sonebhadra (U.P.)

AND

The General Manager,

NTPC Rihand Power Project,

Rihand Nagar,

Sonbhadra (UP)

AWARD

1. Central Government, Mol, New Delhi vide

notification no. L-42012/166/2010 IR-DU dated 14.02.2011

has referred the following dispute for adjudication—

2. Whether the action of the management in granting

voluntary retirement scheme to Sri Shiv Bhajan Pal, Sr.

Mazdoor NTPC Rihand Power Project, Rihand District

Sonbhadra with effect from 12.03.2005 is legal and justified?

If not to what relief the workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts of the case are—

4. It is alleged by the applicant that he is a member of

Scheduled Tribe Community and he was appointed by the

opposite party on 31.07.84 at the post of Shramik. It is

further alleged by the workman that on account of his

continued service under the opposite party he was

promoted at the post of Senior Shramik in the year 1986. It

is alleged that the work and conduct of the applicant

remained ever appreciable. He has further alleged that for

the construction of his house he used loan facility from the

bank under the guarantee of Sri Prahlad Yadav and Prabhat

Kumar Pandey, but he could not be facilitated with the loan

facility by the bank and the bank deducted the amount of

alleged loan, which has resulted the applicant under a

depressing situation. He approached the senior officers

who had advised him that it will be better to avail housing

loan facility from the opposite party and the amount so

received by him could be deposited before the bank to get

rid off from bank loan. It is also alleged by the workman

that believing the assurance of Sri Prabhat Pandey, he

approached before the management and during the course

of negotiations he was asked to sign certain plain papers

for obtaining housing loan from the opposite party. It is

further alleged that on 13.03.2005 he was not allowed to

enter in the premises of the management and he was told

by the officials of the opposite party that he had taken

voluntarily retirement from the company. He had

represented the matter before the higher authorities on the

issue that he had never sought any retirement from the

service but all in vain.

5. The claimant has thus prayed that the action of

the opposite party is illegal and unjustified and declaring

the action to be against the rules of justice he should be

reinstated in the service with full back wages and with all

consequential benefits.

6. The claimant along with his claim has also filed

photocopies of documents paper no. 4/6-4/14.

7. The opposite party has filed a detailed reply against

the claim statement of the workman denying all the

allegations. It has been alleged by the opposite party that

whether the workman has availed any housing loan facility

from the bank by creating guarantor S/Sri Prahlad Yadav

and Sri Prabhat Kumar Pandey. It is further alleged by the

opposite party that for availing of housing loan facility by

the employees of the opposite party there is a definite

procedure. The applicant was fully aware of the procedure

to avail housing loan facility because he had already applied

for housing loan facility before the opposite party but as

the formalities for availing the loan facilities could not be

completed he was not allowed the loan facility by the

opposite party.

8. It is absolutely wrong to allege by the applicant

that he is an illiterate person and he was forced to sign

blank papers for availing loan facility because he is class

VIII pass and he has signed the papers after understanding

the contents of the formats.

9. It is further alleged by the opposite party that the

applicant has signed his retirement papers after fully

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2279

understanding them and he has also rightly taken the

retirement benefits from the opposite party through his

account. Under the facts and circumstances of the case

there is neither any illegality nor unjustified. Therefore the

workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him.

10. Workman has filed rejoinder but nothing has been

alleged new therein. He has also filed photocopy of certain

documents paper no. 8/6-8.

11. Workman has also filed photocopies of 15

documents vide list dated 17.10.2011.

12. Vide application dated 05.07.2012 the opposite

party has filed original documents paper no. 11/2-7. Again

management has filed documents vide list dated 23.08.2011

which are in the nature of photocopies.

13. Whereas the workman has produced himself as

W.W.1 as witness the opposite party has examined

Sri Ramesh Prasad Singh as M.W.I.

14. I have heard the arguments of the parties in details

and have also perused the evidence led by the parties.

15. The short question in this case to be decided is

whether the workman Sri Shiv Bhajan Pal Senior Mazdoor

tendered his resignation seeking the retirement under

Voluntary Retirement Scheme or his resignation was

obtained under some misrepresentation of facts.

16. W/W.1 in his statement has stated that he is an

illiterate person and used to put thumb impression. He

stated that he had borrowed some loan from the State Bank

of India wherein Sri Prabhat Kumar Pandey and Sri Prahlad

Yadav who had been his colleagues were the guarantor.

When he could not pay the borrowed amount the bank

started some coercive process against them. At this time

Prabhat Kumar Pandey asked him as you not pay the loan

you could borrow housing loan from the department. He

took to him in the office of NTPC and asked him to sign on

8-10 blank papers and some half written papers. These

were obtained under misrepresentation of fact where as no

housing loan was given from the department.

17. On 13.03.2005 when he reached the office, he was

informed by the gateman that his services have been

terminated and his identity card was taken.

18. On the other hand the opposite produced M.W.1

Sri Ramesh Prasad Singh who is senior officer in HR

department. He stated on oath that the workman has

tendered these applications for seeking VRS on 25.01.2005

of his free will. After careful consideration his VRS

application was accepted and he was granted VRS on

12.03.2005. While submitting application by the workman

for VRS which is paper no. 11/2-3 which is an original

application, there was no misrepresentation of facts,

coercion or duress of any kind. He stated that initially the

workman was primary school pass and later on he has

passed VIII class and he used to sign in Hindi. He stated

that while accepting his VRS the workman has not raised

any objection. While accepting the VRS the workman was

paid his full and final payment on several dates i.e.

489991/- was paid on 09.04.05 vide cheque which was

credited in his account. Gratuity amount of Rs. 152024 was

paid by cheque which was credited in his account on

10.09.2005. Similarly other dues and payment like generation

incentive, ex-gratia were paid to him, CPF amount of

Rs. 2,42,745/- was also credited in his account and there

nothing remained to be paid to him.

19. The opposite party has brought the original file

of the workman. These papers are 10/3-48 and are Ext. 1 to

36. It is stated on oath by MW 1 that the workman has not

applied for any kind of housing loan in the year 2004 or

2005. He had applied for loan sometime between 1990-1993

but that loan could not be materialized. I have examined

these papers which are paper no. 11/4-8. The version of the

claimant that he is totally illiterate does not appeal to reason.

The management has also filed mark sheet of the workman

regarding his education.

20. It is also contended by the workman that the

aforesaid amount of full and final payment has not been

paid to him and not credited to his account. But this

contention does not find any support. As the opposite

party has filed the statement of account of the concerned

bank wherein the aforesaid amount has been credited in

his account. It is also a fact that workman has not lodged

any complainant against the officials Sri Prabhat Kumar

Pandey and Prahlad Yadav. Had Sri Prabhat Kumar Pandey

cheated him or misrepresented the facts and procured the

signature of the workman alleging that the signatures are

being taken for a housing loan, but in actual a form of VRS

was filled. Then in that case it was a serious matter. The

workman did not lodge any complaint to the authorities

concerns or before the police. The complainant has filed 30

documents vide list 9/1. I have examined these documents.

He stated that he has filed the photocopies of affidavit of

certain persons like Ram Charan Shiv Narain etc., these are

paper no. 9/12-15. I have examined these papers and these

are the photocopies of affidavits and these persons have

not been produced as a witness, therefore, these papers

are not relevant at all.

21. I have carefully considered that facts of and

circumstances of the case and find no truth in the claim of

the workman. I also find that the workman has willingly

tendered his resignation for obtaining VRS which was duly

accepted by the opposite party. The evidence led by the

management carries much weight and is believable. I also

find that the present dispute has been raised much

belatedly.

22. Therefore, under these circumstances it is held

that there is no illegality in the action of the management

and the reference is liable to be answered against the

2280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

workman. Consequently workman is not entitled for any

relief.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 862.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj tSV ,vjost

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky; cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k

68@2001]69@2001 ,oa 72@2001½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 17@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@43@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

lañ ,y&11012@44@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

lañ ,y&11012@50@2001&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñdsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 862.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 68/2001,69/

2001 & 72/2001 of the Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the management of M/s. Jet

Airways Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 17/02/2014.

[No. L-11012/43/2001-IR(C-I),

No. L-11012/44/2001-IR(C-I),

No. L-11012/50/2001-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

DATED

6th JANUARY 2014

PRESENT :

Shri S N NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

CR No. 68/2001

I Party

II Party

Sh. S. Ravi,

The Area Manager,

No. 174, R R Road, J C Layout, Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,

Devasandra, R.K. Puram,

Unity Building J C Road,

BANGALORE-560 036

BANGALORE-560 002.

C.R. NO. 69/2001

I Party

II Party

Sh. Chikkamari, C/o S Ravi,

The Area Manager,

No. 174, R R Road, J C Layout, Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,

Devasandra, R K Puram,

Unity Building, J C Road,

BANGALORE-560 036.

BANGALORE-560 002.

C R NO. 72/2001

I Party

II Party

Sh. Sarvama Kumar,

The Area Manager,

C/o S Ravi,

Jet Airways (India) Ltd.,

No. 174, R R Road,

Unity Building, J.C. Road,

J C Layout, ,

BANGALORE-560 002.

Devasandra, R.K. Puram

BANGALORE-560 036.

Appearances:

I Party

Shri K V Sathyanarayana

Advocate

II Party

Smt. K. Subha Ananthi

Advocate

COMMON AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order Nos. L-11012/

43/2001-IR(C-I) dated 27.09.2001, L-11012/44/2001-IR(C-I)

dated 27.09.2001 and L-11012/50/2001-IR(C-I) dated

27.09.2001 in exercise of the power conferred by clause (d)

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) made these

references for adjudication with the following schedules:

SCHEDULE (C R 68/2001)

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Jet

Airways (India) Ltd. in not treating Shri S Ravi as

regular employee of the establishment and

terminating his services w.e.f. 28.02.1997 is just, fair

and legal? If not, to what relief is the said workman

entitled?"

SCHEDULE (C R 69/2001)

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Jet

Airways (India) Ltd. in not treating Shri Chikkamari

as regular employee of the establishment and

terminating his services w.e.f. 28.02.1997 is just, fair

and legal? If not, to what relief is the said workman

entitled?"

SCHEDULE (CR 72/2001)

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Jet

Airways (India) Ltd. in not treating Shri Sarvana as

regular employee of the establishment and

terminating his services w.e.f. 28.02.1997 is just, fair

and legal? If not, to what relief is the said workman

entitled?"

2. Since the reference schedule, claim of the I Party

and contention of the II Party are similar in all the three

references and actually in C R 69/2001 and CR 72/2001 the

cross-examination made to management witnesses in C R

68/2001 to MW 1 and MW 2 have been adopted and

common written arguments are filed by the learned

advocates appearing for both sides in C R 68/2001 only, I

have taken up for passing common award in all the three

references.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2281

3. On receipt of the references from the ministry while

registering them in C R 68, 69 and 72/2001 when notices

were issued the I party and II Party entered their appearances

through their respective common advocate in all the three

references and filed their claim statement and counter

statement.

4. The I Party in all the three references claim that

they were appointed by the II Party management as Loader-

cum-Driver and that their wages were also paid by the II

Party management only but the II Party with an ulterior

motive registered their establishment with Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C), Bangalore to employ contract labour

for the work of loading and unloading at Baggage at Airport

on 29.05.1996 and that terminated their services w.e.f.

28.02.1997. It is further asserted the I Party in CR 68 and

72/2001 were appointed on 25.05.1993 whereas I Party in

CR 69/2001 on 28.10.1993 and that all of them have been

terminated w.e.f. 28.02.1997. In all the three claim statements

it is asserted that all of them worked sincerely without any

blemish as such termination of their services tantamounts

to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the ID

Act as such the non-compliance of the mandatory

provisions of Section 25(F) of the ID Act makes their

termination illegal and they are deemed to be continued in

service. With these allegations it is prayed to pass an award

in their favour holding that the II Party is not justified in

not treating them as their regular employees and to direct

the management to reinstate them and to regularize their

services with continuity of service, full backwages and

consequential benefits. Inter alia, in the counter statements

filed for the II Party it is contended that it being an Airline

having branches all over the country had engaged the

contractor Sh. B. Bhasker, Proprietor, Sairam Agencies for

loading and unloading of the Baggages and initially the

said contractor had provided 19 loaders and as a precaution

in the year 1996 it opted for registration from ALC(C) for

engaging contract labour and in the year 1997 Sh. Bhaskaran

brought to an end to his contract and they have learnt all

his employees have been terminated by payment of

compensation, notice pay and thereby following due

process of law and that thereafter M/s, Vishwas Enterprises

and M/s. Takeoff Services were the contractors carrying

on the same work by engaging loaders in the areas of

Loading and Unloading and that they have been

supervising their workers and are paying them the minimum

wages. Thus, it is contended that the I party in all the three

were being the labour under the contractor M/s. Bhaskaran

there is no relationbship of Employees and Employers

between them and the II Party as such they have no right

or locus standi to ask for their reinstatement, regularisation

etc. as prayed for by them.

5. After completion of the pleading having regard to

the contention of the II Party there exists no relationship of

employee and employer an issue was raised as to whether

there exists Employee and Employer Relationship between

I Party and II Party with further direction that the said issue

will be taken up along with merits reference points.

6. In all the three references the I Party workman

have filed their affidavits reiterating their respective claim

statements and examined themselves on oath as WW 1.

The I Party in CR 68/2001 got exhibited ID Card/Daily Permit

issued to him by Bureau of Civil Aviation Security and

Certificate issued by Airport Manager and Area Sales

Manager as Ex. W-1 and Ex. W-2 and in his cross-examination

counsel for II Party got marked the vakalat of the I Party as

Ex. W-3 and his signature as Ex. W-3(a). I Party in CR 69/

2001 got exhibited ID Card/Daily Permit issued to by Bureau

of Civil Aviation Security and Certificate issued by Airport

Manager and Area Sales Manager as Ex. W-1 and Ex. W-2

and during his cross-examination counsel for II Party got

exhibited vakalat executed by him as Ex. M-1 and his

signature as Ex. M-1(a) and I Party in CR 72/2001 got

exhibited ID Card/Daily Permit issued to by Bureau of Civil

Aviation Security and Certificate issued by Airport Manager

and Area Sales Manager as Ex. W-1 and Ex. W-2 and during

his cross-examination counsel for II Party got exhibited

vakalat executed by the I Party as Ex. M-1 and his signature

as Ex. M-1(a). Inter alia, the learned advocate appearing

for the II Party while filing the affidavits of Sh. Santosh

Balakrishna Chalke, General Manager (HR) and Smt.

Sadhana, Manager (HR) examined them on oath as MW 1

and MW 2 and got exhibited Agreement dated 01.09.1995

between II Party and M/s. Sairam Agencies; letter dated

28.11.1996 from M/s. Sairam Agencies requesting to

terminate the agency: letter dated 02.12.1996 requesting

M/s. Sairam Agencies to continue the contract until

alternate arrangements; letter dated 28.02.1997 of

M/s. Sairam Agencies Informing the II Party of withdrawal

of loaders; letter dated 05.03.1996 from Engineering and

General Worker's Union intimating about formation of

Union to the II Party; Reply letter dated 08.08.1996 to the

RLC(C), Bangalore to their notice dated 02.08.1996; true

copy of the minutes of meeting held before RLC(C),

Bangalore dated 09.08.1996; copy of letter dated 09.08.1996

of the I Party Union placing their Charter of Demands before

the II Party; copy of the letter dated 09.10.1996 of

M/s. Sairam Agencies addressed to I Party Union; copy of

letter dated 06.03.1997 of I Party Union to RLC(C),

Bangalore regarding Non-payment of wages to workmen;

Bill submitted by the Sairam Agencies dated 02.01.1996;

copy of Agreement dated 09.09.1993 between II Party and

M/s. Sairam Agencies; copy of notice by M/s. Sairam

Agencies regarding permanent closure of business; letter

from Sh. S.S. Gupta, Under Secretary to Government of

India, New Delhi declining to refer the dispute in respect of

FOC No. 8(1) 2005-B3 dated 29.07.2005; copy of the

Registration Certificate issued by ALC(C), Bangalore dated

29.05.1996 for contract labour as Ex M-1 to Ex M-15

respectively in all the three references and the learned

counsel appearing for the I Party who cross-examined them

in C R 68/2001 adopted the same cross-examination by

2282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

filing Memos in CR 69/2001 and CR 72/2001. After close of

the evidence the learned advocates appearing for both

sides have filed their written arguments. The I Party counsel

in support of his arguments cited the decision reported in

2003 II LLJ Page 92—Angarpathra Colliery of Bharat Coking

Coal Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government

Industrial Tribunal No. (2), whereas, the learned advocate

appearing for the II Party cited the following decisions:

1. 2009 4 LLJ Page 31—International Airport

Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers'

Union.

2. 1995 (5) SCC Page 27—Gujarat Electricity Board,

Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hindu Mazdoor

Sabha and Others.

3. 2006 (12) SCC Page 233—Steel Authority of India

Ltd., Vs. Union of India and Others.

4. 2004 (3) SCC Page 514—Workmen of Neelgiri Co-

op., Marketing Society Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and

Others.

5. 2001 (7) SCC Page 1—Steel Authority of India Ltd.

and Others vs. National Union Water Front Workers and

Others.

6. 1958 (2) LLJ Page 259—Union of India vs.

T. R. Verma

7. 2006 (1) SCC 106—R. M. Yellatti Vs. Assistant

Executive Engineer.

8. 2003 (8) SCC 752—RVE Venkatachala Gounder vs.

Arulmigu Vishweswaraswami & VP Temple and Another.

7. In view of the facts narrated by me above the

points that arises for my consideration are

Point No. 1: Whether I Party in all the cases proved

that they were engaged directly by the II Party as Loader-

cum-Driver and that contractors were camouflage to deprive

them of their bonafide and rightful claims?

Points No. 2: What Order/Award?

8. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record by both the sides in the light

of the arguments put forward by the learned advocates my

findings on Point No.1 is in the Negative and Point No. 2 as

per final Order/Award for the following.

REASONS

9. The learned advocate appearing for the I Party

while referring to the documents at Ex. W-1 which are daily

permit in respect of the I Party's and Ex. W-2 the certificates

issued by the Airport Manager and Area Sales Manager

certifying that they have been working in their organization

as Loader urged that they were the workmen directly under

the II Party but absolutely there is no logic or reason behind

such a argument. Because the daily permit are required to

be issued to a workman for entry in the Airport premises

whether he is direct employee of a Airways or contractor's

labour and the certificate by Airport Manager and Area

Sales Manager is only to the effect that they were working

as Loaders in the Airport but not as specific Loaders under

the II Party management. Absolutely, I find no direct or

circumstantial evidence to say that II Party for name sake

introducing the contractor for the service of loading.

Absolutely there is no Iota of evidence the first parties

being directly appointed or engaged as loaders-cum-drivers

by the II Party or the II Party having supervised their work.

Under the circumstances, their claim that they were to be

treated as regular employees of the II Party establishment

and regularize their service is devoid of any merits. In the

result, I arrive at conclusion the action of the management

of M/s Jet Airways (India) Ltd. in not treating Shri S. Ravi,

Chikkamari and Shri Sarvana as their regular employees is

just and legal and as they being found labours under the

contractor engaged by the II Party the assertion of the first

parties that they have been terminated from their services

by the II Party is also bereft of any merits. In the result, I

pass the following.

ORDER

The references are rejected holding that the first party

in the respective references were never engaged directly

by the II Party as Loaders-cum-Drivers and have not

terminated their services and that their action in not treating

them as regular employees of their establishment is just

and legal and that they are not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to U.D.C., transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 6th January, 2014)

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 863.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uñ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 82 dk 2004½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@31@2004&vkbZ vkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 863.—In pursunace of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award (Ref. No. 82/2004)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2283

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/31/2004-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,

1947

Ref. No. 82 of 2004

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda Area

of M/s BCCL.

AND

Their workmen

Present : SRI RANJAN KUMAR SARAN, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the employers:— Sri Sri S.N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the Workman:— None

State:— Jharkhand

Industry:— Coal.

Dated 19.8.2013

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/31/2004-IR (CM-I) dt. 26.7.2004

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section(1)

and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Kusunda

Area of M/s. B.C.C.L in not giving employment to

Smt. Ratho Devi Widowed daughter-in-law of late

Etwari Kamin as per NCWA is justified? If not, to

what relief the applicant is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

noticed, appeared, filed their respective claim statements.

But since 2004, till today none particularly the workman or

its sponsoring union appeared or put his claim. Therefore

it is felt, that is no dispute between the parties. Hence, a No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate to the Ministry.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 864.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fganqLrku

isij dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM] dksydkrk ,aM ukxkySaM isij vkSj iYi

daiuh fyfeVsM] ukxkySaM ds izcaèra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] xqokgkVh ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 01@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 08@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42011@37@2011&vkbZ vkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 864.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (ID No. 01/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited,

Kolkata and Nagaland Paper & Pulp Company Limited,

Nagaland and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 08/02/2014.

[No. L-42011/37/2011-IR (DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

Present :

Shri L.C.Dey, M.A., LLB. Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum- Lobour Court, Guwhati,

Ref-Case No. 0l of 2012

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Workman represented by the General Secretary, NPPCl-

Nagaland

-Vrs-

The Management of Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited,

Kolkata and Nagaland Paper & Pulp Company Limited,

Nagaland

Date of Award: 27.12.13

AWARD

1. This Reference has been initiated on an Industrial

Dispute between the Management of Hindustan Paper

Corportion Limited, Kolkata and Nagaland Paper & Pulp

Company Limited, Nagaland and their workman

represented by the General Secretary, NPFCL, Nagaland

for denial of enhancement of the ceiling on accumulation

of Earned Leave for 300 days in service life with encashment

benefit of the said workman by the Management which

was referred by the Ministry of Labour, Government of

India, New Delhi vide their order No. L-42011/37/2011-

IR(DU) dated 12.10.2011. The Schedule of this Reference is

as under.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited [HPCL) and

the Nagaland Pulp & Paper Company Limited

2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(NPPCL) in denying the enhancement of the ceiling

on accumulation of Earned Leave for 300 days in

service life with encashment benefit in respect of the

workmen of M/s. NPPCL in consonance to the

Government Circular, is legal and justified? What

relief the workmen under NPPCL are entitled to?"

2. Both the workers Union, Nagaland Pulp and Paper

Company Limited ( herein after called in short NPPCL) and

the Management of Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. ( in

short HPCL, Kolkata) and the Managements of Nagaland

Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. (in short NPPCL, Nagaland)

appeared and submitted their respective claim Statement/

written statements. Subsequently the reference has been

taken up for disposal in the Lok Adalat held today.

3. The claim of the Workers Union of the NPPCL,

Nagaland, in short, relates to the accumulation of privilege

leave which is earned in a year @ 30 days. If the employee

concerned cannot or does not avails thirty days privilege

leave in a year his unavailed leave is accumulated in his

account which he can avail subsequently. According to

the Union the maximum ceiling limit of accumulated leave

should be 300 days while the Management contended that

the said ceiling limit should be 180 days. While the

employees in the grade of Supervisory and above rank are

entitled to accumulated unavailed privilege leave to the

extent of 240 days whereas the Standing Order in force

which regulate the affairs of the employees below the rank

of Supervisor permits the accumulation to the extent of

180 days. Thus there is discrimination between the two

Categories of employees for the purpose of accumulation

of unavailed privilege leave. The Union also stated that

prior to 1987 all categories of employees working in a public

sector undertaking were allowed to avail 180 days of

accumulation, and on 24.4.1987 the Bureau of Public Sector

enterprises, Ministry of Industries, Government of India

vide its memorandum No. 2(27)/85. BPE (LC) whereby all

public sector undertakings were directed to allow the

enhancement of ceiling on accumulation of earn leave to

the extent of 240 days with effect from 1.7.87 and this

enhancement will be applicable to the employees working

in the grade of Supervisor and above. In the establishment

of NPPCL, the employees working in unionized grade are

regulated by their Standing Order in force under Industrial

(Standing Order) Act, 1946 which stipulates with the

maximum limit of accumulation of privilege leave of the

employees working in the below the rank of Supervisor are

entitled to have maximum limit of accumulation of privilege

leave to the extent of 180 days and after issue of the

Memorandum by the Bureau of Public Enterprises on

24.4.1987 approved the accumulation of earn leave for 240

days which was circulated on 31.8.1987 whereby it was

informed that the said accumulation would be applied from

1.7,1986. Thus the aforesaid direction of the Bureau of

Public Enterprises was not extended to the employees of

NPPCL in the grade below the Supervisor for a considerable

time. Thereafter on 16.3.1993 the Management of NPPC

issued a circular whereby it was notified to all the employees

that due to critical financial constraint in the Company it

was decided to keep in abeyance of leave encashment

benefits and leave travel concession. In the year 2000 the

Management of NPPCL calculated the terminal benefit of

workman. Late Kilangnukshi AQ, enior Watchman on the

basis of 240 days of ceiling limit of privilege leave. But

subsequently the Sr. Assistant (P & A) deducted the excess

amount paid to Late AO and he was allowed to have leave

encashment benefit to the extent of 180 days. Thus the

Management has arbitrarily curtailed the benefit of leave

encashment in breach of service rules besides violating

Section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, l947 and also

deprived them from getting leave Travel Concession.

Suddenly the Management of NPPCL, Nagaland arbitrarily

decided to withdraw the revised rate of earned leave

accumulation, only for the workers and to follow the leave

rule strictly as provided in the certified Standing Order. On

22.11.2001 the Joint Labour Commissioner, Nagaland at

Kohima requested the Management for implementing

accumulation of earn leave of 240 days. In 2003 when the

Chief Executive Officer, NPPCL, visited the workers Union

met him and appraised the problem of the workers who in

turn advised them to hold a meeting with local management.

Accordingly the meeting was held on 24.8.2004 with the

Senior Manager (HR & ES), NPPCL and other officers of

the Management wherein the existing problem of the

workers were discussed. On 22.1.2007 the Union and the

representative to HPCL and NPPCL had discussed this

matter along with others existing issues and in that meeting

as per para-4 of minutes of meeting which deals with the

leave encashment and accumulation of earn leave up to

240 days and it was decided that the issue would be referred

to the Board of Directors of NPPCL for due consideration

for grant of leave encashment and accumulation of earned

leave upto 240 days. Meanwhile the Bureau of Public

Enterprises issued another Office Memorandum dated

10.7.1997 whereby accumulation of earn leave were allowed

to the extent of 300 days. The Union while persuade their

case for accumulation of earn leave to the extent of 240

days had pointed out that the management of HPCL

through its General Manager vide their letter dated 12.2.2007

that the ceiling limit of accumulation of earn leave had

been further extended to 300 days. On 11.9.2007 the

Management informed the Union that the NPPC Board

approved the proposal for accumulation of earn leave from

the existing ceiling of 180 days to 240 days and that no

leave encashment would be allowed during the continuance

of service and the encashment would be allowed only on

cession of employment but the said enhancement ceiling

limit of accumulation of earned leave to the extent of 240

days was not implemented to the workers. The Union

requested the Management to implement the enhancement

ceiling limit of accumulation of earn leave. Thereafter the

Union having no other alternative raised an Industrial

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2285

Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),

but the dispute could not be settled up there Therefore,

the workers Union prayed for passing award directing the

Management for enhancement of ceiling of earn leave to

the extent of 300 days and/or pass any other order or awards

as deem fit and proper.

4. Both the Managements of NPPCL, Nagaland and

HPCL, Kolkata although submitted their Written Statements

separately, the pleas of the W.S submitted by both the

managements are same and common. The HPCL is a holding

Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,

being a Body Corporate having its perpetual succession

and common seal, and the NPPCL is subsidiary of the

Hindustan Paper Company Ltd. but the said companies are

registered separately having two different legal entity. The

Management of both the HPCL and NPPCL stated that the

Bureau of Public Enterprises vide their Circular No-2/(27)/

85-BPE(L C) dated 24.8.1987 extended the accumulation of

earn leave for the executive and supervisor upto240 days

w.e.f. 01.07.1986. However, the leave rule in respect of

unionized staff/ workman is governed by staff regulation

Thereafter the Board of Directors of HPCL in a meeting

held on 28.7.87 approved the accumulation of earn leave

for 240 days. But the NPPCL has not passed any Board

resolution extending the accumulation of earn leave to 240

days and hence, the resolution of the Board of HPCL can

not be automatically made applicable to NPPC It is averred

by the Management that the production of NPIPCL was

completely stopped in October,1992 and due to non-

operation and un economic production activities and it

was referred to BIFR, meanwhile the employees of the

NPPCL were getting the salary from HPC's fund.

Subsequently the workers Union on 17.11.2000 made

a communication to the Chief Executive Officer. NPPCL

stating that the Management of NPPCL has extended leave

encashment benefit to the officer and supervisor while the

workmen were deprived. In the mean time the Ministry of

Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Department of

Public Enterprises vide their Office Memorandum dated

5.8.05 enhanced the ceiling accumulation of earn leave to

300 days lo the employees of CPSE. Again on 22.1.2007 the

workers Union and the Management of NPPCL had

discussed on the leave encashment and accumulation of

earn leave upto 240 days along with other issues and the

matter was referred to the Board of Directors of NPPCL for

due consideration of leave encashment and accumulation

of earn leave upto 240 days Accordingly the Board in its

meeting held on 30.5.2007 decided to allow the accumulation

of earn leave upto 240 days for all NPPCL but no

encashment would be allowed during the continuance of

service and this would be paid at the time of cession of the

employment but this resolution could not be implemented

as it was not incorporated in the Standing Order since the

workmen are governed by the Certified Standing Order.

Meanwhile the BIFR sanctioned the Rehabilitation Scheme

vide its order dated 27.6 2007 which envisages 1997 pay

structure for the employees of NPPCL and the did pay

structure was implemented with effect from 27.6.2007 after

getting approval from the competent authority and after

signing the memorandum of settlement with the workers

Union of NPPCL in presence of the Joint Labour

Commissioner—State Conciliation Officer, Nagaland. On

the implementation of 1997 pay structure the matter of

enhancement of ceiling on accumulation of earn leave for

300 days in service life with encashment benefit was taken

up with the Board of Directors of NPPCL. In its meeting

held on 30.3.09 the Board of Directors decided that no

facility need to be considered which is not part of the

Memorandum of Understanding, no new facility is to be

considered till separation of 100 employees under VRS and

the commencement of the project activities. As the project

activities are yet to start as Revised Detailed Report in

NPPC is under consideration of Government of India, till

such time no new facility can be considered.

5. During the pendency of adjudication, this reference

has been taken up before The Lok Adalat held today for

disposal by amicable settlement. Upon sincere and devoted

participation of the learned conciliators and the positive

approach of the representatives from both the management

of NPPCL and HPC, Kolkata as well as Office bearers of the

workers Union, the dispute has been settled up amicably

as per the terms and conditions arrived at in the conciliation

proceeding as mentioned in the Memorandum of Settlement

duly signed and authenticated by both the parties, their

learned Counsels and the learned conciliators, in course of

Settlement both the management of NPPCL and HPCL and

the workers Union NPPCL, Mukakchung, Nagaland agreed

that the accumulation of earn leave of the workers of the

NPPCL will be 240 days during the service life.

6. In view of the above discussion this reference is

disposed of an compromise. The Memorandum of

Settlement prepared for the purpose will form a part of this

record as well as the award.

7. Send the Award along with a copy of the

Memorandum of Settlement to the Ministry according to

the law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

27th day of December, 2013, at Guwahati.

L.C.Dey, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT IN RELATION TO THE

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KENDRIYA SHRAM

SADAN, BIRUBARI, GUWAHATI

Date: 27.12.2013.

Ref Case/ Case No. : 01/12

The management of HPC Ltd.

Kolkata & Nagaland

-Vs-

2286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Their Workman represented

by Gen. Secy. NPPCL.

May it please your honour,

We the parties above named have arrived at a

compromise/ conciliation/ settlement in the above Referred

Reference Case/Misc Case/dispute as per terms and

conditions mentioned below. No coercion or force/

temptation/influence has been made to any of the parties

to an ive at the compromise/concilation.

We therefore request to record the compromise/

conciliation/settlement made before the Lok Adalat and

pass order/award accordingly today itself.

Terms of compromise/conciliation.

Both the Management and union agreed that accumulation

of earned leave will be 240 days.

President

Workers' Union :

N.P.P.C. Ltd.

P.O: Paper Nagar,

Distt.: Mokokchung

-Sd.- illegible

(Nagaland) Pin : 798623

Signature of Management/

Signature of Union /

Opposite Party/ Respondent.

Workman / Petitioner/

Applicant.

-Sd.- illegible

Signature of Advocate

for the Management/

for the Union/

Opposite Party /Respondent.

Workman/Petitioner/

Applicant

-Sd.- illegible

Signature of conciliators.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 865.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,vj bf.M;k

fyfeVsM ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky; uñ 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 44

dk 2008½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@2@2014

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&11012@16@2008&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 865.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2008)

of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court

No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. Air India Limited,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 17/02/2014.

[No. L-11012/16/2008-IR (CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL-GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL-TRIBUNAL

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II

Present:— Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 44/2008

Sh. Suresh Kumar

Versus

Air India Limited

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-11012/16/2008-(IR(CM-I)) dated

19/08/2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for the adjudication:—

"(1) Whether the action of the Management Air India

Limited (now NAC1L), New Delhi in dismissing Shri Suresh

Kumar, Loader from the service w.e.f. 05.06.1998 is justified

and legal? (ii) To what relief the workman concerned is

entitled?"

On 3.10.08 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as ID No. 44/2008 and claimant was

called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days from

date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

After service of notice workman/claimant filed claim

statement on 12.9.08. Wherein he stated as follows:—

1. BRIEF FACTS: That the brief facts leading to the

filing of the present claim petition are as under:—

(a) That the Indian Legislature enacted Industrial

Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called

‘S.O. Act, 1946' in short) i.e. a law on Terms & Conditions

of Employment of the employees working in certain

industrial establishments regulate industrial relations in

defined industries as between workmen and employers.

As per law therein 'Classification of Workmen' is made a

statutory term in the industries as defined therein. The law

also stipulated the Terms of Employment as Statutory one

and the 'conditions of employment' both as statutorily or

statutory imposed one. The Respondent, being engaged

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2287

in aviation industry is an industrial establishment for the

purposes of the S.O. Act, 1946 to regulate and govern the

service conditions of its employees.

(b) That since the inception of its business under

the Air Corporation Act, 1953, the Respondent is employing

persons in the cadre of “Casual employees" and by virtue

of S.O. Act, 1946 and as such cadre of ‘Casual employees'

is a substantive and defined cadre in the respondent

establishment.

industrial activity is a Non-technical unskilled service/work

in the Respondent establishment.

(d) That on 10.4.1981, the Respondent management

adopted a policy whereby the casual workers in any service

carried on there in their establishment were given artificial

breaks in service, wage cuts on days of absence, no leave

etc.

(e) That such move in fact was deliberately exercised

by the management to deprive the casual workers of the

statutory benefit of “Continuous service” as defined u/s

25(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short I.D.

Act, 1947) with malafide motives to terminate their services

at their whim and fancies.

(f) That the Claimant was employed in the year 1984

by the Respondent in the services as ‘Loader’ in the

classified substantive cadre of 'Casual employees' in the

respondent establishment.

(g) That the general demand of casual employees for

regulation of service conditions in the cadre of 'Casuals'

against unfair trade practice like artificial break in service,

wage cuts, leave etc. gained momentum in the year 1987

which led the representative body Air India Workers Union

to demand enforcement of fundamental rights by way of

filing Writ Petition No... 604 of 1987 before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India.

(h) That on 27.8.1987 the Hon'ble Supreme Court

directed the Central Government to refer the matter under

demand for investigation & adjudication by the Central

Government Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal (in short

CGIT) New Delhi.

(i) That on 23.9.1987, the Central Government referred

the demands under dispute for adjudication to the CGIT,

New Delhi , and the demands under dispute was registered

as I.D. No. 99/87.

(j) That the name of the Claimant appeared under

Sl. No. 56 of the Annexure 1 annexed therewith containing

details of service of Air India workers to the proceedings

before the CGIT New Delhi in ID. No. 99/87.

(k) That on 10.5.1990, the Respondent management

brought the draft of proposal scheme of regularization of

casual employee before the Tribunal and placed it on record

of the file for the consideration and approval by the CGIT

to be incorporated in the award as scheme framed by

management for regularization in phased manner.

(l) That the matter under proposed draft scheme of

regularization was considered and adjudicated by the CGIT

in I.D. No. 99/87 and the Tribunal passed an award dated

4.3.1991 accordingly, whereby and whereundcr the Claimant

got an Existing Right under the law to claim the benefits

arising under the said award dated 4.3.1991.

(m) That whereas the Industrial Tribunal (CGIT)

observed no existing vacancies to recruit all the casual

workmen at that stage and thus directed the Respondent

management to implement the scheme and regularize the

workmen in the proposed phased manner in order of

seniority and interview. The Tribunal further directed the

management that as and when any vacancy arise the eligible

workmen out of the annexed list with the order/award shall

be taken in the employment at that time subject to his

medical fitness, and pay them the difference to wages and

as per regular counterparts.

(n) That the award dated 4.3.1991 passed by the CG1T

was published in the Gazette of India on 11.5.1991.

(o) That being aggrieved by the possible termination

of services at the hands of respondent as fall out of the

award not restraining the respondent against non-

acceptance of other demands while some casual workers

filed Special Leave Petition No. 14.42 of 1991, the Air India

Workers Union challenged the clauses 3, 4 & 5 of the

regularization scheme of the management as proposed in

the proceedings and findings of the award passed by the

CGIT dated 4.3.1991 by filing writ petition No. 3464/91 before

the High Court of Delhi and subsequently against the order

dated 12.11.1992 passed by the High Court of Delhi and

subsequently against the order dated 12.11.1992 passed

by the High Court of Delhi by Challenging the order dated

12.11.1992 in SLP No. 3609/92 titled Air India Workers Union

V/s Presiding Officer, CGIT.

(p) That the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order

dated 30.3.1992 finding no merit in the objections regarding

clauses 3, 4 & 5 of the regulations scheme and disposed

the matter under SLP No. 3609/92.

(q) That in the year 1994, the Union Legislature

passed the Air Corporations (Transfer of Undertakings and

2288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Repeal) Act, 1994 whereby the undertaking of Air India

was vested in the company formed and registered under

the Companies Act, 1956 and came to be known as Air

India Ltd.

(r) That during the year 1997, while the Claimant was

still working and waiting for regularization of his services

in the cadre of Casual employees in terms of the award

dated 4.3.1991 passed by the CGIT, the management of the

Respondent with a malafide intention and illegally to the

provisions of Sec. 9 of the I.D. Act, 1947 changed the

service conditions of the claimant and put the claimant

from the substantive cadre of ‘Casual employees'.

(s) That novel way was devised by the Respondent

with malafide intention and ulterior motives to cause

termination of Claimant's employment on baseless and

unjustified grounds contrary to the law and in utter

disregard of the terms of the Award dated 1.3.1991 passed

by the CGIT formed as binding settlement.

(t) That it is pertinent to mention that during the time

the claimant has been working with the Respondent, the

Respondent had granted regularisation to various

employees in the list as annexed with the award dated

4.3.1991 in terms of the award without putting them on

probation in the service.

(u) That the Claimant apprehending illegal designs

at the hands of the Respondent management raised oral

objections before the management against the act of putting

him on probation in the non-technical unskilled job/

services as “Loader”, instead of regularizing him in term of

award date 4.3.91 in the cadre of 'casuals' with regularised

service conditions and benefits.

(v) That on 28.11.1997, the Respondent, being an

industrial establishment as defined under the S.O. Act, 1947

framed Standing Orders as certified under the Act of 1946

by the appropriate government, which governed the service

condition of the employees employed in the respondent

establishement.

(w) That on 5.6.1998, the Respondent management

ultimately gave effect to their long cherished illegal design

and caused termination of the Claimant's employment/

services w.e.f. 05.6.1998.

(x) That when the Claimant raised objections against

such termination of his services, the management at the

time of handing over the termination letter dated 05.6.1998

to the Claimant, the management orally informed the

Claimant that since his employment in the probation was

irregular hence terminated, however, the Claimant should

wait and keep in contact every six month for his turn for

regularization in service as per seniority and interview

whenever he would be called for such employment in

accordance with the terms of the Award dated 4.3.1991 as

passed by the CGIT.

(y) That on 17.9.2001 the Claimant received a letter

dated 17.9.2001 by speed post from the management

whereby the claimant was asked to deposit some money to

the management allegedly being excessive paid to the

Claimant , to which the Claimant immediately explained to

the management about the clear status of the account

subsequent to the award dated 4.3.1991.

(z) That during the year from 1998 till 2006, since the

Claimant was asked to keep on contacting the management

every six months, and every time the claimant met the

management persons, the management in the year

December, 2006 informed the Claimant that the Claimant's

turn is round the corner and any time in the next quarter he

may be called for interview for medical check up for the

grant of regular service as ‘Loader’ in terms of the award

dated 4.3.1991.

(aa) That since the Claimant did not receive any

intimation from the management, the Claimant enquired

about his turn for regularisation in term of the award and

met on 24.5.2007 the persons in the Personnel department

and other officials of the management whereto the Claimant

was reprimanded by the persons in the management for

disturbing them and warned not to contract them in future

again as his services have already been terminated so far

back in 1998 on the grounds as mentioned therein through

the letter of termination dated 5.6.1998, and as he has no

right in law to seek any regularization in terms of the award

dated 4.3.1991.

(bb) That without prejudice to the fact that the

Respondent illegally changed the service conditions of

the Claimant with malafide motive contrary to Sec. 9 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , the order of appointment on

probation as well the order of termination dated 5.6.1998

without holding due enquiry into the alleged shortcoming

are absolutely Void Ab Initio.

(cc) That the Claimant had filed writ petition

No. 4850/07 against such illegal termination of his services

by the management wherein Hon'ble High Court as per the

prayer of the Claimant's counsel permitted the claimant to

raise an 'Industrial Dispute' into the matter of termination

of his services vide High Court of Delhi order dated 9.7.07

passed by Hon'ble Justice Kailash Gambir, As such the

claimant has filed the present claim statement against his

illegal & wrongful termination and claim the termination of

his service as amounting to “Retrenchment”.

(dd) That since the management/respondent has not

fulfilled the obligations under the Industrial Disputes

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2289

Act, 1947 as contemplated under Sec. 25-F of the l.D. Act,

1947, such retrenchment of the claimant amounts to illegal

retrenchment of his service and thus the claimant is entitled

to the grant of right of reinstatement in the services of the

respondent management with retrospective effect from the

dale of illegal termination of his services.

(ee) That the delay in raising the present dispute is

not attributable to the claimant in as much as the claimant

was kept waiting only by the respondent management

under assurance to act positive in terms of the award dated

4.3.1991 for the grant of regularization as and when

claimant's turn comes in the List annexed with the award

dated 4.3.1991 for the grant of right of regularization in

service.

(ff) That since, the Claimant was illegally deprived of

his employment in the 'Substantive Cadre of Casual

Employees' in utter disregard of the his legal rights under

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the Claimant

has been discriminated against other employees who have

already been regularised in terms of the Award dated

4.3.1991 passed by the CGIT without any such formality as

putting them on probation for judging their skill in a non

technical unskilled work/service in the cadre of "casuals"

working as “Loader” in the respondent establishment , the

present claim petition has been filed by the Claimant against

the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 on the following

amongst other:

GROUNDS

(a) Because the conditions of services of the Claimant

has been arbitrarily and illegally changed by the respondent

management in contravention to Sec. 9 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 and with a malafide intention and ulterior

motives to cause termination of the Claimant's substantive

employment in the substantive cadre of “Causal

employees.”

(b) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998

is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the

law in as much as the allegations of misconduct and

shortcomings mentioned in the order of termination have

never been intimated to the Claimant during the course of

his employment; and further no enquiry has been instituted

by the management into the alleged misconduct /

shortcomings.

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as the Rule No. 17 of the Standing Orders framed

by the Respondent to govern the employment of the

Probationer clearly stipulate for clear 7 days notice by

giving 24 hours notices in writing informing the Claimant

for such move as per the Standing Orders framed by the

Management and certified under the I.E. (S.O.) Act, 1946.

(d) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998

is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the

law in as much as the Respondent Management has not

given any notice to the Claimant as required under the

Rules /Standing Order No. 17 and as such the Claimant has

not been given due and reasonable opportunity of hearing

to defend the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 . As such

the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is absolutely void

ab initio.

(e) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as the Respondent had grounded the order of

termination on false and fictitious grounds which could

not have been imagined /expected from any person who

has already been in the service as loader /casual

employment since the year 1984 i.e almost past 13 in service

of the establishment of the respondent and if there had

been any such shortcomings in the performance, that could

have been brought to the notice of the Claimant any time

during the course of his long years in service. But since

the respondent was in look out to terminate the service of

the Claimant, it devised the well thought out plan to first

put the claimant on probation and then terminate his service

alleging any irrelevant or false reasons.

(f) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as no rule or standing order framed by the

respondent provide to put any person working in non-

technical unskilled job on probation to judge the skill in

the unskilled category of work.

(g) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998

is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the

law in as much as the respondent illegally contrary to the

provisions of Sec. 9 of the ID. Act , 1947 changed the

service conditions of the Claimant by way of substituting

his employment on probation from the substantive cadre

of “Casual” employment as substantively classified

statuterily under the classification clause of the certified

standing orders of the respondent establishment. As such

the order of termination is absolutely illegal and arbitrary

caused with a malalide motive.

(h) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998

is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the

law in as much as the management of the respondent with

a rnalafide design in their mind wrongly persuaded the

Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) in proposing a scheme under

the garb of regularization of services of the casuals,

whereas in fact a true interpretation of the word

“Regularization” was to be interpreted in terms of the

demands raised by the workmen against act of victimization

in service at the hands of the management in giving artificial

2290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

breaks in service, payment of due wages and other service

benefits as available to each employee employed in the

respective cadre classified as per the classification clause

of the Certified standing orders of the establishment of the

respondent.

(i) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as the Claimant including other casuals

employees never meant that their substantive cadre should

be changed and they be fixed in the class of permanent

workman as per classification i.e. a class definitely separate

from the cadre of casuals. As such the management played

fraud upon the adjudicating authority by way of misleading

the Statutory authority under the I.D. Act, 1947 to wrongly

interpret the term “Regularisation” in service and rendering

findings to the effect that since there is no existing vacancy

in the establishment, the Claimant shall be regularised in

the phased manner only and not at once.

(j) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as the Claimant being an illiterate person was

given to unjustifiably feel complacent that since the

management has put him on probation, it would be deemed

an step ahead toward implementation of his demands under

the award dated 4.3.1991 , but for his acts of shortcomings

he was terminated from his service under a well devised

plan and strategy. As such the order of termination being

based on fraud and misrepresentation is absolutely illegal

to the provisions of the Contract Act, 1872 and thus illegal

and liable to be declared void ab initio.

(k) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in as much as the management of the respondent has with

definite reasons precluded the Claimant under false and

hollow assurances and promises under the garb of

exhausting the list of employees in regularizing their service

from the list annexed with the award dated 4.3.1991 in phased

manner, whereas the respondent has also been recruiting

the casual employee from outside and outsourcing the work

of 'loading' with the aid of Contractors by way of employing

contract labour on the job of 'loader'. And as such the

Claimant has been kept in dark for long with malafide motives

and unjustifiably precluded by the management from raising

objections by way initiating the legal action against the

management which move could have deteriorated the

relations of the Claimant with the respondent officials and

the Claimant would have earned grudge of the officials

responsible in the task of granting the benefit of

regularization of service of casuals who had prosecuted

their demands before the CGIT.

(l) Because the order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is

absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of the law

in much as the Claimant had an Existing Right to be

continued in the employment of the respondent

establishment in the cadre of casual for the service of

“Loader” And since the respondent has snatched Claimant

substantive and existing right on false and baseless

grounds, the Claimant is entitled for the grant of declaration

against the wrongful termination of his services through

impugned letter to termination dated 5.6.1998.

(m) Because the Claimant has been kept waiting by

the respondent management for his turn to come and the

claimant as such had been kept in dark as not disclosing

the correct position of the persons regularised in the list to

the claimant with a malafide intention to let pass easily the

time available to the claimant to challenge any illegal action

of the management under the alleged pretext to wait for his

turn to come, and thus under the said assurances the

claimant could not raise the dispute earlier, otherwise such

action on the part of claimant would have been pleaded by

the respondent management as premature & untimely.

PRAYER

It is therefore respectfully prayed that in view of the

submission of facts and law mentioned hereinabove in this

claim petition , this Hon'ble authority may he pleased to:—

(a) Set aside the order of termination dated 05.6.1998

as being illegal, unjustified, wrongful & malafide dismissal

from services;

(b) Pass an award granting the claimant relief of

reinstatement in respondent's services with full back wage

and accrued benefits; and

against the respondent and in favour of the Claimant.

MANAGEMENT FILED WRITTEN STATEMENT

AGAINST CLAIM STATEMENT WHEREIN

UNDERHEAD PARAWISE REPLY TO THE

GROUNDS.

Management stated as under:—

(A) Contents of para (a) of the grounds are wrong

hence denied. It is specifically denied that there is any

change in the service conditions of the claimant and the

Management with malafide contentions terminated the

services of the claimant. It is submitted that the claimant

was considered for regularization and as per relevant Rules

of the Management , he was placed on probation along

with similarly placed casual workers. However, the

performance of the claimant was not found to be satisfactory

during the probation period. The Management being a

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2291

benevolent employer gave sufficient opportunities to the

claimant to improve his conduct and reference for which

his probation period was extended. However, the conduct

and performance of the claimant did not improve.

Accordingly, the services of the claimant were terminated

on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during

probation period.

(B) In reply to the contents of para (b) of the ground,

it is submitted that the termination of the services of the

claimant is not illegal as the said termination was on the

ground of unsatisfactory performance during the probation

period.

Further, it is denied that the claimant was informed

by the Management about his poor performance. It is

submitted that the claimant was informed vide letters dated

20.11.1997, 12.12.1997 and 12.3.1998 to improve his conduct

and attendance and the same have been duly received by

him also. It is further submitted that the Claimant himself

vide letters dated 28.01.1998 and 17.04.1998 assured the

Management that he would not remain absent without

permission or consume alcohol on duty and demand bride

from any person. It is further submitted that there was no

need of conducting enquiry as his services were terminated

on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, during the

probation period and the action was in terms of the Standing

Orders applicable to the Workman.

was illegal and unsustainable in the eye of the law. The

services of the claimant was terminated in terms of Standing

Order 5(i) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the

workman, which read as under:—

"5(i) Every workman appointed or promoted to a

permanent post shall be required to undergo probation for

six months or twelve months, as prescribed under Standing

Orders 3(b)...

The Competent Authority may terminate the services

of a workman either during at the expiry of the probationary

period ‘for the reasons to be recorded in writing’......”

(D) As stated hereinabove, the termination was under

Section 5(i) of the Certified Standing Orders. It is submitted

that the termination order is not void and much less void

abinitio as the said order was passed in accordance with

the terms of appointment letter, which the Claimant had

accepted without any objection. It is further submitted that

the allegation of the claimant that he was not given due

and reasonable opportunity is wrong because he was given

sufficient opportunities to improve his conduct and

performance after being informed about his unsatisfactory

performance vide various letters.

(E) Contents of para (e) of the ground are false,

misconceived illconceived hence denied. Contents of

aforementioned paras of preliminary objections and

parawise reply may be read as part of the para under reply.

The workman had worked for 549 days since 1985 to 1992

as casual worker on daily wage basis, before being

regularized in the year 1997.

(F) Contents of para (f) of the grounds are wrong

hence denied. It is submitted that as per Rules of the

Company every person has to be put on probation before

making his services confirmed. Therefore, the claimant was

put on probation along with all suitably placed incumbents

and there is nothing illegal about it.

(G) Contents of para (g) of the grounds are false,

misconceived hence denied. Contents of Objections and

parawise reply may be read as part of the para under reply.

(H) & (I). In reply to the contents of para (h) (i) of the

grounds it is submitted that the allegation of the workman

that the management wrongly persuaded the Ld, CG1T to

lay down the Scheme for regularization in its Award dated

4.3.1991 is absurd and contemptuous. Notwithstanding the

above, it is once again reiterated that the Award of the

CGIT dated 4.3.1991 had no bearing on the regularization/

termination of the Claimant. Ret of the contents are denied,

as being baseless and frivolous.

J to M Contents of Paras (j), (h), (l) and (m) of the

ground are false, concocted, misconceived , ill-conceived

hence denied. It is denied that the termination of the

services of the claimant is illegal to the provisions of

Contract Act, 1872 and void abinitio. Contents of

aforementioned paras of preliminary objections and

parawise reply may be read as part and parcel of the para

under reply.

Prayer clause is denied in its entirety.

It is respectfully prayed that the statement of claim

should be dismissed in limini as the claim is frivolous and

false and the matter may be decided in favour of the

Management.

Against aforesaid Written Statement Workman filed

Replication on 15.7.2009.

Wherein he denied the allegation of Written

Statement and reaffirmed the contents of statement of claim.

My Ld. Predecessors has not framed any issue on

12/8/2009 and proceeded with the case on the basis of

Questions of determination mentioned in the Schedule of

the reference.

2292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Workman on 12/8/2009 filed affidavit in his

evidence alongwith documents. Copy supplied to Ld.

A/R for the management. Wherein he stated as follows:—

1. That the deponent is the claimant workman in the

above noted case and as such fully conversant with the

facts and circumstances of the case, thus competent to

depose this affidavit.

2. That on 10.4.1981 the management of the

respondent adopted a policy whereby the casual workers

in any service carried on their establishment were given

artificial breaks in service, wage cut on day of absence

from duty and no leave facility etc. The true copy of the

said circular dated 10.4.1981 is on record with the list of

documents and the same is marked Exhibit CW-1/1.

3. That the deponent was employed in the year 1984

by the respondent in the services as "Loader" in the

classified cadre of "Casual employees" as per certified

Standing Orders of the respondent and as such the claimant

was working in the respondent establishment as "Casual

Loader".

4. That the work relating to the "loader" is a unskilled

work for which no skill is required but the management of

the respondent with a malafide intention an ulterior motives

changed the service conditions on 28.5.1997 and put the

claimant on probation w.e.f. 16.6.1997 which was

subsequently got extended malafidely from time to time

despite the work and conduct of the claimant was always

satisfactory.

5. That during the entire period of service of the

claimant the claimant has never been issued any

chargesheet for any misconduct nor the claimant has ever

misconducted.

6. That on 5.6.1998 the respondent illegally and

unjustifiably terminated the services of the claimant on

false, baseless charges for which no chargesheet has ever

been issued and nor any enquiry was held by the

respondent. As such since no opportunity of hearing was

given to the claimant before terminating the services, the

order of termination dated 5.6.1998 is absolutely illegal and

void ab initio. The list of documents and the same is marked

Exhibit CW-l/2.

7. That the Deponent filed his claim statement dated

12.9.2008 in pursuance of the order of reference dated

19.8.2008 wherein the facts and cirumstances leading to

tiling of the claim petition before this Hon'ble court have

been stated in detail and for the sake of brevity the same

are not repeated herein, hence the deponent reiterate the

facts as stated in the claim statement dated 12.9.2008 and

the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit.

8. That I have understood the contents thereof and

the same are true and correct and the same have been read

over to me in my vernacular language.

Workman tendered his affidavit on 19/8/2010.

He was cross-examined on the same day.

His cross examination is as follows:—

It is correct that I was appointed on 16.6.1997 and

was put on probation for Six months. My probation was

extended twice. My probation was last extended on

16.3.1998 and ihis extension was for a period for three

months and the same was to expire on 16.6.1998. It is wrong

to suggest that my services were found unsatisfactory by

the management and so they terminated my services during

the period of probation. I have seen the documents which

are WW1/M1 and WW1/M2 and I admit these documents

and these documents bear my signatures at point A & C

respectively. Another document dated 12.12.1997 has been

shown to me by the A/R of the management and after seeing

my alleged signatures on it, I say that it does not bear my

signatures at point B. The document is marked as Mark A.

I admit letter dated 17.4.1998 and the same bears my

signatures at point F and is Exhibit WW1/M3. 1 also admit

my appointment letter which is Exhibit WW1/M4 (Colly.)

and it bear my signatures at point D and E . It is wrong to

suggest that I have no case against the management. Ever

since the termination of my services on 05.6.1998, I do the

job of a washerman and sometimes sells vegetables also

and on an average 1 earn about Rs. 2000/- per month since

the said date for sustaining myself and my family which

consists of myself, my wife and two children. My children

are studying in eight and tenth class in Central School

with practically no fees.

Management in support of its case filed affidavit of

management witness Sh. G.S. Khalsa, Wherein he stated as

follows:—

1. I say that I am working as Dy. Manager Personnel

with the above named Management and as such being

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present

case, am competent to swear this Affidavit.

2. I say that the Claimant was engaged on daily basis

as a casual worker and worked with the Management

intermittently for a period of 549 days during 1985 to 1992

as per the exigencies of work.

3. I say that the casual workers working with the

Management approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for

regularization of their service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court

vide Order dated 28.5.1987 in CPW Nos. 604/1987 & 581/

1987 directed the Government to refer the matter for

adjudication under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2293

Act, 1947. Accordingly, during the adjudication of the matter

a Scheme was prepared and submitted by the Management

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-

Labour Court. The Ld. Presiding Officer approved & upheld

the Scheme in I.D. No. 99/87 vide Award dated 04.03.1991

and directed that the regularization has to in accordance

with the Scheme. Copy of the Award dated 04.3.1991 wherein

the Scheme has been approved is annexed hereto and

exhibited as Ex. MWl/l.

4. I say that the casual workers challenged the criteria

of the Scheme in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court vide Order dated 30.3.1992 upheld the

Scheme of the Management . Copy of the Order dated

30.3.1992 is annexed hereto & exhibited as Ex. WWl/2. It

was held that the regularization of the casual workers had

to be done in accordance with the said Scheme.

5. I say that the Claimant was not found eligible as he

did not fulfil the criteria of completion of 240 days as on

31.12.1987 laid down in the Scheme and thus was not

considered for regularization. The issue of regularization

in terms of CGTT Award dated 04.03.1991 was closed in the

year 1992.

6. I say that apart from the aforesaid Scheme, another

exercise for regularization of casual workers who were

working on daily wages from time was carried out by the

Management in the year 1995. I further say that the name

of the Claimant was recommended for selection by the

Selection Panel vide its Report dated 30.01.1996. I further

say that his name was listed at Sr. No. 53 in the Panel

recommending 56 names in total. The eligibility of the casual

workers was considered under the following two groups:

(1) Casual labourers engaged prior to 01.07.1989 who

had completed 240 days as on 31.12.1993 and had also

worked with this Company in 1992.

(II) Casual labourers who were not interviewed/

recommended by the Selection Panel which interviewed

casual labourers in the year 1991-92, as their candidature

was to be considered subject to the outcome of the

disciplinary proceeding initiated against them for

misconduct, such a theft, forgery, moral turpitude, assault,

etc.

Copy of Selection Panel Report dated 30.01.1996 is

annexed hereto and exhibited as Ex. MWl/3.

7. I say that the Claimant was found eligible for

regularization and was offered the post of Loader on

probation vide letter No. DAP/R-27 dated 28.05.1997. One

acceptance of the said terms & conditions of the offer

Letter, the Claimant was appointed as Loader in the Airport

Services Department w.e.f. 16.06.1997. Copy of the offer

Letter Ref No. DAP/R-27 dated 28.05.1997 is annexed hereto

and exhibit as Ex. MWl/4 and copy of the Appointment

Letter dated 27.6.1997 is annexed hereto and exhibited as

Ex. MW 1/5. I further say that the Scheme dated 04.03.1991

has no bearing on the regularization of the services of the

Claimant.

8. I say that the Claimant was put on probation for a

period of 6 months, along with all other casual workers

who were found eligible, as per the Recruitment Procedure

& Rules of the Management. It is pertinent to point out

that all incumbents whose services were regularized under

the Scheme dated 04.03.1991 were also put on probation

and there is no illegality in the action of the Management

by putting the Claimant on probation.

9. I say that the performance of the claimant during

the probationary period was not satisfactory and his

probation was extended twice w.e.f 16.12.1997 and

16.03.1998 vide letters dated 12.12.1997 and 12.03.1998,

Copies of the letters dated 12.12.1997 and 12.03.1998

alongwith the acknowledgement receipts are annexed

hereto and exhibited as Ex. MW 1/6 (Colly.).

10. I say that the Claimant was counseled and warned

by the Management on various occasions for his

unauthorized absence and poor performance. The Claimant

had also submitted his apologies for the same. The

incidents are mentioned herein exemplary;

(i) The Claimant was advised to 'improve his

attendance' vide letter No. ASD/DEL/09-07/2221 dated

20.11.1997. Copy of the said letter alongwith

acknowledgement receipt are annexed hereto and exhibited

as Ex. MWl/7 (Colly.).

(ii) The Claimant was found to be under influence of

alcohol, while on duty. On many occasions he was warned

verbally by his Duty Officers. In this regard, vide letter

dated 28.01.1998 the Claimant had assured that, in future

he would not remain absent without permission and also

would not take alcohol, while on duty. He had also

submitted in writing that in case any such instance recurred

in future, management shall be empowered to dismiss him

from the services. Copy of the said letter is annexed hereto

and exhibited as Ex. MWl/8.

(iii) On 17.4.1998, the Claimant, while on duty, was

caught while demanding dollars from some Haj

Passengers. He was also found to be in drunken condition.

Haj Committee members had taken the incident very

seriously. He accepted his fault and assured vide his letter

dated 17.4.1998 that he would not repeat such act again.

Since the Claimant was under the influence of Alcohol, he

was medically examined by the Medical Officer of the

2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Company. The result of the test was positive and he was

found to be under the influence of alcohol. Copies of the

report of the Breathalyzer Test and the apology letter are

annexed hereto and exhibited as Ex. MWl/9 and Ex. MWl/

10 respectively.

11. I say that despite of several opportunities,

warnings and counseling by the management, the

Claimant did not show any improvement in his

performance. Accordingly, the Management vide its letter

No. GSD/DEL/05.04/476 dated 05.06.1998 terminated the

services of the Claimant with immediate effect, in term of

clause 5(i) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to

the claimant.

I further say that the action of the Management in

terminating the services of the Claimant on the ground of

unsatisfactory performance during the probation is not

illegal. Copy of the Extract of Clause 5(i) of the Certified

Standing Orders and termination letter dated 05.06.1998

are annexed hereto and Exhibited as Ex. MW-1/11 and Ex.

MW 1/12 (Colly.) respectively.

12. I say that the claimant had filed a Writ Petition

before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi W.P. (C) No. 4850/

07 challenging the order of termination of his services. The

Hon'ble Court vide its Order dated 09.07.2007 disposed of

the Writ Petition as the same found to be suffering from

delay and laches. However, the Hon'ble Court granted liberty

to the Claimant to approach the Labour Court, if the remedy

was available under the ID Act. It is pertinent to state herein

that in the aforesaid Writ Petition neither notice was issued

to the Management nor the Management had any

knowledge about it.

13. I say that to the best of the knowledge of the

Management, the Claimant is gainfully employed.

14. I say that the exhibits exhibited with the present

Evidence by way of Affidavit are true copies of their

respective originals.

This case was fixed for Evidence of management on

16/05/13 in the CGIT No. 1 claimant was absent there so Ld.

P.O. of CGIT proceeded u/rule 22 of Industrial Dispute

(Central) Rules, 1957. Management witness Sh. G..K. Khalsa

was present for his testimony. He tendered his affidavit

dated 9.11.2010 as evidence. Which was taken on record.

Sh. Ravi Gopal A/R for the management closed the evidence

of management. Thereafter Ld. PO of CGIT No.l heard

arguments of Management. Matter was reserved for an

Award.

On 28.6.2013 I took over as P.O. CGIT -Cum-Labour

Court-II so Ld. P.O. CGIT No.l released this case for

adjudication by me. Fixing 1.07.2013.

On 1.07.2013 case was taken up by me. Due to absence

of parties and their Ld. A/Rs I issued notices to Ld. A/Rs

for the parties.

But none appeared on 1.07.2013, 4.9.2013, 28.10.2013,

and 10.12.2013. On 10.12.13 case was taken up by me. I

reserved it for Award fixing 2.01.2014 providing opportunity

to Ld. A/Rs for argument upto 2.1.2014 before passing

Award.

As none for workman appeared to argue the case.

Hence, I have heard the argument of Ld A/R for management

only and perused the pleadings of parties mentioned in

Claim Statement , Written Statement and Rejoinder as well

as Evidence of parties which is on record.

Perusal of evidence of Claimant shows that claimant

has admitted this fact in evidence that he was provided

with opportunities to improve during his probation period.

Pleadings and evidence of management is that due

to non-completion of period of probation successfully

Claimant/Workman was had to be terminated.

It is crystal clear that MW1 Sh. G.K. Khalsa was not

at all cross-examined on behalf of Claimant/Workman. Hence

evidence adduced on behalf of management is unrebutted.

As evidence of management is unrebutted and

solitary evidence of workman is full of admissions of case

of management. Hence this Tribunal has no option except

to dismiss the Statement of Claim and decide reference in

favour of Management and against Workman.

Reference is accordingly decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated:—02/l/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 866.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 157 dk 99½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@132@1999&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 866.—In pursunace of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby published the Award Ref. 157/99) of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2295

the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

17/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/132/1999-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) of I.D. Act,

1947

Ref. No. 157 of 1999.

Employers in relation to the management of Bararee

Colliery M/S. BCCL

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers: None

For the Workman: Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated. 18/6/2013

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/132/1999-IR(C-I), dated

16.07.1999, the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Schedule

^^D;k ohñlhñlhñ,yñ] ojkjh dksfy;jh ds izca/kra= }kjk

Jh dsnkj flag ikloku dks fnukad 6-2-95 ls ,lñMhñ,yñ vkijsVj

dk osru u fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks deZdkj fdl jkgr

ds ik= gS rFkk fdl frfFk ls\**

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

& Employment on 03.08.99. After notice both parties

appeared, the Union/workman files their written statement

on 14.09.1999 and after that the management files written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 29.02.2000.

3. The workman has filed affidavite evidence but has

not been cross-examined by the management. The claim of

the workman is he has been appoint as SDL Operator since

6.2.95 and prays that he be regularised in the said post

which has been resisted by the management. It is not the

case of the management that the workman was not working

as such.

4. On behalf of the workman, the photocopy of his

appointment letter has been filed, alongwith his job

acceptance acknowledgement. It is felt that letter of

appointment to copy down below:—

Bararee Colliery

Form of Appointment of Competent Persons

Coal Mines Regulations, 1957.

Clause 36

Book No.

No. 72

You Kedar Paswan (M.C.L.) having been appointed

at this Mine are hereby authorised as SDL Operator at

Govt. Bararee mine/seam/district, a copy of the regulations,

ruels, bye-laws and orders made thereunder, which affect

you, being made over to you. For 6 (Six) Months.

Owner/Agent/Manager

Dated 196 .

I Kedar Paswan having been appointed at this

Colliery accept authorisation at SDL Operator at Govt.

Bararee mine/scam/district and acknowledge receipt of a

copy of the regulations, rules, bye-laws and orders made

thereunder, which affect me.

Dated 23/1/05

Kedar Paswan

Signature or

Thumb-impression of the

persons appointed/authorised

5. If the above appointment letter is not denied by

the management and there is no adverse remark against

the workman, why he will not be regularised in the said

post as SDL operator.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of Bararee

colliery of M/s. BCCL in not regularising Sri Kedar Singh

Paswan as SDL operator is not legal and justified. And his

job is to be regularised as SDL operator w.e.f. 6.2.95 i.e.

from the date of his appointment.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

2296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 867.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsyhdkWe fMfLVªDV

esustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] jk;pwj ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;

cSaxykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 143@2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 08@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40011@30@2007&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 867.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D No. 143/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Bangalore now as show in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Raichur and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 08/02/2014.

[No. L-40011/30/2007-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated: 3rd February, 2014

Present:

Shri S.N. NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

CR No. 143/2007

I Party

Sh. Hussain Saheb, Branch

Secretary, National Federation

of Telecom Employees Union,

BSNL, Sindhanur PO,

RAICHUR-584 102.

II Party

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Hyderabad Road

Raichur-584102

Appearances

I Party:

Shri J. Satish Kumar

Advocate

II Party:

Shri Y. Hari Prasad

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-40011/

30/2007-IR (B-DU) dated 09.10.2007 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of National Federation

of Telecom Employees Union for regularisation

of services of Shri Muneer Basha and 23

others, as per Annexure, is legal and justified?

If yes, to what relief the workman are entitled

to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in

CR 143/2007 when notices were issued to both the parties,

Sh. Hussain Saheb, Branch Secretary, NFTE Union (BSNL),

Sindhanur (hereinafter referred as I Party) appeared

through J. Satish Kumar, Advocate and filed his claim

statement on 10.06.2010, whereas, the Telecom Department

(herein after referred as I Party) appeared through Sh. Y

Hariprasad, Advocate and filed its counter statement on

13.08.2010.

3. The I Party in his claim statement asserts that the

DGM (EST) while giving his report dated 12.07.2004 vide

his letter No. ESTT-137/99-2000 addressed to General

Manager, Telecom, Bangalore having reported the 24

workmen covered in this reference having worked as Under:

Sl.

Name

Date of

Cate- Nature of work No. of

No. of

entry

gory

days

Employee

worked

1. Sri Muneer 01.03.1995 II A

Yadiwal exchange1170

Basha

incharge

2. Baji Shaeed 01.06.1995 II B

Assistant Clerk

1710

3. Goutham

01.02.1998 OBC

Exchange line Man995

4. Khaja

10.04.1996 II B

Exchange line Man1120

Moinuddin

5. M

01.08.1994 OBC

Assistant Line Man1670

Pampapathi

6. Tatappa

01.11.1992 OBC

Asst. Lineman

2140

7. P. Ramanna01.01.1993 OBC

Asst. Lineman

2120

8. Durgappa 01.07.1988

Lineman

13 Yrs.

9. Shivaraj

01.05.1996 OBC

Lineman

1200

Biredar

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2297

10.Syed Khaja10.08.1992 Bani- Asst. Lineman

2200

Mohinuddin

giga

11.Amatappa 01.01.1983 Bani- Asst. Lineman17 Years

giga

12.Mareppa

01.10.1996 SC

Lineman/Driver

1120

13.Somanatha 01.05.1998 OBC

Asst. Lineman

670

/Cable Jointer

14.Durgappa 01.10.1998 OBC

Asst. Lineman

590

15.Venkatesh 01.08.1993 OBC

SDE-Cable Jointer1945

16.K Shankar 01.01.1994 OBC

Asst. Lineman

1855

17.Palakshaiah 01.09.1999 OBC

Asst. Lineman

620

Hiremath

18.Syed

01.07.1995 II B

Asst. Lineman

1435

Arifuddin

19.Abdul

01.05.1999 OBC

Asst. Lineman

670

Rahim

20.Nagaraj

20.01.1993 OBC

Lineman

2120

Madiwalar

21.Murth-

01.05.1992 OBC

Asst. Lineman

9 Yrs.

yunjaya

Hiremath

22.Hanumesh 01.02.1993 II A

MDF work

11 Years

Bangi

23.Moulappa 01.02.1993 SC

Lineman

1955

Kattimani

24.Srinivas

01.05.1993 SC

Lineman

1940

though they have worked more than the days mentioned

therein the department itself having had admitted engaging

the services of I Party workman for long spell of period and

still these workers continued to work in the II Party

department. It is further asserted though the nature of work

carried by these workmen is regular and perennial in nature

the II Party has so far failed to regularise their services

inspite of its (I Party) representations after the imposition

of ban on casual mazdoor/part-time mazdoor from

30.03.1985 and after much persuasion the II Party issued a

direction to the circle office to send list of employees

working in the department after imposition of ban on

recruitment of casual mazdoor/part time mazdoor from

30.03.1985 and accordingly DGM (Est) by his letter dated

12.07.2004 under No. EST3/99-2000 furnished the details

as stated above and thereafter in the year 2002 the

department issued a letter seeking information and

clarification by issuing proforma in respect of details of

work discharged by them and same was furnished with the

fond Service Agency, Raichur and never worked on Muster

Rolls of the Department as such the question of

regularisation of their services does not arise at all. It is

further contended the DGM (Est) of the CGMT, Bangalore

under his DO No. 3-137/99-2000 dated 12.07.2004 did not

mention these persons as mazdoors of the department and

he had annexed the list prepared and submitted by the I

Party Union. Thus it is contended as per the judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi since the

contractual employment comes to an end at end of the

contract the 24 persons mentioned in the list are not entitle

for regularisation of services.

4. After completion of the pleadings when the matter

was posted for evidence the learned advocate appearing

for the I Party while filing the affidavit of the Secretary of

the I Party Union swearing to the facts of the claim

statement examining him on oath as WW 1 got exhibited Ex

W-1 to Ex W-317 the detailed description of which are

narrated in the annexure and closed his side. The learned

advocate appearing for the II party who during the cross-

examination of WW 1 had got exhibited copy of the notice

issued to him (WW 1) by the II Party dated 14.03.2007 to

show cause as to why action should not be initiated against

him for representing falsely the hope of regularisation of

their services but it did not take any action inspite of various

circulars empowering the department to regularise such

workmen and other identically placed workmen and now

all of them are being aged above 35 years are unable to get

job elsewhere. With these assertions it is prayed to call for

the records non-regularisation of their services in the

department to direct the II party to regularise their services

from the date on which they have been appointed and to

grant all consequential benefits which they are entitle on

par with the persons whom they have been regularly

appointed. Inter alia, the II party in its counter statement

contended out of the 24 persons shown in the annexure to

the schedule of reference only six viz., Sh. Syed Khaja

Mohinuddin, Sh. Durgappa, Sh. Murtunjaya,

Sh. Amateppa, Sh. Totappa and Sh. B Hanumesh (Sl. No. 4,

8, 21, 11, 6, 22 of the annexure of Schedule of reference)

only worked as casual mazdoors DOT period i.e., prior to

June, 1993 and stopped working on Muster Rolls during

June, 1993 i.e., 16 years before raising this dispute as such

High Power Committee at Circle Office level Bangalore has

not considered them to continue on Muster rolls from June,

1993 hence the question of their regularisation does not

arise and in respect of the remaining 16 workers they are

working under the Contractor Diddaneti Upkeep members

Sl.

Name

Date of

Cate- Nature of work

No. of

No.

entry

gory

days

Employee

worked

2298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

who are not the members of the Union as Ex M-1 while

filling the affidavit of Sh. K. Prahalad Achar, Assistant

General Manager (Admn.), BSNL, Raichur swearing to the

contention of the counter statement examined him on oath

as MW 1 and closed his side.

5. With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record when the advocates appearing

for the respective parties were called upon to address

arguments the learned advocate appearing for the I Party

submitted that since 1983 services of these workmen being

taken by the II Party to avoid rigour of provisions of

Industrial Dispute Act being engaged through one or the

other contractors they deserve regularisation of their

services and in support of his arguments he cited the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil

and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Engineering

Mazdoor Sangh reported in (2007) 1 SCC 250 wherein the

decision of the Industrial Tribunal regularizing the services

of workmen who had completed 240 days continuous

service against vacancies as and when such vacancies

became available has been restored by virtue of section

25F of ID Act. Inter-alia, the learned advocate appearing

for the II Party filed his written arguments reiterating the

counter statement and cited the decisions reported in

1. 2006 AIR SCW 1991—Secretary, State of Karnataka

& ors. Vs. Umadevi & others

2. (2006) 9 SCC 132—Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat

and another vs. Gangaben Laljibhar and others

3. (2006) 7 SCC 161—Principal, Mehar Chand

Polytechnic and another vs. Anu Lamba and others

4. (2007) 1 SCC 408—Indian Druga & Pharmaceuticals

Ltd., vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,

and further submitted since these workers were

contract workers Section 25F of the ID Act is not attracted

more over it is not their case that their services have been

retrenched in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of

the ID Act.

6. On appreciation of the pleadings oral and

documentary evidence brought on record by both the sides,

in the light of the arguments put forward by the learned

advocates for both the sides, I have arrived at conclusion

the demand of National Federation of Telecom Employees

Union for the regularisation of services of Shri Muneer

Basha and 23 others as per Annexure being not legal and

justified and that they are not entitle for any relief for the

following.

REASONS

7. The I Party who claims that DGM (EST) of the II

Party in his letter No. EST-3-137/99-2000 dated 12.07.2004

addressed to Telecom Manager, Bangalore admitted

engaging the services of these 24 workmen by the

department in respect of which it is contended in the counter

statement the list annexed to the said letter was one

forwarded which was prepared by the I Party Union has

not been produced to substantiate the said assertion as

such the contention of the II Party that the list annexed to

the said letter was only forwarded by the DGM to the

General Manager which was prepared by the I Party Union

has to be accepted. Moreover, the I Party/WW 1 in his

cross-examination has admitted that these 24 workmen are

working under different contractors and that the II Party

every year call for tender the appointment of contract

labourers and the lowest bidder will get the contract and

that the II Party deposits the amount of GPF, PF, ESI and all

statutory payments relating to the contract labourers in

the same of the contractors and in turn the contract or

disburse it to each contract labour and even the voluminous

documentary evidence produced by the I Party himself do

suggest that they have worked under different contractors.

Further WW 1 in his cross-examination having categorically

admitted that out of the 24 workmen covered in this

reference the workmen Sh. Syed Khaja Mohinuddin, Sh.

Durgappa, Sh. Murtunjaya, Sh. Amateppa, Sh. Totappa

and Sh. B. Hanumesh were only working on Muster Roll

before 1993 and in the year 1993 when a scheme called

conferment of casual labour status was introduced the

names of those six workmen were sent to circle office before

High Power Committee and that the High Power Committee

sent the names of those six men back saying that they

have not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the scheme

and that apart from those six workmen the remaining 18

workmen never worked on Muster Rolls and were working

under different contractors, the claim of the I Party that the

24 workmen covered in this reference were directly engaged

by the II Party falls to the ground. Moreover, the learned

advocate appearing for the I Party who was unable to point

out any provision of law giving rise to right of regularisation

to such workers and it is also not being the case of the I

Party that the services of these workmen were availed

against the permanent employees either going on leave or

remaining absent for any reason the question of

regularizing the services of such contract employees does

not arise at all. Since no amount of long service by a casual

labourer or contract worker gives rise to right to

regularisaion the I Party failed to make out any case of

regularisaiton of service of the workmen covered in this

reference.

8. In the result, I arrived at conclusion the demand of

National Federation of Telecom Employees Union for

regularisation of services of Shri Muneer Basha and 23

others as per Annexure is not legal and justified and that

they are not entitle for any relief and accordingly, I pass

the following

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2299

ORDER

The Reference is rejected holding that the

demand of National Federation of Telecom

Employees Union for regularisation of

services of Shri Muneer Basha and 23 others

as per Annexure is not legal and justified and

that they are not entitle for any relief.

(Dictated to U D C, transcribed by him corrected and

signed by me on 3rd February 2014)

S.N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Witnesses examined:

MW 1-Sh. K Prahalad Acharya, Assistant General Manager

(Admn)

WW-I Sh. Hussain Saheb, Secretary, NFTEU

Documents exhibited on behalf of the I Party:

Ex W-1

Letter No. R&F/3-137/Union Corr dated

23.09.2004 issued by BSNL, Bangalore

Ex W-2

Letter No. 20104504/Cash/2010-2011/

RCH01/506/2856/RL No. 1041, 20104505/

Cash/20102011/RCH01/507/2870 dated

16.12.2010 issued by Employees Provident

Fund Organisation, Raichur with regard to

Sri Nagaraj Madivalar s/o Durugapa

Ex W-3

Letter No. 2620417/Cash/2006-2007/HBL03/

974/2381/R.L. No. 19 dated 10.11.2006 issued

Employees

Provident

Fund

Organisation, Hubli with regard to Sri Munir

Basha s/o Gouse Mohinuddin

Ex W-4

Letter No. 2620417/Cash/2006-2007/HBL03/

476/2409/R.L. No. 19 dated 10.11.2006 with

regard to Sri Munir Basha s/o Gouse

Mohinuddin

Ex- W-5

Letter No. 20104502/Cash/2010-2011/

RCH01/506/2854/R.L. No. 1039 20104502/

Cash/2010-2011/RCH01/507/2868/R.L. No.

1039 dated 16.12.2010 issued by Employees

Provident Fund Organisation, Hubli with

regard to Sri Khaja Mainuddin s/o Syed

Buranuddin

Ex- W-6

Letter No. 20104500/Cash/2010-2011/

RCH01/506/2853/R.L. No. 1038 20104501/

Cash/2010-2011/RCH01/507/2867 dated

16.12.2010 issued by Employees Provident

Fund Organisation, Hubli with regard to Sri

Khaja Mainuddin s/o Syed Buranuddin

Ex W-7

Principal Employer: TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-8

Principal Employer: TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-9

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-10

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

M/s. Vikranth Defective Security Agencies

Ex W-11

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

M/s. Vikranth Defective Security Agencies

Ex W-12

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

M/s. Vikranth Defective Security Agencies

Ex W-13

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

M/s. Vikranth Defective Security Agencies

Ex W-14

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-15

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-16

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-17

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-18

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; M/s. Vikranth Defective

Security Agencies

Ex W-19

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-20

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

2300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-21

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-22

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-23

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-24

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-25

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-26

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-27

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-28

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-29

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-30

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-31

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-32

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-33

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-34

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-35

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-36

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-37

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-38

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-39

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-40

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-41

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-42

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-43

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-44

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-45

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2301

Ex W-46

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-47

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-48

Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-Contractor;

Tough-1 Security Allied Services,

Bangalore

Ex W-49

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-50

Principal Employer :TDM, BSNL-Raichur-

Contractor; Tough-1 Security Allied

Services, Bangalore

Ex W-51

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-52

Pay Slip of Sh. S K Moinduddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-53

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of March 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-54

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinduddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of April 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-55

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of May 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-56

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of June 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-57

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of July 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-58

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-59

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of September 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-60

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-61

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of November 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-62

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of December 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-63

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-64

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-65

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-66

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of April 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

2302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-67

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of May 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-68

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Khaja Moinuddin,

JWGR T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of June 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-69

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-70

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-71

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-72

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-73

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-74

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of July

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-75

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-76

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-77

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-78

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-79

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-80

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-81

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-82

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-83

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-84

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-85

Pay Slip of Mr. S.S. Biradhir, MDP T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-86

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-87

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-88

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2303

Ex W-89

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-90

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-91

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-92

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-93

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-94

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-95

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-96

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-97

Pay Slip of Mr. H. Durgappa, 7th Mile T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-98

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-99

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-100

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-101

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-102

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-102(a):

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-103

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-104

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-105

Pay Slip of Mr. M.S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-106

Pay Slip of Mr. M. S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-107

Pay Slip of Mr. M. S. Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-108

Pay Slip of Mr. M S Swamy, HNCL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-109

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

2304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-110

Pay Slip of Sh. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-111

Pay Slip of Sh. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

February 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-112

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-113

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-114

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-115

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-116

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of July

2009-Agency: Sri Chadappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-117

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-118

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-119

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-120

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-121

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-122

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-123

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-124

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of

March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-125

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of April

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-126

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-127

Pay Slip of Mr. Khaja Moinuddin, JWGR T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of June

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-128

Pay Slip of Mr. P Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of December

2008—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2305

Ex W-129

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-130

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex-W-131

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of August 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex-W-132

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of September

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-133

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of October 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-134

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of November

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-135

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of December

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-136

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of January 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-137

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-138

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-139

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of April 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-140

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of May 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-141

Pay Slip of Mr. P. Ramana, S/o Jejappa,

Sindhanur for the month of June 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-142

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of August 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-143

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of September

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-144

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of October 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-145

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of November

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-146

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of December 2009 -

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-147

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of January 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-148

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-149

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-150

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of April 2010 -

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-151

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanpur for the month of May 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-152

Pay Slip of Sh. B. Hanimesh, C-Dot,

Sindhanur for the month of June 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-153

Pay Slip of Sh. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of January 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

2306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-154

Pay Slip of Mr. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of April 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-155

Pay Slip of M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot, Main

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month of May

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-156

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of June 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-157

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of July 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-158

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of August 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-159

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of September 2009— Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-160

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of November 2009— Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-161

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of December 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-162

Pay Slip of Sh. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of January 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-163

Pay Slip of Sh. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of February 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-164

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of March 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-165

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of April 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-166

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of May 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-167

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Pampapathi, SDE, C-Dot,

Main Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

of June 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-168

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of December

2008—Agency : Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-169

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of January 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-170

Pay Slip of Sh. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-171

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-172

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-173

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of August 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-174

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of September

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-175

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of October 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2307

Ex W-176

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of November

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-177

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of December 2009—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-178

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of January 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-179

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-180

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of March 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-181

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of February 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-182

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of May 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-183

Pay Slip of Mr. Somanath, BLG T/Exchange,

Sindhanur for the month of June 2010—

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-184

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-185

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

December 2008— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

doddameti Up keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-186

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

February 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-187

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

January 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-188

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

March 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-189

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of April

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-190

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of May

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-191

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of June

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-192

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of July

2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-193

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

August 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-194

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

September 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-195

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

October 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-196

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

November 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-197

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month of

December 2009— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-198

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month

January 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-199

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month

February 2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-200

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month March

2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-201

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month April

2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-202

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month May

2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-203

Pay Slip of Mr. S. Arifuddin s/o S. Khaja

Moinuddin Sindhanur for the month June

2010— Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-204

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month December 2008—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-205

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month January 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-206

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month February 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-207

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month May 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-208

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month March 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-209

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month April 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-210

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month June 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-211

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month July 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-212

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month August 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-213

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month September 2009—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-214

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month October 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-215

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month November 2009—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-216

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month December 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-217

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month January 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-218

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month February 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2309

Ex W-219

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month March 2010—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-220

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month April 2010—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-221

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month May 2010—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-222

Pay Slip of Mr. Muneer Basha s/o Ghouse

Moinuddin, HDBL T/Exchange, Sindhanur

for the month June 2010—Agency:

Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep

Services & Security Agency

Ex W-223

Letter No. 261849/Cash/20062007/HBL03/

361/1823/RL No. 117 dated 14.09.2006

issued by Employees Provident Fund

Organisation, Hubli with regard to

Sri Mariyappa s/o Venkappa

Ex. W-224 :

Letter No. 261848/Cash/20062007/HBL03/

362/1838/RL No. 117 dated 14.09.2006

issued by Employees Provident Fund

Organisation, Hubli with regard to

Sri Mariyappa s/o Venkappa

Ex W-225

Form 3A — Provident Fund contribution

statement issued by Employees Provident

Fund Organisation with regard to

Sri Mariyappa s/o Venkapa for the period

March paid in April 2007 to February paid

in March 2008

Ex W-226

Form 3A — Provident Fund contribution

statement issued by Employees Provident

Fund Organisation with regard to

Sri Mariyappa s/o Venkapa for the period

March paid in April 2006 to February paid

in March 2007

Ex W-227

Employees Provident Fund Organisation —

Form for allotment of National Social

Security Number (NSSN) No. 24301290406

with regard to Sri Mariyappa s/o Venkappa

Ex W-228

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

February 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-229

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

November 2008 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-230

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

August 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-231

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

September 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-232

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

October 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-233

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

November 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-234

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

December 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-235

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

January 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-236

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

February 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-237

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month March

2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-238

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month April

2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-239

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month May

2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

2310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-240

Pay Slip of Mr. Mariyappa s/o Venkappa,

SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month June

2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-241

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindanur Section,

Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti Up

Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-242

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

December 2008 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-243

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

January 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-244

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

February 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-245

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

March 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-246

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

April 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-247

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

May 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-248

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

June 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-249

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

July 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-250

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

August 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-251

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

September 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-252

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

October 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-253

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

November 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-254

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

December 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-255

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

January 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-256

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

February 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-257

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

March 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-258

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

May 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-259

Pay Slip of Mr. Syed Baji Sheed s/o Kasim

Sab, SDE Group, Sindhanur for the month

June 2010 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-260

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2311

Ex W-261

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

December 2008 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-262

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

January 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-263

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

February 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-264

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

March 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-265

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

April 2009 — Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-266

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

May 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-267

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

June 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-268

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

July 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-269

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

August 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-270

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exch ange, Sindhanur for the month

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-271

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

October 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-272

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-273

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-274

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

January 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-275

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-276

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

March 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-277

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

April 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-278

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

May 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-279

Pay Slip of Mr. M. Nagaraj s/o Duragappa,

BKL T/Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

June 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-280

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

2312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex W-281

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month December 2008—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-282

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month January 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-283

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month February 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-284

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month March 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-285

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month April 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-286

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month May 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-287

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month June 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-288

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month June 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-289

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month July 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-290

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month August 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-291

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month September 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-292

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month October 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-293

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month November 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-294

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month December 2009—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-295

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month January 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-296

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month February 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-297

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month March 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-298

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month April 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-299

Pay Slip of Mr. B. Goutam s/o Jeevaraj

Bepari, SMLP T/Exchange, Sindhanur for

the month May 2010—Agency: Sri

Chandappa, Doddameti Up Keep Services

& Security Agency

Ex W-300

Pay Slip for the month November 2008 for

all the up keep persons of Sindhanur

Section, Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2313

Ex W-301

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month January

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-302

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month March

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-303

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month April

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-304

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month May

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-305

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month June

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-306

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month July

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-307

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month August

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-308

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

September 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-309

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month October

2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-310

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

November 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-311

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

December 2009—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-312

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month January

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-313

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month

February 2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa,

Doddameti Up Keep Services & Security

Agency

Ex W-314

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month March

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-314

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month April

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-315

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month May

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-316

Pay Slip of Mr. Abdul Rahim, TRVL T/

Exchange, Sindhanur for the month June

2010—Agency: Sri Chandappa, Doddameti

Up Keep Services & Security Agency

Ex W-317

Letter issued by the BSNL with regard to

list of contractors discharged contract in

Raichur circle (Issued on application filed

under RTI Act).

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 868.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947

dk 14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV

esustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fla/kqnqxZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh -2@26 of 2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&40011@20@2004&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 868.—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/

26 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure

2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of The Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sindhudurg and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

17/02/2014.

[No. L-40011/20/2004-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-2/26 OF 2005

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD.

The Telecom District Manager

BSNL

At Sawantwadi

Sindhudurg

M.S.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Vice President

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers' Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

: Mrs. Neeta Masurkar,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

: Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 11th November, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-40011/20/2004-IR(DU), dated

06.12.2004 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 Telecom District

Manager, BSNL, Sindhudurg at Sawantwadi

in not regularizing the service of Sh. Gajanan

Mohan Rawool, Driver is legal and justified? If

not to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued

to both the parties. In response to the notice, second party

union filed its Statement of Claim at Ex-7. According to the

union Workman Shri Gajanan Mohan Rawool is serving

with the first party since 07/08/2001 as Driver. He is attending

his duties which are of permanent nature. He was selected

for the post of Driver after ascertaining his eligibility

qualification of his post ad driver. His work is satisfactory.

As provided under Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Act 1946 as well as principle of equity he is

permanent workman. However the management has

deprived him from giving the status and privilege of

permanent workman. The manangement is thus guilty of

unfair labour practice under I.D. Act. The first party is paying

the wages to the workman at a very low rate. They are also

not giving other benefits in the nature of social security

measures including the benefit of provident fund,

insurance, leave, bonus, medical treatment etc. Other

workers including Shri Margaonkar have been permanency

in the employment to the post of Driver. Whereas the same

benefit and pay scale is not given to the workman who is

discharging the same duties.

He has requested the management. Ultimately he

raised industrial dispute before ALC (C). However the

conciliation failed. Therefore ALC (C) made a report of

Labour Ministry. Labour Ministry has sent the dispute to

this Tribunal. The union therefore prays for declaration

that action of the management in not regularising is illegal.

He also prays that direction be given to the management to

regularise the service of the workman as a permanent

employee of the management in the capacity of Driver in

the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 right from 07/08/2001 with all

consequential benefits.

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide

its Written Statement at Ex-11. According to them the union

is not a registered union. The workman was also not member

of the said union at the relevant time. The first party is

Government undertaking. Therefore the reference is not

tenable. The workman under reference was engaged for a

short period for hourly driving assistance on various

intermittent occasions at agreed price. It was service

contract to a casual worker. Therefore the reference is not

tenable and the workman is not entitled for regularisation.

The dispute does not come under Section 2 (K) of the I.D.

Act. The first party is Government of India undertaking.

There is total ban imposed by Government for new

recruitment since 1982. Therefore the Court cannot issue

direction to recruit or regularise the services of the second

party workman. The second party is not 'workman' as

defined under Section 2 (S) of I.D. Act. He cannot be

regularised for want of facing eligibility criteria. he was not

possessing the same when he was engaged. An

understanding was given to him that his job was of

temporary nature. Therefore he is not entitled to claim

regularisation. His employment was occasional engagement

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2315

without following the recruitment rules. It would amount

to back door entry. Therefore his services cannot be

regularised.

4. His appointment was not on regular basis. BSNL

has framed Recruitment Rules for the post of regular Driver

to fill up 50% of the total vacancy and remaining are to be

filled up by promotion by the persons belonging to Group

C & D. For all these reasons services of the workman cannot

be regularised and he is not entitled for permanent

employment. Therefore they pray that the reference be

dismissed with cost.

5. Following are the issues for my determination. I

record my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:—

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the second party is a

'workman' and whether there exist

employer-employee relationship

between them?

Yes.

Whether there exists an industrial

dispute?

Yes.

Whether the services of the workman

under reference can be regularised as

permanent workmen?

Yes.

REASONS

Issue No. 1 & 2:-

6. As both these issues are interlinked, in order to

avoid repetition of discussion they are discussed and

decided simultaneously. On the point of inter-se relationship

the first party contended that the workman is not their

employee. Therefore according to them, neither he is

workman not there exist industrial dispute. According to

them the second party workman was engaged as and when

required for and on hourly basis as a daily wager Driver.

They have also contended that the workman was engaged

as contract worker. Therefore their exists no employer-

employee relationship between them. It is further

contended that the workman was not recruited by following

the recruitment process prescribed therefore. Therefore

neither he can be called employee of the first party nor can

be absorbed in the service. In support of her argument the

Ld. Adv. for the first party resorted to Apex Court ruling in

Secretary State of Karnataka & Ors. V/s. Uma Devi & Ors.

(2006) 4 SCC 1 wherein in para 34 of the judgement on the

point the Hon'ble Court observed that:

"Therefore consistent with the scheme for public

employment, this Court while laying down the law

has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment

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. If it is a

contractual appointment the appointment comes to

an end at the end of the 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 temproary employee or a casual

wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term

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 by following a

due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant

rules."

7. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also resorted to another

Supreme Court ruling on the point in Accounts Officer (A

and I) APSRTC & Ors. V/s. K.V. Ramana & Ors. AIR 2007

SC 1166 wherein the Hon'ble Court in para 7 of the

judgement observed that;

"Even if contract labourers or casual workers or

ad-hoc employees have worked for a long period,

they cannot be regularised dehors the rules for

selection as has been held in Uma Devi's case."

8. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also cited another

Apex Court ruling in B.S. Minhas V/s. Indian Statistical

Institute (1983) 4 SCC 582 wherein on the point the Hon'ble

Court observed that;

"If the appointment itself is in infraction of the rules

or if it is in violations of the provisions of the

Constitution, illegality cannot be regularised.

Ratification or regularisation is possible of an act

which is within the power and province of the

authority, but there has been some non-compliance

with procedure or manner which does not go to the

root of the appointment. Regularisation cannot be

said to be mode of recruitment."

9. The Ld. Adv. for the first party also cited another

Apex Court ruling in B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. V/s. State of

Karnataka & Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1676 wherein Hon'ble Court

on the point of regularisation held that, when rules framed

under Article 209 of the Constitution of India are enforced,

no regularisation is permissible in exercise of executive

powers under Article 167 of the constitution in

contravention of the rules. The Hon'ble Court in this respect

further held that, only something that is irregular for want

of compliance with one of the elements in the process of

selection which does not go to the root of the process can

be regularised. The Ld. Adv. further argued that once it is

held that the workman is not employee of the first party,

irresistible conclusion that follows is that, the Tribunal

had no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute and the same

deserved to be dismissed.

2316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for the second party

submitted that, the workman was called for and selected

for the post of Driver after ascertaining his eligibility and

qualification for the said post. According to him he was

appointed w.e.f. 7/8/2001 and since then he was driving the

vehicles of the first party. The Ld. Adv. further submitted

that the workman is very poor person and working sincerely

with the firsit party for a meagre amount of wages. The

workman has contended in para 8 of his cross examination

that advertisement was published, mentioning about new

vehicle and requirement of a new drive for the driver for the

said vehicle. He further says that he applied with the first

party as per the said advertisement. The Ld. Adv. pointed

out that the workman has neither maintained the o/c of the

application nor kept with him the paper of advertisement.

That does not mean that he was not recruited and appointed

for the post of driver. In his cross examination in para 8 of

Ex-20 the workman has also contended that driving test

was taken while selecting him.

11. In this respect the Ld. Adv. for second party pointed

out that, the workman has produced the log book of the

vehicle to show that he was worked with the first party as

a Driver since 2001 continuously. The Ld. Adv. pointed out

that 2004 the workman was working as direct employee of

the first party. In 2004 the first party introduced contractor.

However the workman has denied the suggestion that he

was simply contract worker of Anand Shraddha Contractor.

In this respect the Ld. Adv. submitted that the first party

who is a Govt. undertaking is taking disadvantage of

poverty and ignorance of the poor people. He submitted

that there was advertisement. In response thereto workman

has applied for the post of Driver. He was called for

interview. His driving test was taken. He was selected and

appointed as a Driver. Due to poverty and ignorance neither

he maintained any document nor first party has given any

document to him. In this respect I would like to point out

that the plea and evidence of the second party is consistent.

As against this the case of the first party is not consistent.

It is pleaded in the written statement that the second party

workman was engaged on hourly and as and when required

basis. They also contended that since 2004 the workman is

a contract worker. In his cross examination at Ex-20 it was

suggested that he has not worked since 2001 continuously.

The workman has denied the said suggestion. In his cross

examination the workman says that driving test was taken

before selecting him. He further says that he has no proof

on that point.

13. In this respect I would like to point out that while

appointing a technical person like Driver, it is quite obvious

for the employer to take his driving test. At least driver is

not expected to be appointed without driving test. The

workman is poor and poorly literate person, who was

working with the first party for a very meagre amount to

meet the two ends. He is working as a Driver since 2001.

From his evidence and the reply in his cross examination it

appears that he was selected by the competent authority

as a Driver and was working with the first party since 2001.

Neither any appointment order was given to him nor he

has maintained any document except the copy of log book.

There is no reason to doubt the copy of log book the

workman has produced, to show that he was working with

the first party. In the circumstances it cannot be said that

the workman was engaged on hourly basis and as and

when required for. It appears that there was advertisement.

The workman had applied and was called for. His interview

and driving test was taken. After examining his capability

as a driver, he was appointed in the year 2001. It appears

that after 2003 the first party seems to have played mischief

and called tenders and since 2004 the workman was shown

as a contract worker. Apparently it is seen that the service

contract was bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the

workman from getting the benefit of permanency. It amount

to unfair labour practice by the management. Furthermore

the workman has worked continuously for more than 240

days in a calendar year and his services cannot be

terminated without following the procedure laid down under

Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He gets

protection of 25 F of I.D. Act. The management has not

followed the condition laid down thereunder.

14. In the circumstances I hold that the rulings referred

herein above by the Ld. Adv. of the first party are not

attracted to the set of facts of the present case as it is seen

that the workman was duly appointed by the first party. In

case any irregularity it would not come in his way as has

been observed by Hon'ble Court in the last ruling referred

here in above.

15. It appears that the officials of the first party have

taken disadvantage of the need, ignorance and poverty of

the workman. It is exploitation of poor class, as workman

was working for meagre amount to meet the two ends and

it is for years together. It is one of the reasons, poor

becoming poorer in our country. Recently Hon'ble Apex

Court has also taken serious note of such type of

exploitation of poor class in our country. On the point the

Ld. Adv. for the second party referred the said Apex Court

ruling in Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadhak Sahakari S. LTd. V/s.

Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. 2011 III CLR 386 (SC) wherein

the Hon'ble Court has taken care of all such circumstances

and observed that;

"Labour Statutes were meant to protect the

employees/workman because it was realised that the

employers and the employees are not on an equal

bargaining position. Hence protection of employees

was required so that they may not be exploited.

However this new technique of subterfuge has been

adopted by some employers in recent years in order

to deny the rights of workmen under various labour

statutes by showing that the concern workmen are

not their employees but are the employees/workmen

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2317

of a contractor, or that they are merely daily wage or

short term or casual employees. When infact they

are doing the work of regular employees. This court

cannot countenance such practice anymore.

Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of growth

cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of

workers."

16. In the case at hand the version of the first party is

unacceptable that the workman was casual worker engaged

on hourly and as and when required basis. The version of

the first party is also not acceptable that the workman was

a contract worker since 2004. It appears that the workman

is working with the first party as a Driver since 2001.

Though he was selected and appointed as Driver they had

not given him the wages of the regular driver. It cannot be

said that he was appointed without following the procedure.

He had worked for about 3 years for meagre amount. The

work of Driver cannot be said casual or temporary. It is

work of permanent nature. The workman says in his

evidence that there was advertisement. He had applied

and was called for interview. His driving test was taken

there after he was selected for the post. There is no reason

to discard the version of the workman, especially as he has

worked for more than 3 years. In the circumstances I hold

that the workman was recruited by the first party as a Driver.

He had worked continously for about 3 years with the first

party. In the light of above Apex Court ruling I hold that the

workman is entitled to be regularised in the service.

Accordingly I decide the issue no. 1 in the affirmative that

the second party is a workman and there exist employer

employee relationship between the parties. As a result I

also decide the issue No. 2 in the affirmative that, there

exist industrial dispute. In the light of the above discussion

I also decide issue No. 3 in the affirmative that, the workman

is entitled to be regularised in the service of the first party

as driver. Thus I pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference is allowed with no order as to cost.

1. The action of the management is not regularising the

services of the workman is hereby declared illegal and

improper.

2. The management is directed to regularise the services

of workman after the probation period of 2 years from the

date of his initial date of appointment on 07/08/2001 and

give him pay and allowances at par with regular employees

with all consequential benefits.

3. Management is directed to pay the difference in pay

and allowance from the date of his regularisation i.e. from

06/08/2003 till this date.

Date: 11/11/2013

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 869.—vkS|kSfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV

eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] ¯lèqnqxZ ds izcaèr= ds laca)

fu;kstdks vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2/4 of 2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gSA tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&42025@07@2014&vkbZñ vkjñ ¼Mh ;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 869.— 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-2/4 of 2005) 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 The Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sindhudurg and their workman,

which was received by the Central Goernment on

17/2/2014.

[No. L-42025/07/2014-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT No. CGIT-2/4 OF 2005

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/26 of 2005)

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai-400 010.

...Complainant

V/s.

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

At Post- Tal. Sawantwadi

Distt. Sindhudurg

Maharashtra-416510

...Opponent

APPEARANCES:

For the Complainant

Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate.

For the Opponent

Mrs. Neeta Masurkar,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 30th December, 2013

2318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant union

against the Telecom District Manager, Bharat Shanchar

Nigam Ltd., Sawantwadi, Distt. Sindhudurg under

Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According

to the complainant, Ref. CGIT_2\26 of 2005 is pending before

the Tribunal. During pendency of the dispute before ALC,

Vaso-da-Gama the opponent unlawfully changed the

service conditions of the workman and compelled him to

work through contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises

from May 2004 onwards. The said contract agreement is

sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workman

of his right to permanency in the employment of the

opponent. They refused the work and wages to the

workman w.e.f. 1/7/2005. The union by its letter dt. 2/7/2005

requested the opponent to refrain from such unfair,

unlawful practice. However opponent failed to follow the

provisions of law. Therefore union has filed the complaint

and prays for declaration that the respondent is guilty under

Section 33 of I.D. Act and liable for severe punishment as

provided under Section 33 of the I.D. Act and also prays

that workman be treated in continuous service with all

consequential benefits.

2. The Opponent management resisted the application

vide its say at Ex-7. According to them the Nhava Sheva

Port Union, Mumbai has no locus standi to raise industrial

dispute in the matter. The complaint is false, frivolous and

vicious and not tenable under Section 33 of the I.D. Act.

According to the management the workman was employee

of the contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises. His

contract was continued with opponent till 1/7/2005.

Thereafter it was the responsibility of the contractor to

provide work to his employees. In short according to the

opponent the complainant workman was not their employee

and he was the employee of the contractor. Therefore the

complaint against the opponent is not tenable. They denied

that they have changed the service conditions of the

workman and compelled him to receive salary through

contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from

May 2004. They also denied that they refused the work

and wages to the workman form 1/7/2005 as has been

alleged. They denied all the allegations in the complaint

and pray that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. Following are the points for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sl. Points

Findings

No.

Whether the complainant has proved

Yes

that the opponent has altered the terms

of the services of the workman in

question during pendency of the

industrial dispute?

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Points no.1:—

4. In this respect I would like to point out that, reference

between these parties was pending before this Tribunal

bearing No. Ref.CGIT-2/26 of 2005. It was decided in the

last month and the award is sent to the Labour Ministry for

publication. In the award this Tribunal held that, there exists

employer-employee relationship between the parties. The

reference was allowed and the management was directed

to regularize the services of the workman. The version of

the opponent in respect of their relationship is totally

unacceptable as while passing the award it is held that the

workman was working as the employee of the first part

since 7/8/2001. Admittedly the dispute was before ALC(C)

when the workman was directed to work under the

contractor and they had also refused the work and wages

w.e.f. 1/7/2005 when dispute was pending before this

Tribunal. No doubt, it amount to violation of Section 33 of

the I.D. Act. Thus it needs no further discussion to arrive

me at the conclusion that the opponent management is

guilty of unfair labour practice. Accordingly I decide this

Point No. 1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) The change of service conditions of the workman

during pendency of dispute before the Labour

Commissioner was in contravention of

Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) The opponent management is held guilty for unfair

labour practice.

Dated: 30.12.2013

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 870.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947

¼1947 dk 14½ dk /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe

fMfLVªd esustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fla/kqnqxZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky; 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2/3 of 2005½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[la- ,y&42025@07@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 870.—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-2/3 of 2005) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2319

in relation to the managment of The Telecom District

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sindhudurg and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Govenrment on 17/02/2014

[No.L- 42025@07@2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/3 OF 2005

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/25 of 2005)

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai-400 010 :

...Complainant

V/s.

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

At Post-Tal. Sawantwadi

Distt. Sindhudurg

Maharashtra-416 510

...Opponent.

APPEARANCES:

For the Complainant

: Mr. J. H. Sawant,

Advocate

For the Opponent

Mrs. Neeta Masurkar,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30th December, 2013

AWARD

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant union

against the Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam

Ltd., Sawantwadi, Distt. Sindhudurg under Section 33-A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the

complainant, Ref. CGIT-2/25 of 2005 is pending before the

Tribunal. During pendency of the dispute before ALC,

Vaso-da-Gama the opponent unlawfully changed the

service conditions of the workman and compelled him to

work through contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises

from May 2004 onwards. The said contract agreement is

sham, bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workman

of his right to permanency in the employment of the

opponent. They refused the work and wages to the

workman w.e.f. 1/7/2005. The union by its letter dt. 2/7/2005

requested the opponent to refrain from such unfair,

unlawful practice. However opponent failed to follow the

provisions of law. Therefore union has filed the complaint

and prays for declaration that the respondent is guilty under

Section 33 of I.D. Act and liable for severe punishment as

provided under Section 33 of the I.D. Act and also prays

that workman be treated in continous service with all

consequential benefits.

2. The Opponent management resisted the application

vide its say at Ex-7. According to them the Nhava Sheva

Port Union, Mumbai has no locus standi to raise industrial

dispute in the matter. The complaint is false, frivolous and

vicious and not tenable under Section 33 of the I.D. Act.

According to the management the workman was employee

of the contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises. His

contract was continued with the opponent till 1/7/2005.

Thereafter it was the responsibility of the contractor to

provide work to his employees. In short according to the

opponent the complainant workman was not their employee

and he was the employee of the contractor. Therefore the

complaint against the opponent is not tenable. They denied

that they have changed the service conditions of the

workman and compelled him to receive salary through

contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from May

2004. They also denied that they refused the work and

wages to the workman from 1/7/2005 as has been alleged.

They denied all the allegations in the complaint and pray

that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. Following are the points for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sl. No.

Points

Findings

Whether the complainant has proved

that the opponent has altered the terms

of the services of the workman in

question during pendency of the

industrial dispute?

Yes.

What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Points No. 1:—

4. In this respect I would like to point out that reference

between these parties was pending before this Tribunal

bearing no. Ref. CGIT-2/25 of 2005. It was decided in the

last month and the award is sent to the Labour Ministry for

publication. In the award this Tribunal held that, there exists

employer-employee relationship between the parties. The

reference was allowed and the management was directed

to regularize the services of the workman. The version of

the opponent in respect of their relationship is totally

unacceptable as while passing the award it is held that the

workman was working as the employee of the first party

since 22/07/2002. Admittedly the dispute was before ALC

contractor and they had also refused the work and wages

2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

w.e.f. 1/7/2005 when dispute was pending before this

Tribunal. No doubt, it amount to violation of Section 33 of

the I.D. Act. Thus it needs no further discussion to arrive

me at the conclusion that the opponent management is

guilty of unfair labour practice. Accordingly I decide this

Point No. 1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) The change of service conditions of the workman

during pendency of dispute before the Labour

Commissioner was in contravention of Section 33-A

of the Industrial Disputes Act,

(ii) The opponent management is held guilty for unfair

labour practice.

Date: 30.12.2012

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 871.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV

esustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fla/kqnqxZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2@2 dk 2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y-42025/07/2014-IR(DU)]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 871.—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-2/2 of 2005) 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 The Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sindhudurg and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

17/02/2014

[No. L-42025/07/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/2 OF 2005

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/24 of 2005)

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai-400 010.

...Complainant

V/s.

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

At Post-Tal. Sawantwadi

Distt. Sindhudurg

Maharashtra-416 510.

...Opponent

APPEARANCES:

For the complainant :

Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate.

For the Opponent :

Mrs. Neeta Masurkar,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30th December, 2013

AWARD

1. The complaint is filed by the complainant union against

the Telecom District Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Sawantwadi, Distt. Sindhudurg under Section 33-A of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the complainant,

Ref. CGIT-2/24 of 2005 is pending before the Tribunal. During

pendency of the dispute before ALC, Vaso-da-Gama the

opponent unlawfully changed the service conditions of

the workman and compelled him to work through contractor

M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from May 2004 onwards.

The said contract agreement is sham, bogus and mere

camouflage to deprive the workman of his right to

permanency in the employment of the opponent. They

refused the work and wages to the workman w.e.f.

1/7/2005. The union by its letter dt. 2/7/2005 requested the

opponent to refrain from such unfair, unlawful practice.

However opponent failed to follow the provisions of law.

Therefore union has filed the complaint and prays for

declaration that the respondent is guilty under Section 33

of I.D. Act and liable for servere punishment as provided

under Section 33 of the I.D. Act and also prays that

workman be treated in continuous service with all

consequential benefits.

2. The Opponent management resisted the application

vide its say at Ex-7. According to them the Nhava Sheva

Port Union, Mumbai has no locus standi to raise industrial

dispute in the matter. The complaint is false, frivolous and

vicious and not tenable under Section 33 of the I.D. Act.

According to the management the workman was employee

of the contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises. His

contract was continued with the opponent till 1/7/2005.

Thereafter it was the responsibility of the contractor to

provide work to his employees. In short according to the

opponent the complainant workman was not their employee

and he was the employee of the contractor. Therefore the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2321

complaint against the opponent is not tenable. They denied

that they have changed the service conditions of the

workman and compelled him to receive salary through

contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from May

2004. They also denied that they refused the work and

wages to the workman from 1/7/2005 as has been alleged.

They denied all the allegations in the complaint and pray

that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. Following are the points for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No. Points

Findings

Whether the complainant has

proved that the opponent has

altered the terms of the services

of the workman in question during

pendency of the industrial dispute?

Yes.

Waht order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Points No. 1:—

4. In this respect I would like to point out that reference

between these parties was pending before this Tribunal

bearing no. Ref.CGIT-2/24 of 2005. It was decided in the

last month and the award is sent to the Labour Ministry for

publication. In the award this Tribunal held that, there exists

employer-employee relationship between the parties. The

reference was allowed and the management was directed

to regularize the services of the workman. The version of

the opponent in respect of their relationship is totally

unacceptable as while passing the award it is held that the

workman was working as the employee of the first party

since 04/06/1996. Admittedly the dispute was before ALC

contractor and they had also refused the work and wages

w.e.f. 1/7/2005 when dispute was pending before this

Tribunal. No doubt, it amount to violation of Section 33 of

the I.D. Act. Thus it needs no further discussion to arrive

me at the conclusion that the opponent management is

guilty of unfair labour practice. Accordingly I decide this

point no. 1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) The change of service condition of the workman

during pendency of dispute before the Labour

Commissioner was in contravention of Section 33-A

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) The opponent management is held guilty for unfair

labour practice.

Date: 30.12.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 17 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 872.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj VsfydkWe fMfLVªDV

eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] fla/kqnqxZ ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; 2]

eqEcbZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k CGIT-2/1 of 2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 17-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@07@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 17th February, 2014

S.O. 872.—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-2/1 of 2005) 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 The Telecom District Manager, Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sindhudurg and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

17.02.2014.

[No. L-42025/07/2014-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K.B. KATAKE,

Presiding Officer

COMPLAINT NO. CGIT-2/1 OF 2005

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT-2/23 of 2005)

Nhava Sheva Port & General Workers Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road

Mazgaon

Mumbai-400010

......Complainant

V/s

The Telecom District Manager

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

At Post-Tal. Sawantwadi

Distt. Sindhudurg

Maharashtra-416510

.......Opponent

APPEARANCES:

For the Complainant :

Mr. J. H. Sawant,

Advocate

For the Opponent:

Mrs. Neeta Masurkar,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 30th December, 2013

2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant union

against the Telecom District Manager, Bharat Shanchar

Nigam Ltd., Sawantwadi, Distt. Sindhudurg under Section

33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to the

complainant, Ref. CGIT-2/23 of 2005 is pending before the

Tribunal. During pendency of the dispute before ALC,

Vaso-da-Gama the oppoent unlawfully changed the service

conditions of the workman and compelled him to work

through contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from

May, 2004 onwards. The said contract agreement is sham,

bogus and mere camouflage to deprive the workman of his

right of permanency in the employment of the opponent.

They refused the work and wages to the workman w.e.f.

1.7.2005. The union by its letter dt. 2.7.2005 requested the

opponent to refrain from such unfair, unlawful practice.

However opponent failed to follow the provisions of law.

Therefore union has filed the complaint and prays for

declaration that the respondent is guilty under Section 33

of I.D. Act and liable for severe punishment as provided

under Section 33 of the I.D. Act and also prays that

workman be treated in continuous service with all

consequential benefits.

2. The Opponent management resisted the application

vide its say at Ex-7. According to them the Nhava Sheva

Port Union, Mumbai has no locus standi to raise industrial

dispute in the matter. The complaint is false, frivolous and

vicious and not tenable under Section 33 of the I.D. Act.

According to the management the workman was employee

of the contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises. His

contract was continued with the opponent till 1.7.2005.

Thereafter it was the responsibility of the contractor to

provide work to his employees. In short according to the

opponent the complainant workman was not their employee

and he was the employee of the contractor. Therefor the

complaint against the opponent is not tenable. They denied

that they have changed the service conditions of the

workman and compelled him to receive salary through

contractor M/s. Anand Shraddha Enterprises from May,

2004. They also denied that they refused the work and

wages to the workman from 1.7.2005 as has been alleged.

They denied all the allegations in the complaint and pray

that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

3. Following are the points for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr. No. Points

Findings

1. Whether the complainant has proved

Yes.

that the opponent has altered the services

conditions of the workman in question

during pendency of the industrial dispute?

2. What order?

As per order

below.

REASONS

Points No. 1:

4. In this respect I would like to point out that reference

between these parties was pending before this Tribunal

bearing No. Ref. CGIT-2/23 of 2005. It was decided in the

last month and the award is sent to the Labour Ministry for

publication. In the award this Tribunal held that, there exists

employer-employee relationship between the parties. The

reference was allowed and the management was directed

to regularize the services of the workman. The version of

the opponent in respect of their relationship is totally

unacceptable as while passing the award it is held that the

workman was working as the employee of the first party

since 29.8.2001. Admittedly the dispute was before A.L.C.

when the workman was directed to work under the

contractor and they had also refused the work and wages

w.e.f. 1.7.2005 when dispute was pending before this

Tribunal. No doubt, it amount to violation of Section 33 of

the I.D. Act. Thus it needs no further discussion to arrive

me at the conclusion that the opponent management is

guilty of unfair labour practice. Accordingly I decide this

point No. 1 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the

following order:

ORDER

(i) The change of service conditions of the workman

during pendency of dispute before the Labour

Commissioner was in contravention of Section 33-A

of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(ii) The opponent management is held guilty for unfair

labour practice.

Date: 30.12.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 Qjojh] 2014

dkñ vkñ 873.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj tujy eSustj ,.M

vnlZ] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] >kalh ds izca/kra= ds lac)

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 37@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@193@2002&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014

S.O. 873.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 37/2003) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2323

The General Manager and Others, BSNL, Jhansi and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 18.02.2014.

[No. L-40012/193/2002-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

DR. MANJU NIGAM,

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 37/2003

Ref. No. L-40012/193/2002-IR (DU) dated: 05.03.2003

BETWEEN

The Organizing Secretary

Bhartiya Gramin Mazdoor Sangh

115/193, A-2, Maswanpur

Kanpur (U.P.) 208019

(Espousing case of Shri Bhagwan Dass & 10 others)

AND

1. The General Manager (Staff) BSNL, Chabra Building Civil,

Lines, Jhansi.

2. Assistant General Manager BSNL, Jhansi.

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/193/2002-IR(DU) dated

05.03.2003 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delh in exercise of powers conferred by clause

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

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) referred this

industrial dispute between the Organizing Secretary,

Bhartiya Gramin Mazdoor Sangh, 115/193, A-2, Maswanpur

Kanpur and the General Manager (Staff), BSNL, Chabra

Building, Civil Lines, Jhansi & Assistant Manager, BSNL,

Jhansi for adjudication.

2. The referece under adjudication is:

"Whether the Action of the General Management

(Staff), BSNL, Jhansi in not Regularising the Services

of Sh. Bhagwan Dass S/o Sh. Ram Bhishon and 10

others (As Per List is Legal and Justified? If not to

what Reliefe the Workmen are Entitled to?"

3. The case of the workman's union in brief, is that the

workman, Bhagwan Dass and 10 others have been working

with the BSNL, Jhansi Division since 1996-97 as Daily Rated

Mazdoor @ Rs. 400/500 per month continuously, but the

management is not regularizing their services and not

grating them regular pay scales. It has been submitted that

the General Manager, BSNL, Jhansi has called for

informations about said workmen on 19.02.2001, which was

also provided to him even then nothing constructive has

been done by the department, in violation to the labour

laws. Accordingly, the workman's union has prayed that

the management by directed to regularize the services of

the workmen and they by granted pay scales as well as other

facilities at par the other workmen of the same category.

4. The management of the BSNL has denied the claim of

the workman's union by filing its written statement wherein

it has denied any relationship of master and servant between

the BSNL and the workmen as they have neither been

engaged by the management at any point of time nor they

are working with the opposite party, therefore their arise

not question of making payment etc. to the workmen. The

management has further stated that the information called

for regarding part time casual labours in the year 2000 has

no relationship with the workmen in the present case.

Accordingly, the management has prayed that the claim of

the workman's union be rejected as there exit no legal right

for regularization of their services or allowing them regular

pay scale.

5. The workman's union has filed rejoined; wherein it

has stated that there exist a relationship of master and

servant between the BSNL and the workman and has

provided details of date of engagement of the workmen. It

has further stated that the workmen have been working in

Maruanipur Sub-division and have worked for more than

240 days in each calender year from the date of their joining.

It has also stated that in this regard an advertisement was

also published to recruit that class IV employee on

26.07.2002.

6. The workman's union has filed phtocopy of the

voluminous documents vide list of documents dated

06.07.2003, paper No. A1-15 list dated 05.10.2004, paper

No. C-61. The union also filed original documents vide

lists dated 16.10.2008 paper No. C-93 and C-94, list dated

15.04.2009 , paper No. C-96, list dated 17.11.2009, paper No.

W-100 list dated 17.11.2009, paper No. W-101, list dated

15.04.2010, paper No. W-104. In rebuttal the management

filed photocpy of documents vide list dated 22.08.2003 paper

No. C-29. It also filed original documents vide dated

16.03.2004, paper No. C-36.

7. The workman's union has examined all the concened

workmen in support of their case; whereas the opposite

party has examied Shri A.K. Sarkar, Divisional Engineer in

support of their case. The parties cross examiner witnesses

of each other. Both the parties availed opportunity of oral

as well as written submissions.

8. Heard the representatives of the parties at length and

perused entire evidence on record.

9. The authorized representative of the Union has

contended that the workman have been working with the

2324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

opposite party since 1996-97 continuously as part time

casual labour; but the management of the BSNL did not

heed to their request for regularization; accordingly, they

made a complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Kanpur on 16.04.2002. Annoyed from this action,

the management terminated the services of the workmen

w.e.f. 30.03.2003 without assigning any reason or

retrenchment compensation. He has further contended that

the workman have worked for more than 240 days in each

calender year; but the management has not regularized the

services of the workmen, instead has terminated their

services w.e.f. 30.03.2003 in violation to provisions

contained in section 25F of I.D. Act, 1947 though the case

was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order

dated 26.03.2003.

10. Per contra the authorized representaitve has

contended that the opposite party is not an 'industry' within

the I.D. Act. It was further contended that the workmen

were not appointed following due procedure. Their name

had neither been sponsored by the Employment Exchange

nor they took up any test nor undergone any interview nor

were given any appointment order, therefore are not entitled

for regularization. In this regard it has relied on orders of

Hon'ble Supreme Court; wherein it has held that for

regularization it is necessary that appointment should be

proper, failing which it would lead to back door entry which

is not permissible.

11. I have scanned entire evidence on record in light of

rival contentions of the parties.

12. The authorized representative of the managment has

submitted that the BSNL is not an 'industry' within the

meaning of the I.D. Act. In this regard the workman has

relied on verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court in Banglore Water

Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs. A. Rajappa & others

case; wherein it has been observed that

" absence of profit motive on gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector."

Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that:

"Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

producton and/or distributon of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise."

It is admitted fact that the BSNL, a Government of India

undertaking, provides telecommunication services to the

public and generates revenue therefrom and for the same a

concerted effort is required. It is not indulged in any

sovereign function as there are so many companies

providing same facilities. Thus, from over all activities

conducted and services sprovided by the BSNL, it comes

out that it qualifies the triple test, formulated by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board

etc. vs. A. Rajappa & others case. Thus, in view of above

legal prepositions the argument of the authorized

representative of the management find no substance that

the opposite party is an industry.

13. During the course of the argument, the authorized

representative of the managment has taken objection that

the present industrial dispuste has been expoused by the

Bhartiya Gramin Mazdoor Sangh, which withdrawn the

dispute before this Tribunal. It has further submitted that

after withdrawal of the case, the present dispute is being

espoused by some other union, which is not reecognized

by the BSNL, and during proceedings the management

objected this fact. In this regard, it is noteworthy to mention

that this issue of representation has salready been resolved

by my predecessor vide order dated 23.11.2004 observing

that

“the matter has been referred to the CGIT for

adjudication. The issue has to be adjudicated by CGIT.

The CGIT-cum-Labour Court is not dependent upon the

mercy of trade union for adjudicating the reference. It will

be miscarriage of justice if worker's interest is not taken

into account on technical ground. The worker's claim cannot

be thrown out. If the workers opt to be represented by

some other trade union, they have right to do so. The

principal object is that there should not be any miscarriage

of justice."

Also, it is evident from the proceedings and the material

available on record that the opposite party has not preferred

any writ or appeal before an appropriate court, therefore,

the matter of representation has attained finality.

14. The authorized representative of the management

has argued that the workman whose initial appointment is

not in accordance with Recruitment Rules cannot claim

regularization. It has also contended that this Tribunal

cannot go beyond the scope of schedule of reference and

has to confined itself within the limit of the order of

reference while adjudicating a matter referred to it. In this

regard it has relied on Municipal Employees' Union &

another vs. Secretary (Labour), Government of N.C.T. of

Delhi & another 2001 (89) FLR 360 Hon'ble Delhi High Court

taking terms of reference into consideration has observed

that the Industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the terms

of reference. Terms of reference should invariably

encompass the entire dispute between the workman and

the management.

15. In the instant case the terms of reference are

regarding adjudicating the validity of the action of the

management of the BSNL in not regularizing the services

of the workmen concerned and the statement of the claim

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2325

filed by the workman's union is also regarding not

regularizing the workmen who were working the employer

for long. The prayer made to this tribunal is for the grant of

regularization. But from the perusal of the record it is

revealed that they have never made any oral or written

request from the management to get their services

regularized. The workmen in the affidavit have also stated

that their services have been terminated w.e.f. 30.03.2003

for which they have raised an industrial dispute under

Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for alleged

violation of provisions contained in Section 33 of the I.D.

Act, 1947 before this Tribunal, which was registered as

industrial disputes No. 65/2004.

16. Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

empowers the Labour Tribunal to adjudicate upon a

compliant regarding change in service condition of a

workman during pendency of proceedings. The provisions

of Section 33A of the Act are quoted hereunder:

33A. Special provision for adjudication as to whether

conditions of service, etc., changed during pendency

of proceedings. — Where an employer contravenes

the provisions of section 33 during the pendency of

proceedings before a conciliation officer, Board, an

arbitrator Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal

any employee aggrieved by such contravention, may

make a complaint in writing, in the prescribed

manner,—

(a) to such conciliation offcer or Board, and the

conciliation officer or Board shall take such

compliant into account in mediating in, and

promoting the settlement of, such industrial

dispute; and

(b) to such arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal or

National Tribunal and on receipt of such

compliant, the arbitrator, Labour Court,

Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may

be, shall adjudicate upon the compliant as if it

were a dispute referred to or pending before it,

in accordance with the provisions of this Act

and shall submit his or its award to the

appropriate Government and the provisions

of this Act shall apply accordingly.

It is pertinent to mention here that after hearing this

Tribunal vide its order dated 18.02.2013 held that the

management of BSNL terminated the services of the

workmen, in violation to the provisions of Section 33A

during pendency of the industrial dispute before this

Tribunal; and accordinly directed the management to

reinstate the workmen on the ground that the services of

the workman have been terminated by the management of

the BSNL during pendency of the proceedings before this

Tribunal in the present industrial dispute, without seeking

any permission from this Tribunal in this regard.

17. The workmen's case is that they have been working

with the management of BSNL since year 1996-97 as daily

rated workers and the management has not regularized their

services; rather it has terminated their services without

any notice of compensation in lieu thereof in violation of

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. The management of

the BSNL has disputed their claim regarding appointment

at any point of time. The workmen have filed voluminous

documents, some of them are photocopies and some are

original registers, showing their engagement and working

details with the management; but the management has

disputed their genuineness. The management has

specifically stated that the certificates of working, relied

upon by the workman, Bhagwan Das has been procured

by foul play as the person who issued said certificate of

woking, paper No. 4, has been issued by Shri Ram Kishun

who is father of the workman, Bhagwan Das and this factum

has been admitted by the workman during his evidence.

Hence, in view of the denial of the management regarding

alleged engagement of the workmen by the BSNL, it was

incumbent upon the workmen to corroborate their pleading

that they have been engaged by the opposite party and

were in their services on the date of their alleged termination.

The documentary evidence filed by the workman either

photocopy or the original registers, for proving their

engagement with the management, have been disputed by

the management. The workman has also moved an

application dated 24.09.2004, paper No. C-57 for summoning

documents to prove their engagement and working with

the management. The workmen by the way of application,

C-57 has tried to summon employees attendance register,

engine register, store register, postal receipt register etc. to

substantiate that they have been working with the

management for long time; and this Tribunal vide its order

dated. 23.11.2004 directed the management to file the

documents required by the workmen; but the management

of the BSNL failed to produce any nor it filed any affidavit

for non-production of the documents summoned from it.

From perusal of the documents filed by the workmen

have been working since 1996 to 31.12.2001; whereas the

workmen's witness has stated that they have worked up to

March, 2003. The workman viz. Ishwar Prasad, Narendera

Kumar Sharma, Dilip Kumar, Ravinder Kumar, Prem Narayan,

Bahoran Pal very specifically stated that their names were

not sponsored by the Employment Exchange; whereas all

of them have stated that neither any appointment letter

was given to them nor they were appointed against any

advertisement nor undergone any test or interview. The

union has filed photocopy of an advertisement, published

in Rozgaar Sangrah dated 26.07.2002, paper No. 15/27

calling for applications for various post in BSNL; however

it could not file any document to show that the workmen

concerned were engaged against any advertisement etc.

or their name has been called from the Employment

Exchange or they undergone any procedure for recruitment.

2326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Most of the workmen have also stated that they started

working with the BSNL at the oral instructions of the SDO

as part time labour and they were not given any order in

writing either at the time of engagment or while terminating

their services. They have also stated that they did not

make any request or application before the management to

regularize their services before instituting the present

industrial dispute.

18. As regard relief of regularization, the management

has relief on National Fertilizers Ltd. Vs. Somvir Singh 2006

(110) FLR 211 wherein the workmen were appointed without

any advertisement and without any intimation to the

employment exchange, the Hob'ble Supreme Court held

that the appointments of the workmen was illegal and they

do not have any legal right to continue in service.

19.From the evidence on record it is evident that the

workmen whose cause has been espoused in the present

reference were engaged by SDO or any person who had no

authority to engage as casual labour. Further there was

neither any advertisement not their names were sponsored

by any Employment Exchange nor they were given any

written order regarding appointment or termination of their

services. As per their own version, when the present

dispute was referred to this Tribunal vide dated 05.03.2003,

the workmen were in the service of the BSNL and

subsequently, terminated from the services w.e.f. 30.03.2003.

But the issue of termination is neither agitated in the present

reference nor the union moved any application for

amendment in the schedule of reference before the

appropriate government nor has moved any application

for amendment in the statement of claim for incorporation

of fact of termination Rather, it has agitated the same under

Section 33A of the I.D. Act,. 1947 before this Tribunal.

Accordingly in view of the discussions made above and

law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Municipal

Employees' Union & another Vs. Secretary (Labour).

Government of N.C.T. of Delhi & another 2001 (89) FLR

360 has limit it self with the matter of regularization of the

workmen. The workmen have come up with the case that

they have been working with the management of BSNL

since 1996-97 as Daily Mazdoor continuously and their

services have not been regularized by the management. In

this regard the workman has relief on the letter of Dy. General

Manager (A)o/o the Chief General Manger Telecom, U.P.

(East) Circle, Lucknow dated- 09/2000, paper No. 58/2, which

is addressed to the GM TD, Jhansi regarding conversion

of part time casual labourers working for less than four

hours per day into full time casual laboursers. The

management through said letter has sought details of "Part

time casual labourers" who may be considered for

conversion into full time casual labourers; whereas the

case of the workmen is not of a "part time casual labour"

instead they have come up with the case that they are daily

rated mazdoors; hence their case is not covered within the

circumference of the said letter. There is no other reliable

material on record, which goes to show that there was any

scheme prevalent in the BSNL to regularize the services of

the casual workers. Thus, the workmen's union has also

failed to show that there was any scheme or notification

for grant of regularization to such daily rated mazdoors/

workers.

20. Regarding regularization of casual labours who are

engaged/appointed and continued for long in public

employment the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of

Karnataka and other vs. Umadevi (3) and other 2006 4

SCC 1 has observed as under:

"It has also to be clarified that merely because a

temporary employee or a casual wage worker is

continued for a time beyond the term of his

appointment, he would not be entitled to be

absorbed in regular services or made permanent,

merely on the strength such continuance, if the

original appointment was not made by following a

due process of selection as envisaged by the

relevant rules.......The High Courts acting under

Article 226 of the Constitution, should not ordinarily

issue directions for absorption, regularizatin, or

permanent continuance unless the recruitment itself

was made regularly and in terms of the

constitutional scheme."

21. Thus, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex

Court hereinabove, the workmen in the instant case were

not appointed in the BSNL after observing the due

procedure for engagement/appointment of casual workers,

are entitled for regularization. Accordingly, the reference

under adjudication, is adjudicated against the workmen's

union and I come to the conclusion that the workmen

concerned are not entitled for any relief.

23 Award as above

LUCKNOW

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

06th February, 2014

ubZ fnYyh] 18 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 874.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj] bafM;u

osVjujh fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] cjSyh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,o Je U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 67@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

18@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ 42012@75@2000&vkbZ vkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014

S.O. 874.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2327

hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 67/2000) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Lucknow

now shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

The Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Bareilly

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

18/02/2014.

[No.L-42012/75/2000-IR(DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

Dr. MANJU NIGAM,

Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 67/2000

Ref. No. L-42012/75/2000/IR(DU) dated: 31/07/2000

BETWEEN

Sh. Ram Das S/o Sh. Parsadi Lal

R/o Mohanpur Urf Ram nagar

PO: University

Bareilly (U.P.)

AND

Director

Indian Veterinary Research Instt.

Izatnagar

Bareilly (U.P.)

AWARD

1. By order No. L-42012/75/2000-IR (DU) dated:

31/07/2000 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

16.10.2005, 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 Sh. Ram Das S/o Sh. Parsadi

Lal, R/o Mohanpur Urf Ram nagar, PO: University, Bareilly

U.P. and the Director, Indian Veterinary Research Instt.,

Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar Bareilly in

terminating the services of Sh. Ram Das s/o Sh.

Parsadi Lal, Ex-daily wager w.e.f. 17/2/95 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled

and from which date?”

3. The case of the workman, Ram Das, in brief, is that he

was engaged/appointed as regular labour on 01.11.1989

for maintenance work; and he worked accordingly, on initial

salary/wages @ Rs. 17.35 per day, which was subsequently

enhanced to Rs. 21.65 per day. It has been alleged by the

workman that his services have been terminated w.e.f.

17.02.1995 by the management without assigning any

reason, notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. The workman

has submitted that he worked continuously with the

management of IVRI since his appointment; and

accordingly, his termination of services are violative of the

provisions contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. He further alleged that the management

did not follow ‘last come first go’ principle in terminating

his services, which resulted into violation of provisions of

Section 25G of the Act. Accordingly, the workman has

prayed that he be reinstated with consequential benefits

including full back wages.

4. The management of the IVRI has disputed the claim

of the workman and filed its written statement; wherein it

has stated that the workman had been engaged as casual

labourer as per need of the institute to carry out casual

nature of work. It has submitted that the casual mazdoors

are engaged for 40 days at a time, 100 days in six months or

200 days in a year and their engaged comes to an end with

time period for engagement or completion of the work they

are engaged for; hence, there is no termination of the

services of the workman by the management as the termed

engagement of the workman came to an end on the

completion of the specified work, therefore, there is no

retrenchment and no violation of provision of Section 25 F

of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. It is also submitted by

the management that the workman never worked for 240

days in any calendar year or preceding 12 months in the

institution. Apart from this the management has taken

various preliminary objections, such as, the reference is

bad in the eye of law as the IVRI is not covered section 2

(a) (i) of the Act hence the reference order is bad in the eye

of law, vague and without jurisdiction. Further, it has also

objected regarding the jurisdiction of this Court on the

basis that the present dispute is not an índustrial dispute’

within the meaning of section 2A read with section 2 (k) of

the Act; hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present dispute. Likewise, the management

has submitted that the workman has already remedy in

respect of regularization before, Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and Hon’ble Apex

Court, therefore they cannot raise any demand with regard

to their regularization before this Tribunal; hence on this

ground also the reference is bad in the law and without

jurisdiction. The management has also pleaded that the

claim is stale one; hence barred by the limitation. It has

also submitted that the applicant does not come under the

definition of ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2 (s) of the

Act. Likewise it is also submitted by the management that

it is a purely ‘Scientific Institute and is undertaking research

and extension activities on agriculture and animal; hence

2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

not covered in the definition of ‘Industry’ as provided in

the Section 2J of the Act. Accordingly the management of

the IVRI has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected without any claim of the workman be rejected

without any relief of the workman concerned.

5. The workman has field rejoinder whereby apart from

reiterating his averments in the statement of claim and has

stated that he had been engaged as labourer and worked

with the IVRI for many years and he is fully covered with

the definition of workman under Act. Also, he has stated

that IVRI is not a purely research institution, but is a big

educational and commercial place; and it comes within the

triple test formulated by the Banglore Water Supply case

hence it is an industry within the meaning of provisions of

Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. Moreover, the workman has

submitted that all the preliminary objections raised by the

management be taken up at the time disposing of the case

on merits.

6. The parties have filed documentary proof in support

of their respective cases. The workman has examined himself

whereas the management examined Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta,

AAO in support of their respective stands. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other’s

witnesses. The parties were provided ample opportunity

to forward oral arguments; but they failed to put any since

29.05.2003; moreover, the parties are not turning up since

21.12.2010, therefore, the case was reserved for award,

keeping in view the reluctance of the parties to argue their

case and long pendency of the case since 2000.

7. Perused entire evidence on record and gone through

respective pleadings of the parties.

8. The workman has stated that he had been engaged as

regular labourer with the opposite party and he worked for

more than 240 days in each calendar year during his

engagement; but his services have been terminated without

following the due procedure of the Section 25F of the Act.

He has stated that he was neither give any written order

regarding appointment nor any termination order was

served upon by the management. He also stated that the

provisions of Section 25G were not complied with while

terminating his services by retaining the services of the

juniors.

9. In rebuttal, the management witness has stated that

in order to meet the temporary needs, casual/daily rated

employees are engaged from time to time to meet the

exigency of the work by calling their names from

Employment Exchange. It is also stated by the management

witness that in respect of casual labourers there is no intere

seniority amongst them and they are purely engaged on

the availability of the work and the workman workman

worked as casual labour for a specific period in the IVRI. In

cross-examination the management witness admitted that

in IVRI, vaccine for animal etc. was prepared and sold.

10. I have scanned entire evidence available on record

in the light of the aforesaid rival stands of both the sides.

11. The management of the IVRI has takn plea that the

claim of the workman is barred by the limitation being stale

one, as the same has been raised after a long gap for which

no explanation has been forwarded by the workman. In

this regard it is stated that the provisions of Limitation Act

are not applicable on the industrial disputes under the Act;

but it is expected from the litigants to invoke the jurisdiction

of the court well in time. In the instant case, it is apparent

from the pleadings of the parties that the workman first

approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal for

redressal of his grievances; and thereafter, he made an

effort to get a reference from the Central Government and

this process starts first by making a complaint before the

conciliation Officer and then on failure of the conciliation,

the reference is made to this Tribunal. Moreover, more than

two dozen cases of similar nature which were referred in

the year 2000 along with the present case, have already

been adjudicated, therefore, in view of the discussions

made hereinabove, this Tribunal tends to adjudicate the

present industrial dispute on merit in spite of rejecting the

same on the point of limitation.

12. Further, the management of the IVRI in its written

statement has taken many preliminary objections regarding

validity of the reference order and jurisdiction of this

Tribunal to adjudication the present industrial dispute. In

this regard it is well appreciated that the present industrial

dispute has been referred to this Tribunal by the

appropriate Government i.e. Central Government, in exercise

of powers conferred under Clause (d) of the sub-section

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

Tribunal Act, 1947 and this Tribunal has to answer the

schedule of reference, referred to it.

The Section 2A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 reads

as under:

“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be

deemed to be an industrial dispute.—(1) Where any

employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or

otherwise terminates the services of an individual

workman, any dispute or difference between that

workman and his employer connected with, or arising

out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor

any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.’’

The present dispute relates to the termination of the

services of the workman and bare reading of Section 2A, it

comes out that the same is well covered within the

provisions contained in Section 2A; and also, the

management has never challenged the reference order

before competent Court. The reference has been referred

to this Tribunal by the Central Government to answer and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2329

it has no power to refuse the same or to sit in appeal against

the order of reference. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs.

Hindustan Steel Employees Union & Ors. 1988 (78) FLR

293 it has been observed as under:

“Court has to see substance and not form of order.

Formal defects in citation of reference order would

not oust jurisdiction of Tribunal. If the Government

inadvertently or wrongly or even deliberately

commits the dispute for adjudication under Section

2(K) of the Act, the Tribunal has still power for

adjudication if from material I could be said that the

dispute has come into existence under Section 2A of

the Act by operation of law. The Tribunal in doing

so, would not go beyond the term of reference as the

term of reference was whether the termination of

service was justified or not justified.’’

Hence, in view of the law cited and discussions made

hereinabove. I am of the opinion that the preliminary

objection of the management as regard validity of the

reference order and jurisdiction of this Court has no force.

13. The opposite party has also taken the objection that

the applicant is not a workman as defined in the Section 2

(s) (iv) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The workman has denied the

contention of the management Section 2 (s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘workman’ as under:

2. “(s) workman” means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i) ......

(ii) .........

(iii) .......

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees]

per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of

the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.”

In this regard the onus was on the management to come

forward with evidence such as details of work liabilities in

respect of workman and powers conferred upon him to

show that the applicant was actually engaged in managerial

or supervisiorial work; but the management has utterly

failed to do so, in as much as, apart from the pleading it has

not corroborated the same with cogent documentary

evidence. On the contrary from the statement of the

management withness. Shri S.K. Gupta. AAO vide para 14

of his affidavit it is clear that the applicant was engaged as

Daily wages causal worker for seasonal/intermittent nature

of workman in IVRI. Also, it is not denied that the workman

had not worked with the opposite party; the onus is on the

opposite party to explain in what capacity he has been

inducted with the opposite party, which puts him out of

the purview of the definition of ‘workman’. Therefore on

the basis of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion

that the applicant is ‘workman’ as defined in the Section 2

‘s’ of the Act.

14. The seconnd objection taken by the management of

IVRI is that it is not an industry within the meaning of

Section 2 ‘j’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this

regard the parties have relied on verdict of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Banglore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. vs.

A. Rajappa & others case: wherein it has been observed

that

“absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.”

Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that

“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise.”

The management has come up with the case that the

IVRI is a Research Institute engaged in purely research

work of public importance and it is discharging the function

which is neither domestic nor commercial in nature.It has

taken plea that the main purpose of IVRI is to carry on

research work on various project entrusted to it by the

Government of India etc. for which special grant in aid is

received for meeting out expenses and it has to not qualified

the various tests which may put its activities as an

‘Industry’. In rebuttal, the workman has pleaded that the

IVRI is not a purely research institution, but is a an

educational commercial place where number of medicines

are being manufactured and sold by the opposite party,

and in addition to this milk agricultural equipments, animal

flesh, eggs are also being sold; as such, it is not correct to

say that IVRI is only a research institute as it is indulged in

commercial activities too; hence comes within the purview

of ‘Industry’. The management withness, Sh. Sunil Kumar

Gupta, AAO in his cross-examination has admitted that

vaccines for animal etc. are being manufactured in IVRI

and same are being sold.

2330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case

and above legal prepositions, I am of considered opinion

that the opposite party management i.e. Indian Veterinary

Research Institute is indulged in commercial activity also

and not only discharging sovereign function of the State;

and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the opposite

party is an ‘inudstry’ within the provisions of Section 2 (j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15. Coming to the merit of the case, admittedly no

appointment letter was issued to the workman also there is

no iota of evidence that the workman had been engaged

with the IVRI following due procedure for engagement of

the casual labour. It has come in the evidence of the

management that the workman had been appointed to carry

out the casual nature of intermittent work. The management

has come up with the details of working of the workman.

The workman filed photo copy of documents in support of

his contention, as under:

(i) Certificate of working from 13.09.90 to 27.10.90

(ii) Certificate of working from 01.11.90 to 10.12.90 &

13.12.90 to 21.01.91.

(iii) Certificate of working from 13.05.91 to 02.06.91,

24.06.91 to 02.08.91, 05.08.91 to 03.08.91.

(v) Certificate of working from 20.02.92 to 30.03.92,

02.04.92 to 11.05.92 & 14.05.92 to 22.05.92.

(vi) Certificate of working from 24.08.92 to 19.09.92,

22.09.92 to 31.10.92 and 03.11.92 to 11.11.92.

(vii) Certificate of working from 08.02.93 to 19.03.93,

22.03.93 to 30.04.93 and 03.05.93 to 12.05.93.

(viii) Certificate of working from 11.07.93 to 29.07.93.

(ix) Photo copy of muster rolls

(x) Photo copy of advertisement

(ix) Correspondences and memorandums.

16. The workman has come up with a case that he worked

continuously for more 240 days in a calendar year even

then his services have been terminated in violation to the

provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar

Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai Hon’ble

Appex Court came to the conclusion that where the

workman failed to prove that he had been in employment

with the employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly,

he is no entitled to protection in compliance of section

25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry

before the Labour Court was confined only to 12 months

preceding the date of termination to decide the question of

the continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex

Court has observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or

engagement for that year to show that he has worked

with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It

is not well settled that it is for the claimant to lead

evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days

in a year preceding his temination.”

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory

provisions contained in section 25 F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case there is no iota

of evidence to show that the workmen worked for 240 days

with the management of the IVRI in twelve calendar months

preceding the date of termination. The workman has filed

photocopy of few working certificates and Muster Rolls in

respect of his working with the opposite party. The workman

himself has filed detail of total working period of working,

prepared on the basis of Registraction Card for casual

workers and certificates issued to him, paper No. 07. For

proper adjudication of this case this Tribunal has to

confined to the working details of the workman for the

twelve months preceding the date of alleged termination

i.e. 17.02.1995. The details of working of the workman, in

the preceding twelve months i.e. 18.02.94 to 17.02.1995 is

as under :

S. No. Duration

No of days worked

12.03.94 to 31.03.94

01.04.94 to 30.04.94

Total

From above working detail, provided by the workman

himself, it is very much clear that the workman did not

completed total working for 240 days in the year preceding

his alleged termination so as to make it mandatory for the

management to comply with the provisions of Section 25 F

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workman has

utterly failed to substantiate this fact that he worked for

240 days in a year preceding the termination.

17. It is well settled that if a party challenges the legality

of order the burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the

order and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking

jurisdiction of the court must fail. In the present case burden

was on the workman to set out the grounds to challenge

the validity of the termination order and to prove the

termination order was illegal. It was the case of the workman

that he had worked for 240 days in the year concerned.

This claim has been denied by the management, therefore,

it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that he

had in fact worked up to 240 days in the year preceding his

alleged termination. In (2002) 3 SCC 25 Range Forest Office

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2331

vs S.T. Hadimani Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as

under:

“It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked

but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was

then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that

he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year

preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is

only his own statement in his favour and that cannot

be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or

tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman

had, in fact, worked for 240 days or order or record of

appointment or engagement for that period was

produced by the workman. On this ground alone,

the award is liable to be set aside.”

18. Analyzing its earlier decisions on the aforesaid point

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed in 2006 (108) FLR R.M.

Yellatti & Asstt. Executive Engneer as follow:

“It is clear that the provisions of the evidence Act in

terms do not apply to the proceedings under section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, appliying

general principles and on reading the aforestated

judgments we find that this Court has repeatedly

taken the view that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked 240 days in a

given year. This burden is discharged only upon the

workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is

discharged upon the workman adducing cogent

evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of

termination of services of daily wages earner, there

will be no letter of appointment or termination. There

will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus, in

most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call

upon the employer to produce before the Court the

nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of

appointment or termination, if any, the wages register,

the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse

inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts

of each case. The above decisions however make it

clear that mere affidavits or self serving statements

made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the

matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on

the workman to prove that he had worked for 240

days in a given year. The above judgments further

lay down that mere non production of muster rolls

per se without any plea of suppression by the

claimant workman will not be the ground for the

tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the

management.”

In the present case the workman has stated that he has

worked continously for 240 days, but has not corroborated

the same with cogent evidence. The burden is on the

workman to show by the way of cogent evidence that he

actually worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months

from the date of his alleged termination. From the working

details, provided by the workman himself, vide paper No 7

to 7/3, it comes out that he had actually worked for 46 days

only in the preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged

termination. Mere pleadings are no substitute for proof.

Initial burden of establishing the fact of containous work

for 240 days in a year preceding the date of alleged

termination was on the workman but he failed to discharge

the above burden. There is no reliable material for recording

findings that the workman had worked for 240 days in the

preceding year from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

18.02.94 to 17.02.1995. and the alleged unjust or illegal

order of termination was passed by the management.

19. Accordingly, in view of the law cited and discussions

made hereinabve, the refernce under adjudication is

answered positively with the observation that the action

of the opposite party in terminating the services of the

workman w.e.f. 17.02.1995 is neither illegal nor unjstified

and the workman, Ram Das is not entitled to any relief.

20. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

21. Award as above.

Lucknow

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 875.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947] ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj lhfu;j lqifjUVsUMsUV]

iksLV vkWfQl] nsgjknwu fMohtu ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 43@2004½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&40012@158@2003&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñdsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014

S.O. 875.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 43/2004) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow

now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

The Senior Superintendent, Post Office Dehradun Division

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2014.

[No. L-40012/158/2003-IR (DU)]

P.K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

2332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW

PRESENT

DR. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 43/2004

Ref. No. L-40012/158/2003-IR (DU) dated: 19.04.2004

BETWEEN

Shri Inder Singh, S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh

Village & Post Office—Mazagoan Kavanu,

Distt.-Dehradun

AND

The Senior Superintendent

Post Office, Dehradun Division,

Dehradun

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/158/2003-IR (DU) dated,

19.04.2004 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 Shri Inder Singh, S/o

Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Village & Post Office-Mazagoan

Kavanu, Distt-Dehradun and the Senior Superintendent,

Post Office, Dehradun Division, Dehradun for adjudication

to this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,

Dehradun in Terminating the services of Shri Inder

Singh S/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh, Shakha Dakpal w.e.f.

22/5/98 is legal and just? If not to what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman,

Inder Singh had been appointed as Branch Post Master

with the opposite party Post office w.e.f. 29.07.94 and he

was served upon a charge sheet dated 20.03.98 for the

misconduct of misappropriation and consequently his

services have be terminated w.e.f. 22.05.98 vide impugned

order dated 22.05.98.

4. The workman in his statement of claim has stated that

he submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 20.03.98

as per advice of the his higher officer and has alleged that

the management arbitrarily terminated his services without

following due procedures of law i.e. did not concudct any

inquiry or provided him a chance to defend himself, which

was flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice.

Accordingly, the workman has prayed that the action of

the management in terminating his services vide impugned

order dated 22.05.98 be set aside and he be reinstated with

full back wages; continuity in services and other

consequential benefits.

5. The management, denying the allegations of the

workman has submitted that the workman received Rs. 20

on 25.6.95 and Rs. 50 on 26.6.95 against R.D. A/Cs and

though he entered the amounts in respective pass books;

but did not deposit said amount with the department; and

thus he had misappropriated the amount, which was

submitted back by him on 17.02.98 with interest amount to

Rs. 115. The management has further submitted that the

above misconduct led to issuance of charge sheet dated

20.03.98, which was accepted by the workman vide his

reply dated 11.04.98 and resultantly, he was terminated vide

order dated 22.05.98. Moreover, the management has

pleaded that the establishment of Post Office is not an

industry as envisaged by the various verdicts of the

Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, the management has also

pleaded that the workman does not come within the

definition of workman. Accordingly, the management has

prayed that the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected

as not maintabinable and devoid of merit.

6. The workman has field its rejoinder; wherein apart

from reiterating the averments already made in the statement

of claim, the workman has submitted that the he had been

posted as Branch Post Master and was not allotted any

supervisory or managerial work, therefore, he is covered

within the meaning of ‘workman’ as provided in

Section 2 ‘s’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of

their rival contentions. The workman examined himself and

one Shri Soorat Singh whereas the management examined

Shri G.D. Arya, Assistant Suptd. of Post Offices in support

of their claim. The parties availed opportunity to cross-

examine the each other’s witnesses. The management’s

witness was cross-examined on 18.2.2011 and with that the

management concluded its evidence and accordingly,

26.4.2010 was fixed for argument. Since then the case is

being fixed for argument for the reasons that the

adjournments were sought by the either parties at one

pretext or the other. The workman’s authorized

representative argued its case on 25.11.2011; but the

management refrained to do so. On 20.09.2012 the authorized

representative of the management moved an application

for rehearing, which was allowed and the case was fixed for

27.09.2012; but once again the management’s representative

failed to appear before this court and forward its arguments.

Since then the management kept absent on several dates,

which resulted into reserving of present file for award,

keeping in view reluctance of the management and long

pendency of the case since year 2004.

8. Heard the representative of the workman only and

perused entire material on record.

9. The authorized representative of the workman has

argued that after issuance of the charge sheet for alleged

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2333

misconduct of misappropriation, it was responsibility of

the management to get its charge sheet proved by

appointing an Inquiry Officer, who might have inquired

into the charges after giving full and adequate opportunity

to the workman to defend himself; but the management of

the post office failed to observe this norm. It failed to

conduct a formal enquiry; wherein the complainants/

aggrieved were niether produced nor the workman was

given any opportunity to cross examine them. He has further

argued that the so called statement/admission of the

workman was not recorded by the Inquiry Officer; likewise,

the other witness whose written statements have been

relied upon by the management were neither produced

before the Inquiry Officer nor the workman had access to

them for their cross examined even then, the Disciplinary

Authority, relying on their statement, penalized the workman

with the punishment of removal from service.

10. No oral argument has been forwarded by the

management. The management has taken plea that the

establishment of Post Office does not come within the

purview of ‘industry’ as defined in Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act

and the applicant is not a ‘workman’ within the provisions

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as he was Extra

Departmental Branch Post Master. It has further pleaded

that consequent to admission of the workman vide dated

11.04.98, there was no need of conducting any formal

enquiry into the case of the applicant, hence, there is

nothing illegal or infirm with the impugned order, removing

the workman from service or the appellate order, rejecting

appeal of the workman.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

submissions of the authorized representative of the

workman, pleading of the management and entire evidence

adduced by the either parties, documentary as well as oral.

12. The case of the workman in nut shell is that the as

per settled law of the land and procedure on occurrence of

the misconduct and issuance of the charge sheet, it was

incumbent upon the management to conduct a formal

inquiry by appointing an Inquiry Officer and the workman

was required to be given a notice to appeal before it and

defend his cause; but the management in haste failed to

observe this basic principle of natural justice. It relied upon

the written statement of the workman, which was taken by

misrepresentation, and statements of the other witnesses,

to whom the workman had no opportunity to get them

cross examined. This was not only deviation from the

procedure of law regarding conducting an inquiry into the

misconduct but also denial of proper defence to the

workman. The management passed the impugned order

dated 22.05.98 without observing above mandatory

formalities. Moreover, the workman has challenged the

validity of impugned order on the ground that no complaint

was ever made by any one and also that no such

complainant was ever produced before an independent

Inquiry Officer for recording its evidence/statement or his

cross-examination by the workman. However, the pleadings

of the workman are well supported by one of the depositor

viz. Shri Soorat Singh.

13. Per contra, the case of the management rests on the

plea that it is not and industry and the applicant is not a

workman with the Act; and further that in view of the

admission of the workman regarding alleged misconduct,

there was no need to conduct a formal enquiry.

14. Hon’ble Apex Court in Banglore Water Supply &

Sewerage Board vs. A Rajappa & others (1978) 2 SCC 213

case has observed that

“absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.”

Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that

“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise.”

The workman has relied upon General Manager, Telecom

vs. S. Srinivasa Rao & others 1998 LLR 8; wherein it has

been held by Hon’ble Apex Court that the

Telecommunication Department is an ‘industry within the

definition of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 because it is engaged in a commercial activity and is

not discharging any of the sovereign functions of the State.

It is well known that the Department of Post is indulged

in transporting letters, money orders, parcels etc. from one

place to another within the country and overseas also and

for this they charge fee in form of postage stamp or in cash.

Thus, the safe movement of articles from one place to

another could be done only when it is systematic and there

exists proper management/co-operation between the

employer and employee of the department concerned.

Further, the services provided by the postal department is

very much to satisfy the human wants. Moreover, the

activity run by the postal department is no ‘sovereign’ in

the nature as similar services are being provided by other

various courier companies.

Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case

and above legal prepositions, I am of considered opinion

that the opposite party management i.e. post office is at

part with the other courier companies, indulge in commercial

activity and not engaged in any sovereign function of the

State; and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the

opposite party is an ‘industry’ within the provisions of

Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

15. As regarding the plea of the management that the

applicant is not a ‘workman’ within the provisions of the

Act, the applicant, Inder Singh has pleaded that he had

been posted as Branch Post Master and was not allotted

any supervisory or managerial work, therefore, he is

covered within the meaning of ‘workman’ as provided in

Section 2 ‘s’ of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and in

rebuttal the management has taken plea that the applicant

served the department under the category of Postal

Department E.D. and for him the E.D. (Services Conduct)

Rules, 1964 are applicable; but it failed to sustain its

contention by filing relevant Rules/guidelines. Thus, there

is no material on record to corroborate that the applicant

was covered with different Rules and his case is not

covered within the provisions of I.D. Act or that he is not a

workman within I.D. Act. Hence, I am of opinion that the

applicant is a ‘workman’, covered within definition of

Section 2 (s) of the Act.

16. Now coming to the merit of the case, the main

contention of the workman is that he had been removed by

the impugned order dated 22.05.98 after serving a charge

sheet for alleged misconduct of misappropriation, without

conducting any formal inquiry. The workman’s case is that

since there was no complaint from any corner. The

management relief upon the written statement of some

independent witness to whom he had no chance to cross-

examine. Since the management failed to observe this

general principle of natural justice and not afforded him

proper opportunity to defend himself, the impugned order

is bad in the eye of law. As regard his admission dated

11.04.98, the workman has come up with the case that the

same was obtained by the management through

misrepresentation/pressure. The management has

defended its move with the sole contention that consequent

to admission of the workman vide dated 11.04.98, there

was no need to go into inquiry etc.

17. It is settled law as well as undisputed procedure that

once a charge sheet has been issued and even there comes

admission from the side of charged official, even then the

same has to be recorded before Inquiry Officer had it been

recorded by an independent Inquiry Officer then the Inquiry

Officer might have warned him of the pros and cons of the

such ‘admission’ which the Inquiry Officer was supposed

to do. Moreover, when the charge sheet is out come of

some complaint, as in the present case it was written

statement of some witnesses, then those complainants are

ought to be produced before an independent Inquiry Officer,

for recording their statement and the workman had an

change to cross-examine them. Further, in absence of any

formal inquiry i.e. an inquiry into the charges by an

independent Inquiry Officer who affords all reasonable

opportunity to the workman to defend himself with full

access to peruse the documents relied upon by the

management and proper opportunity to cross examine the

witness whose statement were relied upon, it cannot be

said that the management’s move was just. The workman

has relied upon A. Karthikeyan vs. Managing Director,

TASMAC Ltd. Chennai & Others 2010 LLR 663; wherein

the services of the petitioner had been terminated without

enquiry. Hon’ble High Court setting aside the impugned

order, held it ‘not valid’, even if the petitioner has confessed

under pressure and has observed that such statement

cannot be basis for termination.

18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the charge sheet was

issued and an admission vide letter dated 11.04.98 was

obtained from the workman and thereafter relying on said

admission and written statements of the few other

witnesses the impugned order was passed. An admission

itself cannot be said to be a sufficient basis to prove the

charge sheet, particularly when it was not recorded by an

independent authority who might have explained him of

adverse effects of such admission. The workman could

not get an opportunity to cross-examine, examine those

persons viz. Shri Soorat Singh and Smt. Sundla Devi, who

filed complaint/statement regarding misappropriation/

misconduct by the workman since no inquiry was ever

conducted against the workman. The workman was

penalized/terminated without being getting any opportunity

to defend himself. The Disciplinery Authority while passing

the impugned order dated 22.5.98 moved only by the

statement of Shri Soorat Singh and Smt. Sundla Devi without

considering the fact that they have not been cross-examined

and as such acted in complete definance of principle of

natural justice. It is the fundamental rule of law that while

punishing a person at least an opportunity of hearing must

be given to him; but in the instant case this basic rule was

not observed by the management of Post office and the

workman was not given an opportunity of personal hearing

before terminating his services.

19. Thus, in view of the discussions made above and

facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion

that the action of the management of Sr. Supdt. of Post

Offices, Dehradun in terminating the services of the

workman, Inder Singh without conductig a formal inquiry

and providing adequate opportunity to the workman to

defend himself was illegal and unjustified.

20. As regard relief which may be extended to the

workman, the workman has relied on Zila Sahakari Kendriya

Bhank Mariyadit vs. Jadishchandra 2001 LLR 310; where

in a case a working after issuance of charge sheet for alleged

misconduct of embezzlement returned the money and his

termination was set aside on technical grounds that no

enquiry was conducted, Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the

reinstatement; but set aside the order for back wages.

Accordingly, keeping in view, the above legal position,

the workman shall be reinstated with consequential benefits

i.e. continuity etc. less any back wages.

21. Award as above.

Lucknow Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

16-4-2013

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2335

ubZ fnYYkh] 18 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 876.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj] bafM;u

osVjujh fjlpZ bafLVV~;wV] cjSyh ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV

¼lanHkZ la[;k 191@2000½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 18@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@148@2000&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014

S.O. 876.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 191/2000) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of The Director, Indian Veterinary Research

Institute, Bareilly and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 18/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/148/2000-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 191/2000

Ref. No. L-42012/148/2000/IR(DU), dated 10.10.2000

BETWEEN

Sh. Durg Vijay S/o Chandrika Gupta

R/o H.No. 344/C, N.M.C.

Izatnagar

Bareilly (U.P.)-243 001

AND

Director

Indian Veterinary Research Instt.

Izatnagar

Bareilly (U.P.) 243 001

AWARD

1. By order No. L-40012/72/2003-IR (DU) dated:

20/01/2004 and its subsequent corrigendum dated

16.10.2005. 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 Sh. Durg Vijay S/o Chandrika

Gupta, R/o H. No. 344/C, N.M.C. Izatnagar, Bareilly (U.P.)

and the Director, Indian Veterinary Research Instt., Izatnagar,

Bareilly (U.P.) for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of Indian

Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, bareilly in

terminating the services of Sh. Durg Vijay, ex-daily

wager w.e.f. 10.1.1994 is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled and from which

date?”

3. The case of the workman, Durg Vijay, in brief, is that

he was engaged/appointed as regular labour on 01.11.1989

and he worked accordingly, on salary/wages @ Rs. 17.35

per day. It has been alleged by the workman that his services

have been terminated w.e.f. 10.01.1994 by the management

without assigning any reason, notice or notice pay in lieu

thereof. The workman has submitted that he worked

continuously with the management of IVRI since his

appointment; and accordingly, his termination of services

are voilative of the provisions contained in Section 25F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further alleged that

the management did not follow ‘last come first go’ principle

in terminating his services, which resulted into violation of

provisions of Section 25 G of the Act. Accordingly, the

workman has prayed that he be reinstated with

consequential benefits including full back wages.

4. The management of the IVRI has disputed the claim

of the workman and filed its written statement; wherein it

has stated that the workman had been engaged as casual

labourer as per need of the institute to carry out casual

nature of work. It has submitted that the casual mazdoors

are engaged for 40 days at a time, 100 days in six months or

200 days in a year and their engaged comes to an end with

time period for engagement or completion of the work they

are engaged for; hence, there is no termination of the

services of the workman by the management as the termed

engagement of the workman came to an end on the

completion of the specified work, therefore, there is no

retrenchment and no violation of provision of Section 25F

of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. it is also submitted by

the management that the workman never worked for 240

days in any calendar year or preceding 12 months in the

institution. Apart from this the management has taken

various preliminary objections, such as, the reference is

bad in the eye of law as the IVRI is not covered section 2 (a)

(i) of the Act hence the reference order is bad in the eye of

law, vague and without jurisdiction. Further, it has also

objected regarding the jurisdiction of this Court on the

basis that the present dispute is not an ‘industrial dispute’

within the meaning of section 2A read with section 2 (k) of

the Act; hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present dispute. Likewise, the management

2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

has submitted that the workman has already availed remedy

in respect of regularization before, Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, and Hon’ble Apex

Court, therefore they cannot raise any demand with regard

to their regularization before this Tribunal; hence on this

ground also the reference is bad in the law and without

jurisdiction. The management has also pleaded that the

claim is stale one; hence, barred by the limitation. It has

also submitted that the applicant does not come under the

definition of ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the

Act. Likewise it is also submitted by the management that

it is a purely Scientific Institute’ and is undertaking research

and extension activities on agriculture and animal; hence

not covered in the definition of ‘Industry’ as provided in

the Section 2 J of the Act. Accordingly, the management of

the IVRI has prayed that the claim of the workman be

rejected without any claim of the workman be rejected

without any relief of the workman concerned.

5. The workman has field rejoinder whereby apart from

reiterating his averments in the statement of claim and has

stated that he had been engaged as labourer and worked

with the IVRI for many years and he is fully covered with

the definition of workman under Act. Also, he has stated

that IVRI is not a purely research institution, but is a big

educational and commercial place; and it comes within the

triple test formulated by the Bangalore Water Supply case

hence it is an industry within the meaning of provisions of

Section 2 ‘j’ of the Act. Moreover, the workman has

submitted that all the preliminary objections raised by the

management be taken up at the time disposing of the case

on merits.

6. The parties have filed documentary proof in support

of their respective cases. The workman has examined himself

whereas the management examined Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta,

AAO in support of their respective stands. The parties

availed opportunity to cross-examine the each other’s

witnesses. The parties were provided ample opportunity

to forward oral arguments; but they failed to put any since

01.10.2008; moreover, the parties are not turning up since

21.12.2010, therefore, the case was reserved for award,

keeping in view the reluctance of the parties to argue their

case and long pendency of the case since 2000.

7. Perused evidence on record; and gone though

respective pleadings of the parties.

8. The workman has stated that he was engaged as

regular labourer with the opposite party and he worked

for-more than 240 days in each calendar year during his

engagement; but his services have been terminated without

following the due procedure of the Section 25 F of the Act.

He has stated that he was neither given any written order

regarding appointment nor any termination order was

served upon him by the management. It was also stated

that the provisions of Section 25 G were not complied with

while terminating his services but retaining the services of

the juniors. In his cross-examination the workman has

denied that he worked only up to 10.08.93.

9. In rebuttal, the management witness has stated that

in order to meet the temporary needs, casual/daily rated

employees are engaged from time to time to meet the

exigency of the work by calling their names from

Employment Exchange. It is also stated by the management

witness that in respect of casual labourers three is no

interse seniority amongst them and they are purely engaged

on the availability of the work and the workman worked as

casual labour for a specific period in the IVRI. In cross-

examination the management witness admitted that in IVRI,

vaccine for animal etc. was prepared and sold.

10. I have scanned entire evidence available on record

in the light of the aforesaid rival stands of both the sides.

11. The management of the IVRI has taken plea that the

claim of the workman is barred by the limitation being stale

one, as the same has been raised after a long gap for which

no explanation has been forwarded by the workman. In

this regard it is stated that the provisions of Limitation Act

are not applicable on the industrial disputes under the Act;

but it is expected from the litigants to invoke the jurisdiction

of the court well in time. In the instant case, it is apparent

from the pleadings of the parties that the workman first

approached to the Central Administrative Tribunal for

redressal of his grievances; and thereafter, he made an

effort to get a reference from the Central Government and

this process starts first by making a complaint before the

Conciliation Officer and then on failure of the conciliation,

the reference is made to this Tribunal. Moreover, more than

two dozen cases of similar nature, which were referred in

the year 2000 along with the present case, have already

been adjudicated, therefore, in view of the discussions

made hereinabove, this Tribunal tends to adjudicate the

present industrial dispute on merit in spite of rejecting the

same on the point of limitation.

12. Further, the management of the IVRI in its written

statement has taken so many preliminary objections

regarding validity of the reference order and jurisdiction of

this Tribunal to adjudication the present industrial dispute.

In this appreciated that the present industrial dispute has

been referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate

Government i.e. Central Government, in exercise of powers

conferred under Clause (d) of the sub-section (1) and sub-

section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Tribunal Act,

1947 and this Tribunal has to answer the schedule of

reference, referred to it.

The Section 2A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947 reads

as under:

“2A. Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be

deemed to be an industrial dispute.—(1) Where any

employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or

otherwise terminates the services of an individual

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2337

workman, any dispute or difference between that

workman and his employer connected with, or arising

out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

termination shall be deemed to be an industrial

dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor

any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.”

The present dispute relates to the termination of the

services of the workman and bare reading of Section 2A, it

comes out that the same is well covered within the

provisions contained in Section 2A, and also, the

management has never challenged the reference order

before competent Court. The reference has been referred

to this Tribunal by the Central Government to answer and

it has no power to refuse the same or to sit in appeal against

the order of reference. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs

Hindustan Steel Employees Union & Ors. 1988 (78) FLR

293 it has been observed as under:

“Court has to see substance and not form of order.

Formal defencts in citation of reference order would

not oust jurisdiction of Tribunal. If the Government

inadvertently or wrongly or even deliberately

commits the dispute for adjudication under Section

2(k) of the Act, the Tribunal has still power for

adjudication if from material I could be said that the

dispute has come into existence under Section 2A of

the Act by operation of law. The Tribunal in doing

so, would not go beyond the term of reference as the

term of reference was whether the termination of

service was justified or not justified.

Hence, in view of the law cited and discussions made

hereinabove. I am of the opinion that the preliminary

objection of the management as regard validity of the

reference order and jurisdiction of this Court has no force.

13. The opposite party has also taken the objection that

the applicant is not a ‘workman’ as defined in the Section

2(s)(iv) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The workman has denied the

contention of the management. Section 2 (s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘workman’ as under:

2. “(s) “workman” means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person—

(i) .............

(ii) .............

(iii) .............

(iv) Who, being employed in a supervisory/capacity,

draws wages exceeding [ten thousand rupees]

per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of

the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.”

In this regard the onus was on the management to come

forward with evidence such as details of work liabilities in

respect of workman and powers conferred upon him to

show that the applicant was actually engaged in managerial

or supervisorial work; but the management has utterly failed

to do so, in as much as, apart from the pleading it has not

corroborated the same with cogent documentary evidence.

On the contrary from the statement of the management

witness, Shri S.K. Gupta, AAO vide para 14 of his affidavit

it is clear that the applicant was engaged as Daily wages

causal worker for seasonal/intermittent nature of work in

IVRI. Also, it is not denied that the workman had not worked

with the opposite party; the onus is on the opposite party

to explain in what capacity he has been inducted with the

opposite party, which puts him out of the purview of the

definition of ‘workman’. Therefore, on the basis of the

evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the applicant

is ‘workman’ as defined in the Section 2 ‘s’ of the Act.

14. The second objection taken by the management of

IVRI is that it is not an industry within the meaning of

Section 2 “j” of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In this

regard the parties have relied on verdict of Hon’ble Apex

Court in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc.

vs. A Rajappa & others case; wherein it has been observed

that—

“absence of profit motive or grainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.”

Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that—

“Where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial (iii) for the

production and/or distribution of goods and services

calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes (not

spiritual or religions but inclusive of material things

or services geared to celestial bliss i.e. making on a

large scale Prasad or food) prima facie, there is an

industry in that enterprise.”

The management has come up with the case that the

IVRI is a Research Institute engaged in purely research

work of public importance and it is discharging the function

which is neither domestic nor commercial in nature. It has

taken plea that the main purpose of IVRI is to carry on

research work on various project entrusted to it by the

Government of India etc. for which special grant in aid is

2338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

received for meeting out expenses and it has to not qualified

the various tests which may put its activities as an

‘Industry’. In rebuttal, the workman has pleaded that the

IVRI is not a purely research institution, but is a an

educational commercial place where number of medicines

are being manufactured and sold by the opposite party,

and in addition to this milk, agricultural equipments, animal

flesh, eggs are also being sold; as such, it is not correct to

say that IVRI is only a research institute as it is indulged in

commercial activities too; hence comes within the purview

of “Industry”. The management witness, Sh. Sunil Kumar

Gupta, AAO in his cross-examination has admitted that

vaccines for animal etc. are being manufactured in IVRI

and same are being sold.

Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case

and above legal prepositions, I am of considered opinion

that the opposite party management i.e. Indian Veterinary

Research Institute is indulged in commercial activity also

and not only discharging sovereign function of the State;

and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the opposite

party is an ‘industry’ within the provisions of Section 2 (j)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

15. Coming to the merit of the case, admittedly no

appointment letter was issued to the workman also there is

no iota of evidence that the workman had been engaged

with the IVRI following the due procedure for engagement

of the casual labour. It has come in the evidence of the

management that the workman was appointed to carry out

the casual nature of intermittent work. The management

has come up with the details of working of the workman.

The workman filed photo copy of documents in support of

his contention, as under:

(i) Certificate of working dated 01.06.09.

(ii) Certificate of working from 20.11.90 to 22.03.90.

(iii) Certificate of working from 01.05.91 to 06.08.91.

(iv) Certificate of working from 01.10.91 to 29.02.92.

(v) Certificate of working from 22.03.92. to 30.04.92.

(vi) Certificate of working from 03.05.92 to 31.05.92.

(vii) Certificate of working from 22.07.92 to 29.10.92.

(viii) Certificate of working from 05.11.92 to 05.02.93.

(ix) Certificate of working from 01.93 to 10.10.93.

(x) Office order regarding working from 13.10.1993 for

40 days.

(xi) Office order regarding engagement from 24.12.93

to 10.01.94.

(xii) Photo copy of muster rolls.

(xiii) Photo copy of advertisement.

(xiv) Correspondences and memorandums.

16. The workman has come up with a case that he worked

continuously for more 240 days in a calendar year even

then his services have been terminated in violation to the

provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In 2005 (107) FLR 1145 (SC) Surenderanagar

Panchayat and another v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai Hon’ble

Apex Court came to the conclusion that where the workman

filed to prove that he had been in employment with the

employer for a period of 240 days uninterruptedly, he is not

entitled to protection in compliance of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was held by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court that the scope of the enquiry before the

Labour Court was confined only to 12 months preceding

the date of termination to decide the question of the

continuous service for the purpose of section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court

has observed as under:

“The claimant, apart his oral evidence has not

produced any proof in the form of receipt of salary or

wages for 240 days or record of his appointment or

engagement for that year to show that he has worked

with the employer for 240 days to get the benefit

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It

is now well settled that it is for the claimant to lead

evidence to show that he in fact worked for 240 days

in a year preceding his termination.”

Therefore, in view of the above referred case law, in

order to take any relief for non-compliance of mandatory

provisions contained in section 25 F of the Act, it is

necessary for the claimant to lead evidence to the effect

that he was actually in employment of the opposite party

for 240 days in the year preceding his termination and he

was actually paid for it. In the instant case, the workman

has filed photo copy of number of certificates regarding

working with the opposite party as casual labour/mazdoor;

and there is no denial from the management on them. The

workman has also filed photo copy of muster roll and details

of some payment/arrears paid to him by the management in

order to substantiate that he worked with the opposite

party. Therefore, from scrutinizing the working details of

the workman from the documents filed by the either party,

the working details in respect of workman in preceding

twelve months from the date of termination i.e. from 09.01.93

to 10.01.1994, comes as under:—

S. No. Duration

No. of days worked

Jan., 93

February, 93

March, 93

April, 93

09.05.93 to 31.05.93

01.06.93 to 30.06.93

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2339

01.07.93 to 31.07.93

01.08.93 to 31.08.93

13.10.93. to 22.11.93

10.

24.12.93 to 10.01.94

Total

258 days

17. Thus, there is ample evidence to record this finding

that the workman had actually worked for 285 days in

preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged

termination i.e. 10.01.94 and oral termination of his services,

without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof was in

violation of the section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

18. Now, it is to be considered as to whether the workman

is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence produced

by the workman it is not proved that his appointment was

as a regular worker. Even the statement of workman himself

as well management witnesses the workman’s services were

utilized by the IVRI as casual mazdoor on daily wages. The

services of the workman were terminated on 10.01.1994. In

Haryana Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591;

2005 SCC (L&S) 716 Hon’ble Apex Court while considering

the question regarding award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of section

25-F of the Act, entire back wages should be

awarded......................................... However, where the

total length of service rendered by a workman is very

small, the award of back wages for the complete period

i.e. from the date of termination till the date of the

award, which our experience shows is often quite

large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another

important factor, which required to be taken into

consideration, is the nature of employment. A regular

service of permanent character cannot be compared

to short or intermittent daily wage employment

though it may be for 240 days in a calender year.”

19. In Deepak Ganpat Tari vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd.

2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying on

the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in A P V K

Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086 (SC), Telephone DM

vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376 (SC), JDA vs.

Ram Sahai 2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding

compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 to the concerned workman

considering his daily wages as Rs. 45 in view of the fact

that the workman had put in about 3 years of service, has

observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of section 25-F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only.”

20. Also, in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal v.

Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309

Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a long line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief by

way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a given

fact situation even though the termination of an

employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of work

in a year preceding the date of termination, particularly,

daily wages has not been found to be proper by this Court

and instead compensation has been awarded.”

21. In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned

case laws, it would not be just and proper to direct that the

workman be reinstated in service. The ends of justice would

meet by paying compensation to the workman instead in

place of relief of reinstatement in service.

22. Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked as daily wager and keeping in view the entire facts

of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum

amount of compensation only.

23. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh only) to the workman

as compensation for termination of his services in violation

of section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The said amount shall be

paid to the workman within 08 weeks of publication of the

award, failing which; the same shall carry interest

@ 8% per annum.

24. The reference is answered accordingly.

LUCKNOW

DR. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

09th December, 2013

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 877.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Mk;jsDVj [kknh ,oa

foyst baMLVªht deh'ku] eqEcbZ ds izcaèr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj

muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky; ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

lañ lhthvkbZVh@,uthih/156/2002½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 19@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42012@167@92&vkbZvkj¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

2340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014

S.O. 877.—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/NGP/156/2002)

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 The Director, Khadi & Village Industries

Commission, Mumbai and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 19/02/2014.

[No. L-42012/167/92-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

No. CGIT/NGP/156/2002

Date: 18.3.2013

Party No. 1

The Director,

Khadi & V. I. Commission, H.M.P.,

Deptt. 3, Irla Road, Vile Parle (W),

Mumbai-400056.

Versus

Party No. 2

Smt. Kalawati Rambhau Hole

C/o Shri Ramlal Mishra Kalidas Mandir,

Ramnagar, Ward No. 20,

Wardha.

AWARD

(Dated: 18th March, 2013)

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

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

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

short), the Central Government had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Khadi & C.I. Commission and their workman,

Smt. Kalawati Hole, for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-42012/167/92-IR (DU), dated 19.04.1994, with the following

schedule:—

“Whether the action of the management of Khadi &

C.I. Commission, HMP Deptt. Wardha in terminating

the services of Smt. Kalawati Rambhau Hole is proper,

legal & justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled?”

Subsequently, the case was transferred to this Tribunal

for adjudication in accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Smt. Kalawati

Hole, (‘the workman’ in short), filed the statement of claim

and the management of Khadi & C.I. Commission, (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed its written statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the statement

of claim is that she worked with Party No. 1 as a casual

labourer on daily wages continuously without any break

from 01.01.1986 to 01.01.1988 and during the tenure of her

services, there was no complaint of any kind against her

and inspite of her completing more than 240 days of work,

her services were terminated without any just or proper

reason and the Party No. 1 employed fresh hands, namely,

Shri Nilesh Chimanwar, Shri Munna Mangal, Shri Manohar

Somalnathe, Shri Suresh Vishakhe, Shri Deochand Pingale

and Shri Rameshwar Tiwari, ignoring her claim, in violation

of the provisions of the Act and before the termination of

her services, neither one month’s notice nor one month’s

wages in lieu notice nor retrenchment compensation was

paid to her and the Party No. 1 violated the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Act.

The further case of the workman is that the factory/

establishment of the Party No. 1 at Wardha was closed

w.e.f. 09.01.1988 and all the sixteen casual labourers working

there were discontinued, without following the provisions

of the Act and Rules made thereunder and the said factory/

establishment was reopened by Party No. 1 from 01.02.1990

and six old casual labourers were given re-employment

after their representations and those casual labourers were

juniors to her and though, she made representations for

her re-employment, her claim was ignored and such practice

was unfair and the denial of Party No. 1 to re-employ her

was by way of victimization and in colourable exercise of

the employer’s right and she is entitled for reinstatement 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 engaged on daily wages

on 17.06.1987 for four days only and thereafter, she was

again engaged on 01.08.1987 and she worked up-to

29.09.1987 and then she was engaged on 01.01.1988 and

she left the job on 08.01.1988 alongwith other workers,

without any intimation, who went on strike demanding

continuous service and she had never completed 240 days

of work in the preceding year of the date of her termination

i.e. 08.01.1988 and she had worked 72 days in total and as

there was no production activity and all the activities were

closed at Wardha unit from January, 1988, no workman was

employed after 08.01.1988 and the work of Wardha unit

started again from February, 1991, for production, marketing

and Training programme of Khadi and Village Industries

Commission and for the said purpose, 11 workmen including

three women were employed as per their seniority and work

experience and due to closure of the Wardha unit from

January, 1988 to February, 1991, no daily wages worker

was engaged during the said period and no worker junior

to the workman was even engaged and there was no

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2341

violation of the provisions of the Act by them and as the

workman had worked only for 72 days, she was not entitled

to one month’s notice or pay or retrenchment compensation

as provided u/s. 25-F of the Act and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. In order to prove her case, the workman has examined

herself as a witness. In her examination in chief, which is

on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned

in the statement of claim. However, in her cross-examination,

the workman has admitted that she was provided daily

work and there was a muster roll, where their presence was

marked. She has denied the suggestion that she had worked

only for 72 days and she had not worked for 240 days.

5. One Keshav Dhandiba Kamble has been examined as

a witness on behalf of the Party No. 1. This witness has

also reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement

by Party No. 1, in his evidence, which is on affidavit. In his

cross-examination, this witness has stated that he has no

personal knowledge about the engagement and termination

of the workman and Handmade paper production,

Marketing and Training Centre, Wardha was an unit of

Directorate of Handmade Paper Industry, Mumbai and the

unit at Wardha was closed in the year 2002. He has further

stated that after 1996, no labourer was appointed in any of

the units of Khadi and Village Industries.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the workman that the workman worked as a

labourer continuously without any break from 01.01.1986

to 01.01.1988 with Party No. 1 and had completed 240 days

of work in one year and the Party No. 1 terminated her from

services w.e.f. 01.01.1988, without compliance of the

mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and before

such termination, neither one month’s notice nor one

month’s pay in lieu of notice nor retrenchment

compensation was paid to her by Party No. 1 and Party No.

1 after the termination of the workman, employed fresh

hands including Nilesh Chimanwar, Munne Mangal and

others in violation of the provisions of Section 25-G and

25-H of the Act and as such, the termination of the services

of the workman is illegal and she is entitled for reinstatement

in service. It was further submitted by the learned advocate

for the workman that since the date of termination, the

workman is not in gainful employment and she is entitled

for continuity in service and full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the Party No. 1 in the written notes of argument that the

workman was engaged on for the first time on 17.06.1987

on daily wages basis for four days and subsequently, also,

she was engaged intermittently and she had not completed

240 days of work in any year and she left the service on

08.01.1988 without any intimation and she worked only for

72 days and the workman has failed to discharge the burden

of providing of the fact of working for 240 days in a year,

which was on her and therefore there was no question of

compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

In support of such contentions, the learned advocate

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

in (2004) 8 SCC 161 (Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills

Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and another) 2004 8 SCC 195

(Municipal Corporation, Fridabad Vs. Srinivas), AIR 2006

SC-110 (Surendra Nagar District Panchayat Vs. Dayabai

Amarsingh) and (2006) I SCC-106 (R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt.

Executive Engineer).

8. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex court in a chain

of decisions including in the decisions cited by the learned

advocate for Party No. 1 that the burden of proof is on the

claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a

given year. This burden is discharged only upon the

workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and

documentary. More affidavits or self serving statements

made by the workman will not suffice in the matter of

discharge of the burden place by law on the workman to

prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year.

So, keeping in view the principles settled by the Hon’ble

Apex Court as mentioned above, now, the present case in

hand is to be considered.

9. Admittedly, the workman was engaged as a casual

worker on daily wages basis by Party No. 1. According to

the workman, she had completed 240 days of work in the

preceding 12 months of the date of termination. Party No. 1

has denied such claim. According to Party No. 1, the

workman was engaged for 72 days in total in between

17.06.1987 to 08.01.1988 and she had not completed 240

days of work in a given year. So, the burden is on the

workman to show that in fact she had worked for 240 days

in the preceding 12 months of the date of her termination

i.e. 01.01.1988.

In support of her case, the workman has examined herself

and deposed that she was in continuous service of Party

No. 1 from 01.01.1986 to 01.01.1988 i.e. more than 240 days.

Except her oral evidence, the workman has not produced

any other evidence to prove the fact that she had worked

for 240 days. No proof of receipts of salary or wages or any

record or order in that regard was produced. In this case,

the workman has not called upon the Party No. 1 to produce

the relevant documents. The workman has also not

examined any co-worker. So, the workman has failed to

discharge the burden that she was in employment for 240

days during the preceding 12 months of the date of

termination of her services. In the fact and situation and in

the light of the law on the subject, it is found that the

workman is not entitled for the protection or compliance of

Section 25-F of the Act, before her services were terminated

by Party No. 1. As regard non-compliance of Section 25-G

and 25-H of the Act is concerned, suffice is to say that

there is no legal evidence on record regarding the existence

2342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of seniority list of employees engaged on daily wages and

that Party No. 1 engaged fresh hands and retained workers,

who were juniors to the workman. Hence, there no question

of violation of the provisions of Section 25-G and 25-H of

the Act by Party No. 1. In view of the findings as mentioned

above, the workman is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it is

ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Khadi & C.I.

Commission, HMP Deptt. Wardha in terminating the

services of Smt. Kalawati Rambhau Hole is proper, legal &

justified. Smt. Kalawati Rambhau Hole is not entitled to

any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 18 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 878.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jhtuy esustj]

flD;wfjVh isij fey ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ

la[;k CGIT/LC/R/60/2007½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 18@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&16011@4@2005&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 18th February, 2014

S.O. 878.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/60/2007)

of the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-Labour Court,

Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employers of relation to the

management of Regional Manager, Security Paper Mill and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 18/02/2014.

[No. L-16011/4/2005-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/60/07

Presiding Officer : SHRI R.B. PATLE

General Secretary,

SPM Karmchari Union,

Regd. No. 3073 C/o Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

....Workman/Union

Versus

Regional Manager,

Security Paper Mill,

Hoshangabad

.... Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 27th day of September, 2013)

1. As per letter dated 3.7.07 by the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the reference is received.

The reference is made to this Tribunal under Section-10 of

I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification No. L-16011/4/2005-IR(DU).

The dispute under reference relates to:

“(i) Whether the demand of the SPM Karamchari Unoin

for grant of pay scales of Rs. 5000—8000 to Senior

Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96 is legal and justified? If so

to what relief the workmen are entitled to?

(ii) Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad is not

granting the ACP Scheme to Group B, C & D

employees on completion of 12 and 24 years is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief these workmen

are entitled to ?

(iii) Whether the demand of SPM Karamchari Union

for filling up of the vacanices to the post of Head

Time Keeper from amongst the senior assistants

with 5 years of services and LDC with 7 years of

services is legal and justified? If so, to what relief

the workmen are entitled to?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Ist party Union submitted statement of claim at

Page 5/1 to 5/6. The case of Ist party Union is that it had

submitted charter of demands to the management claiming

pay scale of Rs. 5000—8000 for Sr. Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96,

benefit of ACP Scheme to Group B, C & D employees on

completion of 12 and 24 years service, for filling up of the

vacancies to the post of Head Time Keeper from amongst

the senior assistants with 5 years of services and LDC with

7 years of service. Above demands were not accepted by

the management. The Union had given strike notice under

Section 22 of I.D. Act opposing to go on strike. After expiry

of 31 days, persuing his demands, the Union has also

submitted other demands which are not referred for

adjudication:

3. Union submits that before implementation of Vth Pay

Commission report, junior Assistant in the establishment

of IInd party was placed in Pay Scale 1350—2200 and Sr.

Assistant were placed in Pay Scale 1400—2300. When Part-

A of Vth Commission Report were implemented, both junior

Assistant and Sr. Assistant were placed in common revised

Pay Scale 4300—7000 w.e.f. 1.1.96. That General Manager,

Security Paper Mill, Hoshangabad i.e. after getting approval

order form Ministry of Finance and economic affairs vide

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2343

order dated 31.1.02 revising pay of Sr. Assistant from 4500-

7000 to refuse 5000-150-8000 w.e.f. 1.1.96. That said order

was kept in abeyance to the detriment of the members of

the Union. The implementation under part B revised Pay

Scale, Asstt. were placed in Pay scale 1400-2300 were placed

in Revised Pay Scale 5000-8000. The Assistants were getting

pay scale after implementation of Part B Pay Scale. That

Sr. Assistants who were higher in rank were not placed in

said pay scale. As such the members of the Union are

designated without logical reasons. Ist party union also

submits that as per Central Civil Services, Revised Scales

para 46.9 of the Vth Commission Report Sr. Assistant who

are members of Union are entitled to revised pay

5000-8000.

4. IInd party management Written Statement. The claim

of Union is denied that the workman is minority Union.

That management made repeatedly clear that its demands

are neither reasonable or feasible. There was no evasive

reply of management during conciliation proceedings. That

in 1992 after implementation of NPC, the then posts of

LDCs (Pay Scale 950-1500) and UDCs (Pay Scale 1200-

2040) were upgraded as Junior Assistant in Pay Scale 1350-

2200 and Senior Assistant in Pay Scale 1400-2300. That in

Para 66.62 of Vth CPC, the present designations and pay

scales of Junior Assistants and Senior Assistants are based

on a specialized scientific study done by independent

agency therefore it is not desirable to make any change in

the designations. IInd party reiterated that demand of Union

for pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for Sr. Asstt. is not rational or

justified. Other contentions of the Union are denied. IInd

party prays for rejection of the claim.

5. Union submitted rejoinder reiterating its contentions

in Statement of claim filed by them.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the demands of Union

In Negative

claiming pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000

for Sr. Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96, benefit

of ACP Scheme to Group B, C & D

employees on completion of 12 and

24 years services, for filling up of the

vacancies to the post of Head Time

Keeper from amongst the senior

assistants with 5 years of services and

LDC with 7 years of service is legal?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is

Relief prayed

entitled to?”

by Union is

rejected.

REASONS

7. Though the Union submitted statement of claim

justifying his demand under reference. The Union failed to

participate in the reference proceeding. Union failed to

adduce any evidence to substantiate his demands under

reference. On the other hand, management filed affidavit of

its witness Shri K. N. Mahapatra covering contentions in

Written statement filed by the management. Management’s

witness was corss-examined. In his cross-examination,

management’s witness says the department had

correspondence with the finance deptt. He was unable to

tell on what basis the pay scale was denied by the Finance

Deptt. that after the order dated 20.4.06 passed by CAT,

the order of 2002 was cancelled. The copy of the order

passed by CAT bench Jabalpur in Original Application No.

707/06 is produced at Exhibit M-1.

In para-9 of the judgement, Hon’ble members of the

CAT observed the perusal of above would establish that

erstwhile post held by the applicant had been upgraded

only in the year 1992 and Vth CPC in its recommendation

specifically observed that present designations and pay

scales of Junior Assistants and Senior Assistants in

Security Paper Mill are based on specialized scientific

study done by an independent agency and therefore it

did not require any change either in pay scale or in

designations.

The copy of order dated 20.4.06 is produced

withdrawing order dated 31.1.2002. Union has not adduced

evidence to substantiate the demands under reference.

Therefore I record my finding on Point No. 1 in Negative.

In the result, award is passed as under:—

(1) Demand of Union claiming pay scale of Rs. 5000-

8000 for Sr. Assistants w.e.f. 1.1.96, benefit of ACP

scheme to Group B, C & D employees on completion

of 12 and 24 years service, for filling up of the

vacancies to the post of Head Time Keeper from

amongst the senior assistants with 5 years of

services and LDC with 7 years of service are not

justified.

(2) Relief prayed by Union is rejected.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 879.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj okbZl pkalyj]

ckcklkgsc Hkhejko vacsMdj ;wfuoflZVh ,.M vnlZ ds izca/kra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky; y[kuÅ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 26@2011½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&42025@03@2014&vkbZvkj ¼Mh;w½]

ihñ dsñ os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

2344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014

S.O. 879.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby pubishes the award (I.D. No. 26/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Lucknow

now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

The Vice Chancellor, Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar

University & Others and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 19/02/2014.

[No. L-42025/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 26/2011

BETWEEN

Shri Anand Kumar S/o Shri Gaya Prasad &

three others C/o Shri Parvez Alam,

Labour Law Advisor R/o 283/63 Kha,

Garhi Kanora (Premwati Nagar)

PO-Manak Nagar, Distt.-Lucknow-2.

AND

1. Vice Chancellor

Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (C)

Vidhya Vihar, Raibareilly Road, Lucknow-226025.

2. Shri Samir Kumar Dixit

Garden Inspector

Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar University (C)

Vidhya Vihar, Raibareilly Road, Lucknow-226 025.

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute has been filed by the

workmen, Anand Kumar & three others under provisions

contained in the Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (14 of 1947) against alleged termination of their services

by the management of Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar

University (C), Vidhya Vihar, Raibareilly Road, Lucknow

for adjudication before this CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Lucknow.

2. The case of the workmen, in brief, is that the workman,

Anand Kumar and Suresh Kumar Kanaujia were appointed

under the opposite parties on 03.03.2008 on the post of

Gardner; whereas workman viz. Ram Karan was appointed

on 03.09.2007 on the post of Gardner; and Rajesh Kumar

Sonkar was appointed on the post of Security Guard on

02.01.2006 and worked continuously for more than 240 days.

It is alleged by the workmen that the opposite party used

to pay less wages to them for which they asked the opposite

party to pay full wages and in turn the opposite party

being annoyed terminated their services orally, 30.01.2010

without giving any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof, in

violation to the provisions contained in Section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It has also been alleged by

the workmen that the management retained the junior in

service and has engaged new faces after their termination,

which amounts to violation of Section 25 G & H of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Accordingly, the workman

has prayed that their termination by the management be

declared illegal and they may be reinstated with

consequential benefits including back wages.

3. The opposite parties have filed written statement,

denying the claim of the workmen; the contents of the

written statement have neither been verified nor supported

by any affidavit. The management has taken objection that

the workmen do not fall within the definition of ‘workman’

u/s 2 ‘s’ inasmuch as it is not an ‘industry’ within the

purview of the section 2 ‘j’ the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. In this regard it has relied on University of Delhi &

another Vs. Ram Nath AIR 1963 SC 1873. It has denied the

appointment of the workman by it at any point of time;

however, it has been submitted by the management that

the workmen were engaged through an agency viz. Good

House Keeping, 313, Suraksha II, Eldeco II, Raibareilly

Road, Lucknow to carryout sewage & cleaning works and

no payment was ever made to the workman by the institution

directly; however the payments were made by the

University to the agency and then agency used to make

payment directly to the workmen. Accordingly, the

management has prayed that the claim of the workmen be

rejected any benefit to them.

4. The workmen have filed rejoinder wherein apart from

reiterating the averments already made, the workmen relying

on Bangalore Water Supply & Sewarage Board Vs. A.

Rajappa 1978 (2) SSC 213, have submitted that the

Universities are well within the definition of ‘índustries’. It

has been submitted that the employers be asked to file

‘principlé employer’ registration certificate and registration

certificate of M/s Good House keeping as contractor to

verify the facts.

5. The parties have filed photocopy of documentary

evidence in support of their respective claim. The workmen

have filed their evidence on affidavit; whereas the

management did not turn up to cross-examine them.

After filing of evidence of the workmen, 28.03.2012 was

fixed for cross-examination of the workmen’s witness; but

none turned up from management to cross-examine the

workmen; however the workmen were present to get cross-

examined. Likewise, the workmen were present on

10.05.2012, 21.06.2012, 07.08.2012 and 28.08.2012; but

neither the management nor its authorized representative

turned up to cross-examine the workmen, which led to fixing

the next date i.e. 18.10.2012 for argument. The management

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2345

once again was reluctant to forward its argument, in spite

of several dates being given i.e. 18.10.2012, 23.11.2012,

16.01.2013, 01.03.2013, 22.04.2013, 04.06.2013, 26.07.2013,

09.09.2013, 17.10.2013, 02.12.2013 and 16.01.2013; but none

turned up from the management either to get the order,

barring them to cross-examine the workman recalled or to

forward their argument on merits of the case. Accordingly,

the arguments of the authorized representatives of the

workmen were heard and the case was reserved for award

keeping in view the reluctance of management and long

pendency of the case.

6. Heard the authorized representative of the workmen

and perused entire evidence available on record.

7. The authorized representative of the workmen has

argued that the management appointed the workmen as

Gardner/Security Guard and paid less salary and when the

workmen demanded for proper salary the management

terminated their services in violation of Section 25 F of the

Act; and also did not observe the rule of last come first go

while terminating their services and also inducted new

workmen in their place and accordingly violated the

provisions of Section 25 G & H of the I.D. Act. It was also

submitted that the applicant are well within the definition

of ‘workman’ as defined in Section 2 ‘s’ and the University

is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of Section 2 ‘j’ of the

Act. It was further contented that the management could

not produce the ‘principle employer’ registration certificate

and registration certificate of M/s. Good House Keeping

which goes to show that the pleading of the management

that the workmen were supplied by the agency under a

contract is nothing but to escape from their liabilities.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the

contentions of the authorized representative of the

workmen and perused respective pleading of parties and

supportive evidence.

9. At the outset of the case, it has come from the

management that it is neither an ‘industry’ nor the applicant

is ‘workman’ within the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. In this regard, Hon’ble Apex Court in

Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board etc. Vs. A

Rajappa & others case; wherein it has been observed that

“absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.”

Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that

“where (i) systematic activity (ii) organized by co-

operation between employer and employee (the direct

and substantial element is commercial

(iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods

and services calculated to satisfy human wants and

wishes (not spiritual or religions but inclusive of

material things or services geared to celestial bliss

i.e. making on a large scale Prasad or food) prima

facie, there is an industry in that enterprise.”

The management has come up with the case that the

Babasaheb Bhimrao University is engaged in imparting

education and it is discharging the function which is neither

domestic nor commercial in nature; and it does not qualify

the various tests which may put its activities as an

‘Industry’. In rebuttal, the workman has contended that

the University is indulged in imparting education for which

handsome fee is charged from the students; and also, the

activity carried out by the University is no ‘sovereign’ in

nature as there are so many private universities, which are

also delivering education like the opposite party hence; it

comes within the purview of ‘Industry”. It has been further

contended that the activities observed by the University

qualify the triple test formulated by Banglore Water Supply

case.

Thus, in view of facts and circumstances of the case

and above legal prepositions, I am of considered opinion

that the opposite party management i.e. Babasaheb Bhimrao

University is not discharging sovereign function of the

State; and accordingly, come to the conclusion that the

opposite party is an ‘industry’ within the provisions of

Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

10. The opposite party has also taken the objection that

the applicants are not ‘workman’ as defined in the Section

2(s) (iv) of the I.D. Act, 1947. The workman has denied the

contention of the management. Section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘workman’ as under:

2. “(s) “workman” means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding

under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute,

includes any such person who has been dismissed,

discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a

consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal,

discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute,

but does not include any such person-

(i) ................

(ii) ..............

(iii) ............

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws eages exceeding [ten thousand rupees]

per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of

the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.”

2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In this regard the onus was on the management to come

forward with evidence such as details of work liabilities in

respect of workman and powers conferred upon him to

show that the applicant was actually enaged in managerial

or supervisorial work; but the management has utterly failed

to do so, in as much as, apart from the pleading it has not

corroborated the same with cogent documentary evidence.

On the contrary the workman has pleaded and proved the

same through their affidavit that they have been appointed

as Gardner/Security Guard which is not managerial or

supervisory in nature. Also, it is not denied that the

workman had not worked with the opposite party only it

has been stated that workmen were engaged through an

agency; the onus is on the opposite party to explain in

what capacity they have been inducted with the opposite

party, which puts them out of the purview of the definition

of ‘workman’. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence on

record, I am of the opinion that the applicants are ‘workman’

as defined in the Section 2 ‘s’ of the Act.

11. The workmen have come up with the case that they

have been appointed by the management and they worked

continuously for more than 240 days with the management

and the management terminated their services in violation

to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. On the contrary

the management has come up with the case that the

workman were engaged through an agency viz. Good House

keeping and the payments were made to the agency, which

used to pay the workman directly; therefore, there was no

employer and employee relationship between the opposite

party and the workman. The management has also filed

photocopy of notice inviting tender, letter submitting

tender by M/s. Good House Keeping, letter regarding

submission of bills before University by the agency,

payment sheets & attendance sheets of the Agency. The

workman has not filed any document in rebuttal.

12. On scrutinizing the documents submitted by the

management it comes out that the photocopy of the ‘notice

inviting tender’ regarding ‘Job Labour Supply does not

pertain to the opposite party i.e. Babasaheb Bhim Rao

University; but it pertains to the Central Institute of

Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow; hence have no

significance. Further, the letter dated 14.11.2008 regarding

submission of quotation of supply of various type of

labours from M/s. Good House Keeping does not bear any

reference of any ‘notice inviting tender’ from the

management and secondly it is not supported with the

Labour Contract License, issued by the appropriate

authority; hence the quotation of the agency is invalid

one. Also, the management could not produce any

certificate regarding registration as ‘Principle Employer’

before the competent authority, therefore, it could not be

said that there was any valid contract between the opposite

party and the agency for supply of the contract. The

workman has relied on Secretary, Haryana State Electricity

Board vs.Suresh & others 1999(81) 1016 wherein Hon’ble

Apex Court has observed that when the workmen have

worked for a year and completed 240 days, there existed a

relationship of employer and workmen. Also, no genuine

contract labour system prevailing with the bard and so

called contractor was a mere name lender with a contract

license and even the Board was not registered as principal

employer the so called contract system was a mere

camouflage.

The management has just pleaded that it has not

appointed the workman; but has engaged the workmen

through a contracting agency viz. Good House Keeping;

but has not substantiated its pleading through evidence.

On the contrary the workman has pleaded that it has worked

with the management for 240 days and their services have

been terminated in violation to the provisions of the I.D.

Act and has well proved his pleading through by filing an

affidavit. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Sheo

Shanker Lal Srivastava & others (2006) 3 SCC 276 has

observed that the statement of the witness, having not

been controverted would be deemed to be admitted.

Therefore, in light of the above law, there is no reason to

discard the submissions made by the workman in his

evidence that the worked continuously for 240 days from

the date of appointment till the date of termination i.e.

30.01.2010 and his services have been terminated in violation

of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947.

13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and

law cited, I am of considered opinion that there was no

contract between the management and the so called agency

for supply of labourers and the workmen worked with the

management of Babasaheb Bhim Rao Ambedkar University

and the services of the workmen have been terminated in

violation to the provisions of the section 25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen have pleaded

that they had been appointment by the opposite party; but

have not produced any appointed letter etc. to substantiate

their claim that they ever went through the prescribed

procedure for appointment. The services of the workman

were terminated on 30.01.2010. In Haryana Roadwasy vs.

Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716

Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the question

regarding award of back wages has observed:

“There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of section 25F

of the Act, entire back wages should be

awarded.................................. However, where the total

length of service rendered by a workman is very small,

the award of back wages for the complete period i.e.

from the date of termination till the date of the award,

which our experience shows is often quite large,

would be wholly inappropriate. Another important

factor, which required to be taken into consideration,

is the nature of employment. A regular service of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2347

permanent/character cannot be compared to short

or intermittent daily wage employment though it may

be for 240 days in a calander year.”

14. In Deepak Ganpat Tari Vs. N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd.

2008 (119) FLR 877 Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying on

the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgement in APVK

Brahmandandam 2008 (117) FLR 1086(SC) Telephone DM

Vs. Keshab Deb 2008 (118) FLR 376(SC) JDA Vs. Ram Sahai

2006 (111) FLR 1178 (SC), while awarding compensation of

Rs. 1,50,000 to the concerned workman considering his

daily wages as Rs. 45 in view of the fact that the workman

had put in about 3 years of service, has observed as under:

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of section 25F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only.”

15. Also, in Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 545:

Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal Vs.

Santosh Kumar Seal and others (2010) 2 SSC (L&S) 309

Hon’ble Apex court has observed as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a along line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief

by way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a

given fact situation even though the termination

of an employee is in contravention of the prescribed

procedure. Compensation instead of reinstatement

has been held to meet the ends of justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of termination,

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be

proper by this Court and instead compensation has

been awarded.”

16. In the light of principle laid down in aforementioned

case laws, it would not be just and proper to direct that the

workman be reinstated in service as they were not appointed

with the opposite party, following due procedure for

recruitment. The ends of justice would meet by paying

compensation to the workman instead in place of relief of

reinstatement in service.

17. Having regards to these facts that the workman has

worked after engagement through an agency at the time of

his alleged termination and keeping in view the entire facts

of the case and the law, the interest of justice would be

subserved, if, management is directed to pay lump sum

amount of compensation only.

18. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay a

sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupee One Lakh only) to each of the

workmen as compensation for termination of their services

in violation of section 25F of the I.D. Act. The said amount

shall be paid to the workmen within 08 weeks of publication

of the award, failing which; the same shall carry interest @

8% per annum.

19. The reference is answered accordingly.

Lucknow

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

20th January, 2014.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 880.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 125@2002½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,yñ&22012@298@2001&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014

S.O. 880.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 125/2002 of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown

in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

management of Makardhokda Sub Area of WCL, and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

19.02.2014.

[No. L-22012/298/2001-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/125/2002

Date: 30.12.2013

Party No. 1:

The Dy. General Manager,

Makardhokda Sub Area of WCL,

The Umrer, Distt. Nagpur

Versus

Party No. 2 :

The President, Rashtriya Koyla Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC),

Makardhokda Sub Area Branch,

Plot No. 604, Behind Giripeth Post Office,

Opp. R.T.O., Nagpur

2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 Makardhokda Sub Area of WCL and their

workman, Shri Umesh Giradkar, for adjudication, as per letter

No. L-22012/298/2001-IR(CM-II) dated 09.07.2002, with the

following schedule:—

“Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Makardhokda Sub Area, The. Umrer, Distt. Nagpur

in not giving promotion to Shri Umesh Giradkar from

mechanical Fitter Helper Category II to Mechanical

Fitter Category-IV w.e.f. 09-12-2000 is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman

entitled and from which date?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Umesh G.

Giradkar, (“the workman” in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of Makardhokda Sub Area of

WCL, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the statement

of claim is that he was initially appointed as Mechanical

Fitter Helper at Umrer Colliery on 22.08.1996 and he was

senior to the employees, namely, Shri Gopichand Rewatkar

and Shri Sanjay Waghmare, who were appointed on

07.05.1997 and though he was the senior most employee

and he was shown as senior in the seniority list maintained

by Party No. 1, Party No. 1 illegaly gave promotion to

Shri Gopichand Rewatkar, Shri Sanjay Waghmare and one

Shri Santosh Choudhury, Who was also junior to him, by

overlooking his case and as such, he aproached the Labour

Commissioner raising the dispute and ultimately, the

reference was made for adjudication. The further case of

the workman is that the Party No. 1 did not maintain the

seniority list properly and promotion was given to persons,

who were not entitled for such promotion and even though,

he was entitled for promotion to the post of Mechanical

Fitter Category-IV, he was not given the promotion.

The workman has prayed to direct the Party No. 1 to

give him promotion to the post of Mechanical Fitter

Category IV and to pay the increments and deferential back

wages.

The Party No. 1 denying all the adverse allegations made

in the statement of claim, has pleaded in the written

statement inter alia that the workman was initially

appointed on 22.08.1996 as a general mazdoor category II

and as he was an I.T.I. candidate, he was designated as

Mechanical Fitter w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and he was notionally

placed in category-III, w.e.f. 01.01.2000 and the workman

was given promotion as Mechanical Fitter Category-IV

w.e.f. 03.07.2004.

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

was not the senior most employee amongst the candidates

eligible for the D.P.C. for the post of Mechanical Fitter

Category IV and the workman was the junior most

candidate, as the date of his coming to Ccategory II was

01.07.1998 and the dates of other candidates coming to

Category II were earlier to the workman and the dates

coming to Category II of the employees, namely,

Shri Gopichand Rewatkar, Shri Sanjay Waghmare and

Shri Santosh Choudhury were 01.01.1998, 01.01.1998 and

24.03.1998 respectively. It is also pleaded by Party No. 1

that promotions to the employees are being given, by taking

in to consideration the date of their coming to the present

grade and if the date of coming to the present grade is the

same, then they have to more back to the date of coming to

the previous grade and if that too is same, then their date

of appointment is compared and if that too is same, then

the date of birth is considered and the oldest person is

promoted as per the procedure and the workman has

claimed promotion directly switching on to the date of

appointment, which procedure is not adopted by it and it

maintains the seniority list of the employees of a particular

grade and gives promotions to the eligible candidates

according to the seniority in that particular grade and junior

candidates were not given promotion overlooking the

workman and though the appointment of the workman was

earlier to the appointment of Shri Gopichand Rewatkar and

Shri Sanjay Wagmare, promotions were made on the basis

of cadre scheme applicable with sanctioned man power

budget and further on the recommendation of the

Departmental Promotion Committee and as such, the claim

of the workman for promotion from back date and back

wages is not maintainable and the workman is not entitled

to any relief.

4. Apart from placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claim.

The workman has examined himself as a witness in

support of his case. In his examination-in-chief, which is

on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned

in the statement of claim. The further evidence of the

workman is that authorization was given by the management

to him as mechanical helper Category-II on 28.04.1997,

13.06.1997 and again on 01.01.1998 and he was due to get

promotion, in view of the vacant post of mechanical fitter

Category-IV and on the basis of manpower budget for the

year 1999-2000 and as he was senior to Gopichand Revatkar

and Sanjay Waghmare. The workman has also proved the

documents filed by him in support of his claim as Exts.

W-II to W-IX.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2349

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted that

his initial appointment was a Mazdoor cat. II and the

promotion of the employee, whose promotion has been

challenged by him were also initially appointed as Mazdoor

cat. II and after the reference, he was promoted from

category-II to category-IV and then to category-V and as

per the document, Ext. W-III, he was designated as

Mechanical fitter helper w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and the contents

of Ext. W-III, are not correct.

5. The witness for the party no. 1 has also reiterated the

facts mentioned in the written statement, in his examination-

in-cheif on affidavit. This witness has also proved the

documents filed by party no. 1 as Exts. M-VI to M-VII.

In the cross-examination, Shri Shailendra Shende, the

witness for party no. 1 has admitted that the workman was

authorized to work as Mechanical fitter, category-II on

28.04.1997 and Shri Gopichand Rewatkar and Shri Sanjay

Wagmare were appointed initially as mazdoor category-II

on 07.05.1997 and copies of authorization letter in favour

of Gopichand Rewatkar and Sanjay Waghmare to work as

Mechanical Fitter Category-II have not been filed by the

management in this case and the nature of the work of the

five employees, whose names were mentioned in Ext. W-III

i.e. the order dated 07.05.1999, was not changed and there

was also no increase in their basic pay.

The witness for the party no. 1 in his cross-examination

has further admitted that the initial appointment of

Gopichand Rewatkar and Sanjay Waghmare was made after

the initial appointment of the workman and he cannot say

as to why in Ext. W-III, Rewatkar and Waghmare were

designated as Mechanical Fitter helper from 01.01.1998 and

the workman was designated as such on 01.07.1998 and it

is not permissible to issue letter of regularisation or

redesignation of an employee within six months of the date

of his appointment and he cannot say if to deprive the

workman from promotion in due date, he was designated

as Mechanical Fitter helper w.e.f. 01.07.1998, instead of

designating him in that post earlier than Gopichand and

Sanjay Waghmare.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the workman that the workman was appointed

as a General Mazdoor category-II on 22.08.1996, where as

Shri Gopichand Rewatkar and Shri Sanjay Waghmare were

appointed as such on 07.05.1997 and Shri Gopichand and

Shri Sanjay were much junior to the workman and though

the workman was given authorization as Mechanical Helper

category-II on 28.04.1997, which was even earlier to the

initial appointment of Shri Gopichand and Shri Sanjay, with

malafide intention, vide the document, Ext. W-III, the

workman was shown to be designated as Mechanical Helper

category-II w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and Shri Gopichand and Shri

Sanjay were shown to be designated as Mechanical Helper

grade II w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and the order as per Ext. W-III was

passed only to deprive the workman from promotion, when

it was due to him and such facts have been amply proved

from the admission of the witness for the party no. 1 in his

cross-examination and as such, the workman is entitled for

promotion to mechanical fitter category-IV w.e.f. 09.12.2000,

the date on which his juniors, Shri Gopichand and Shri

Sanjay were given promotion.

7. Per contra, in the written notes of argument, it was

submitted by the learned advocate for the party no. 1 that

the workman was initially appointed as general mazdoor

category-II and he was disignated as Mechanical Fitter

w.e.f. 01.07.1998 and the workman has already been

promoted as Mechanical Fitter category-IV w.e.f. 03.07.2004

and at present, he is working as category-V and the

workman has admitted such facts and the workman was

never the senior most amongst the candidates eligible for

the DPC for the post of Mech. Fitter Cat.-IV as claimed by

him, rather, he was the junior most candidate and

promotions are given to the employees, by taking into

consideration the date if coming to present grade and if the

date of coming to the present grade of two or more

employees is the same, then the dates of their coming to

previous grade are taken into consideration and if that too

are the same, then the dates of their appointment is

compared and if that too are the same, then their dates of

birth are considered and the oldest person is promoted as

per the procedure and the workman in this case is directly

switching on to the date of appointment, which is not the

correct procedure for promotion and it is not disputed that

the appointment of the workman was earlier to the

appointment of Shri Gopichand and Shri Sanjay, but

promotions are made on the basis of cadre scheme

applicable with sanctioned man power budget and further

on recommendation by the Departmental Promotion

Committee and hence, the workman is not entitled to any

relief.

8. Perused the record including the evidence adduced

by the parties. It is the admitted case of the parties that the

workman was engaged initially as general mazdoor

category-II on 22.08.1996, whereas, Shri Gopichand and

Shri Sanjay were appointed as general mazdoor category-

II on 07.05.1997. So, it is clear from such admitted facts that

the workman is senior to Shri Gopichand and Shri Sanjay in

appointment.

Accordingly to the party no. 1, for consideration of

promotion the date of coming to the present category is

considered as per the cadre scheme and as the date of

coming to the present category i.e. Mechanical fitter helper

category-II of the workman was 01.07.1998 and the date of

coming of Shri Gopichand and Shri Sanjay to Mechanical

fitter helper category-II was 01.01.1998, Shri Gopichand

and Shri Sanjay were senior to the workman in the present

grade and as such, they were given promotion to

mechanical fitter category-IV, as per the recommendation

of the DPC and there was no illegality in its action in not

giving promotion to the workman.

2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Admittedly, in Ext. W-III, the workman has been shown

to be designated as Mechanical Fitter Category-II w.e.f.

01.07.1998, whereas, both Shri Gopichand Rewatkar and

Shri Sanjay Waghmare have been shown to be designated

as Mechanical Fitter category-II w.e.f. 01.01.1998. However,

documents Exts. W-VII, W-VIII and W-IX and the

admission of the witness for party no. 1 show that the

entries in Ext. W-III are not correct. The documents, Exts.

W-VII to W-IX are documents issued by party no. 1 Ext. W-

IX shows that the workman was authorized as Mechanical

helper on 28.04.1997. Likewise, Exts. W-VIII and W-VII show

that the workman was again authorized as Mechanical Fitter

helper on 13.06.1997 and 01.01.1998 respectively.

Party No. 1 has not come up with any case as to why Shri

Gopichand and Sanjay, who joined in service as general

mazdoor category-II on 07.05.1997 were designated as

Mechanical Fitter Category-II w.e.f. 01.01.1998 and the

workman, who joined the service on 22.08.1996 and was

already authorized as Mechanical Fitter helper on

28.04.1997, 13.06.1997 and 01.01.1998 was shown to be

designated as Mechanical Fitter Helper category-II w.e.f.

01.07.1998.

The witness for party no. 1 in his cross-examination has

admitted that on 28.04.1997, the workman was authorized

to work as Mechanical fitter category-II and he cannot say

as to why Rewatkar and Waghmare were designated as

such on 01.01.1998 and as to why the workman was shown

to be designated as such on 01.07.1998, instead of

designating him in that post earlier to Gopichand and

Sanjay Waghmare.

So, from the materials on record, it is found that the

workman was also senior in the present grade, i.e.

Mechanical Fitter Category II than to Shri Gopichand and

Shri Sanjay.

9. Ext. M-VII is the proceedings of the Departmental

Promotion Committee held on 04.12.2000 for promotion of

Elec/Mechanical Fitter Helper cat. II to Elect/Mechanical

Fitter Cat.-IV of UG & OC. Ext. M-III is the promotional

channel of E&M Personnel (Mechanical Fitter). On perusal

of the aforesaid documents, it is found that the promotion

to Mechanical Fitter Category-IV from Mechanical Fitter

Helper category-II is based on seniority and

recommendation of the DPC. As it is already held that the

workman was senior to Shri Gopichand Rewatkar and

Sanjay Waghmare in Mechanical Fitter helper category-II

and Ext. W-III is not a genuine document, the workman

was and is entitled for promotion as Mechanical Fitter

Category-IV w.e.f. the date on which Shri Gopichand

Rewatkar, Shri Sanjay Waghmare and Shri Santosh

Choudhary were given promotion to the said category i.e.

category-IV. The workman is also entitled for consequential

promotions and other benefits including the differential

back wages. Hence it is ordered:—

ORDER

The action of the management of Wcl, Makardhokda

Sub Area, The Umrer, Distt. Nagpur in not giving promotion

to Shri Umesh Giradkar from Mechanical Fitter Helper

Category II to Mechanical Fitter Category-IV w.e.f.

09.12.2000 is illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled

for promotion as Mechanical Fitter Category-IV from the

date on which, Shri Gopichand Rewatkar, Shri Sanjay

Waghmare and Shri Santosh Choudhary were given

promotion. The workman is also entitled for the

consequential promotions and other benefits including the

differential backwages. Party no. 1 is directed to implement

the award within one month of the publication of the award

in the Official Gazette.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 19 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 881.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;wñ lhñ,yñ ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53@2005½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 19@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&22012@53@2005&vkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&II½]

chñ ,eñ iVuk;d] MsLd vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 19th February, 2014

S.O. 881.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2005) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Chandrapur Area of WCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

19/02/2014.

[No. L-22012/53/2005-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/53/2005

Date 30.12.2013.

Party No. 1:

The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited,

Chandrapur Area,

Chandrapur. (MS).

Versus

Party No. 2:

Shri G.V.R. Sharma,

Joint General Secretary,

Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh, (INTUC), 604, Giripeth, Nagpur.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2351

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

WCL and claimant, Shri Sheikh Nabi, for adjudication, as

per letter No. L-22012/53/2005-IR (CM-II) dated 29.06.2005,

with the following schedule:—

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Western Coalfields Limited through the Chief

General Manager, Chandrapur Area, PO & Distt.

Chandrapur in rejecting the demand of employement

of Shri Sheikh Nabi S/o. Sheikh Roshan being nominee

of Land Oustee namely Late Mohammed Yusuf,

whose Land admeasureing 2.53 hectares was acquired

by M/s. WCL on 20.03.1978, is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the Union, Rashtriya Koyala

Khadan Mazdoor Sangh, (“the Union” in short) filed the

statement of claim on behalf of Shri Sheikh Nabi, (“the

claimant” in short) and the management of WCL, (“Party

No. 1” in short) filed their written Statement.

The case of the claimant as projected by the union in

the Statement of claim is that it is a registered trade union

under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 and Party No. 1 is a fully

owned Government Coal Company and is a “State” within

the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and

Mahakali Colliery was a closed mine, when it was taken

over and nationalized in 1973, as per Coal Mines

(Nationalization) Act, 1973 and the said colliery was

reopened in the year 1974 and subsequently, coalmining

activities were started and coal production started sometime

in the year 1975 and for coal mining into deeper level, Party

No. 1 felt the necessity of acquiring some land above the

ground, for installation of ventilation fan and the

management found the lands belonging to Shri Mohd.

Yusuf Hasan Ali of Chandrapur and Shri Laxmanrao

Wasekar, suitable for the said purpose and started

negotiation with the said persons and an area of 0.7 hect.

in Khasara No. 442 and 0.60 hect. in Khasara No. 443 of

Mouza Chanda Rayatwari belonging to Mohd. Yusuf Hasan

Ali and also an area of 8.75 hect. of land in Khasara Nos.

469/4, 469/5, 491 and 492 of Mouza Chanda Rayatwari

belonging to Laxman Krishnaji Wasekar were purchased

and acquired by Party No. 1 by direct negotiation on

03.04.1980 and Party No. 1 installed ventilation fan in the

said acquired land and as the lands acquired from the said

land owners were for the purpose of mining activities, the

said land oustees were required to be rehabilitated by the

management by giving employment to their nominees, as

per the policy and guidelines of the Central Government,

but the Party No. 1 did not give employment to the nominees

of the said land outstees and after a gap of 16 years, on

21.03.1996, Shri Raju S/o Vijay, the grandson and nominee

of land oustee, Laxmanrao Wasekar was given employment

and he has been working in Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery of

WCL and coming to know about the employment of the

nominee of Laxmanrao, Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali requested

the Party No. 1 to give employment to his nominee, Sk.

Nabi Sk. Roshan, which was not entertained by the

management of WCL on flimsy ground of belated claim

and rejction of the claim of Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali to give

employment to his nominee by Party No. 1 is totally

unjustified and illogical.

It is further pleaded by the union that Party No. 1 had

entered into a settlement with RKKMS union on 02.11.1992

to finalize the pending cases for giving employment to the

nominees of land oustees of Pench, Kanhan, Nagpur and

Chandrapur Areas expediously keeping in view the norms/

practice prevalent in the respective areas at the time of

acquision of land by WCL and the said settlement is still

operative and the said settlement is having binding force

on both the parties and the practice as well as norms to

give employment to the nominee of land ousteee in the

year 1980 was that the land oustees, nominees whose ever

having any relation to the land oustee or not were being

given permanent and regular employment, provided the

land acquired from the land oustee is more than 3 acres

and as the area of the land acquired from Mohd. Yusuf

Hasan Ali was more than 3 acres, his nominee is entitled for

employment and the action of the Party No. 1 in giving

employment to the nominee of Laxmanrao and denying to

give employment to the nominee of Mohd. Yusuf Hasan

Ali is totally unfair and unjustified, on the ground that the

Party No. 1 being a state cannot discriminate two persons

under the same terms of guidelines of giving employment

to the land oustees and the nominee of Mohd Yusuf Hasan

Ali was aged less than 35 years on the date of making the

claim on 29.11.1997 to the management, but subsequently

the Party No. 1 through its internal communication rejected

the claim stating that the nominee of Mohd. Yusuf Hasan

Ali was over aged, which was totally unjustified, because

there was abnormal delay on the part of Party No. 1 to

convey its decision and during the said period, the nominee

crossed the age of 35 years and the nominee was not at

fault and in some cases, the Party No. 1 by giving relaxation

in the maximum age limit had given employment to the

nominees of the land oustees and the Party No. 1 adopted

discriminatory attitude towards Shri Sk. Nabi Sk. Roshan

to give him employment.

Prayer has been made by the union to direct the Party

No. 1 to give Sk. Nabi Sk. Roshan, the nominee of land

oustee, Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali to give employment in

appropriate category commensurate to his qualification and

2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to pay him arrears of the lowest category wages under

NCWA applicable from time to time w.e.f. 21.03.1996 till the

is given employment.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter-alia that the dispute does not fall under the purview

of the Act and the claim is a belated claim as the same was

raised before the Conciliation Officer on 14.02.2000 i.e.

22 years after the acquision of the land and the claim is

belated and suffers from delay and latches and the claim

raised on behalf of the land owners, whose lands were

acquired, loosely called as land losers are private

individuals and as such, the dispute cannot be termed as

an industrial dispute as contemplated under Section 2(S)

and 2(K) of the Act and an industrial dispute, unless

covered by the Section 2(A) of the Act will not be treated

as an industrial dispute, unless a body of workers of the

establishment is supporting the claim raised by the union

and mere lending the name of the union by union Jt. General

Secretary, while raising conciliation proceedings or for

issuing notice does not amount to espousal of the cause

and individual member of the executive body cannot take

the character of the entire union and the land owners had

not raised the dispute and they were not workmen within

the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act and the reference is

not maintainable as name of nominee, Sk. Nabi Sk. Roshan

was endorsed by Sk. Mustafa S/o Late Mohd. Yusuf Hasan

Ali, who expired on 20.08.1994, which was not supported

by documentary evidence in respect of legal heir.

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

measuring 1.33 hect. of plot no. 442 & 443 which was jointly

owned by Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali and Aliyabee was

acquired on 20.03.1978 in Revenue Case No. 6/Land/22/76-

77/Mouza Chanda Rayatwari under Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code, 1966 and the name of Sk. Nabi S/o Sk.

Roshan, the nephew of land looser, Late Mohd. Yusuf

Hasan Ali was nominated by Sk. Mustafa, the son of the

land looser for employment on 29.11 1997 and at that time,

he was asked to submit the legal heir certificate of Late

Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali and to send another nomination

from and court affidavit of all the legal heirs of their having

no objection for providing employment to Sk. Nabi and on

further verification of the records, it was observed that Sk.

Nabi Sk. Roshan is not a nephew, but he is a cousin brother

of Mustafa and Sk. Nabi had crossed the age of 35 years at

the time of his nomination and the nomination form was

not signed by other co-sharer of the acquired lands and as

such, his case was rejected, on the grounds of linear

relationship and over age of Sk. Nabi (crossing of 35 years

of age) and the case of Sk. Nabi is not the same as the case

of Raju Vijay Wasekar and Raju was the direct linear

dependent of the land oustee and he was nominated by

the land oustee on 29.03.1994 and the two cases are

distinguishable with each other and after the settlement

dated 02.11.1992, Wage Board Agreements came into

operation as a whole in CIL and specifically in WCL and as

such, there is no scope for consideration of the demand on

the basis of the settlement dated 02.11.1992 and the

nomination of Sk. Nabi in the prescribed format was

submitted on 29.11.1997 and on examination of the record,

Sk. Nabi was found to be more than 35 years of age, which

was one of the conditions to be fulfilled as per the Wage

Board Agreement and the Claimant is not entitled to any

relief.

4. In the rejoinder reiterating the facts mentioned in the

statement of claim, it is pleaded by the union that the Party

No. 1 had raised objection regarding raising of the dispute

belatedly and the union of having no right to raise the

dispute and such objections were rejected by the

Conciliation Officer and the Central Government, being

satisfied about the existence of an industrial dispute

between the management of WCL and the claimant through

the union has referred the matter to the Tribunal for

adjudication, hence, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to

adjudicate the matter and the claim to give employment to

the nominee was raised by the land owner much before his

death which remained unsettled and the management did

not take such pleas before the Conciliation Officer and as

such, the pleas taken by the management cannot be

entertained and the claimant is entitled for employment

and for arrears of wages from 29.03.1994 i.e. from the dated

on which Shri Raju was given employment.

5. In support of their respective claims, both the parties

have led oral evidence, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence.

The union has examined Sk. Nabi, the claimant as a

witness in support of the stand taken by it.

One Mr. Anand Rao, Sr. Revenue Inspector of WCL,

Chandrapur Area has been examined as a witness on behalf

of Party No. 1.

6. Sk. Nabi, the claimant in his evidence on affidavit has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim. In

his evidence, Sk. Nabi has stated that the land oustee, Md.

Yusuf Hasan Ali was his paternal uncle, being the younger

brother of his father, Sk. Roshan and Md. Yusuf Hasan Ali

died on 20.08.1994 and 1.93 hector of land appertaining

Khasra No. 441/1 and 442 of Mouza Chanda Rayatwari

belonging to his uncle, Md. Yusuf Hasan Ali and 0.60

hector of land of Khasra No. 443 of Mouza Chanda

Rayatwari recorded inthe name of Aliabi, wife of Md. Yusuf

Hasan Ali were acquired by WCL in 1977-78 and Aliabi

died on 18.02.2002 and he was nominated by his uncle for

employment, but the management did not give him

employment.

In his cross-examination, the claimant has admitted that

he applied for employment on 29.11.1997 and for acquiring

land of holding no. 446 of his father, his father had

nominated him for his employment in WCL, but the

application for his employment was rejected.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2353

7. Mr. Anand Rao in his examination-in-Chief on affidavit

has stated that land appertaining to that plot No. 446 of

Sheikh Roshan was acquired by WCL for mining purpose

in the year 1976-77 and for acquision of land of plot No.

446, Sheikh Roshan nominated his son, the claimant Sk.

Nabi, but as his claim was not within the norm, the

application for employment was rejected. Mr. Anand Rao

has further stated that at the said time, land of plot No. 442

and 443 belonging of Md. Yusuf and his wife, Aliabi was

also acquired and on 29.11.1997, one Sheikh Mustafa filed

an application for employment of the claimant, Sk. Nabi for

acquiring of the land of plot Nos. 442 & 443 belonging to

Sheikh Mustafa and his wife Aliabi, but the claim for

employment of the claimant was not accepted on the ground

that the claimant was not the legal heir of Md. Yusuf and

the sponsorer, Sheikh Mustafa was not the land oustee, at

the time of nomination, the age of Sk. Nabi was above 35

years and he was not eligible for consideration according

to the norms and the nomination was made in 1997, after

the death of the real owner in 1994 and the claim was filed

very belatedly, i.e. about 20 years after the acquisition of

the land.

In his cross-examination, Mr. Rao has admitted that 3.29

acres of land of Modh. Yusuf was acquired by WCL and

for giving employment to the nominee of a land oustee, it is

necessary for acquisition of minimum 3 acres of non-

irrigated land and 2 acres of irrigated land and Mohd. Yusuf

died in the year 1994 and wife of Mohd. Yusuf died

subsequently and Sheikh Mustafa was son of Mohd.

Yusuf. This witness has also admitted the suggestion given

in his cross-examination that on 29.11.1997, Sheikh Mustafa

nominated Sheikh Nabi for giving employment, as land

oustee. This witness has also admitted in his cross-

examination that there is no time limit for submitting

application for giving employment to the nominee of land

oustee.

8. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted by

the union representative that there was a settlement dated

02.11.1992 between the management of WCL and RKKMS

union and the employer denied to honour the terms of the

said settlement and engaged in unfair labour practice and

in the said settlement, the word “nominees” was used and

the words “Legal heir” or “linier dependent”have not been

used and the terms of the said settlement, provide a right

to the land oustee to nominate a person of his choice for

employment in WCL against the acquisition of his land by

WCL and the said settlement is still in operation and

binding on the management and the union and

Annexure-D, filed with the affidavit of Shri Anand Rao, the

witness for the management shows that the same is a

communication dated 19.12.1993 made by the Dy. Secretary

to the Government of India, Ministry of Energy, Department

of Coal, New Delhi and the same reveals that the

parliamentary consultative committee in the meeting held

on 13.10.1983 arrived at a consensus about the modalities

of giving employment to land losers and decided to set up

a committee for evolving uniform guidelines for employment

of land oustee and the witness for the management in his

cross-examination has admitted that subsequent to the

issue of the communication dated 19.12.1983, no guidelines/

norms for the said purpose were issued by the Ministry of

Coal and it is the admitted case of the management that 2.5

hectares of land of Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali was acquired

by it on 20.03.1978 and the name of Shaikh Nabi S/o. Shaikh

Roshan was nominated by Shaikh Mustafa, son of Late

Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali and management had directed to

Shaikh Mustafa to submit the legal heir certificate and

another nomination form and affidavit showing that all the

legal heirs of Modh. Yusuf Hasan Ali did not have any

objection to provide employment to Sk. Nabi, but the

management has not filed any document in proof of such

contention and as such, the contention cannot be

entertained and the nomination of Sk. Nabi by Shiekh

Mustafa is in conformity to the term 4.1 of the settlement

dated 02.11.1992.

It was also submitted in the written notes of argument

that the land of Laxmanrao Wasekar was acquired in 1980

and employment was given to his nominee in 1996 and the

said facts reveal that there were no norms fixing the time

limit for claiming employment for the nominees of the land

oustee, hence, the claim of the management that the demand

of the union is stale and belated does not hold good and

when employment was given to the nominee of Laxmanrao

Wasekar, no legal heir certificate was demanded and at the

time of the acquisition of the lands of Laxmanrao and Mohd.

Hasan Ali, there was no norm or guideline to produce legal

heir ship of the nominee to get employment in WCL and as

management has not produced and documentary evidence

to show the prescribed age limit of the nominees of land

oustees to give employment. The submission of the

management that Sk. Nabi was over aged being more than

35 years of age on the date of submission of his claim is

without support and wage board agreements are different

from the matters about offering employment to the land

oustee and in NCWAs I to IX, there has been no mention

about this subject and the submission made by the

management in this regard is required to be rejected and

Sk. Nabi is entitled for employment.

9. In the written notes of argument, it was submitted by

the management representative that the matter does not

fall within the preview of the Act and the dispute has been

raised by the Jt. General Secretary of the union on behalf of

a private person and the land oustee is not a workman and

there was no employer employee relationship between the

land oustee and the management and in absence of employer

employee relationship, no industrial dispute can be

contemplated to exist between them rendering the reference

ab initio void and untenable and the action of the Jt. General

Secretary to raise the alleged dispute without obtaining

any authority from the union by way of a proper resolution

2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cannot be said to be rightful espousal of the cause by the

union and the cause of action had arisen in the year 1978,

whereas the alleged issue was raised before the ALC on

14.02.2000, after a gap of nearly 22 years, which is highly

belated and such belated dispute is neither fit for reference

nor for adjudication and belatedness cannot be decided

on the basis of comparisions, rather it should be on the

merit of each case.

It was further submitted that the union has tried to

establish its claims on the basis of the settlement dated

02.11.1992 and clause 4.1 of the said settlement was for

expeditious disposal of pending cases and expeditious

disposal does not mean providing employment non-entitled

cases and the case of Sk. Nabi was not pending at the time

of the settlement as his claim was admittedly filed on

29.11.1997 and as such, clause 4.1 of the settlement dated

02.11.1992 has no application to the claim in this case and

Sk. Nabi is the son of the elder brother of the land oustee,

Md. Yusuf Hasan Ali and he is not the dependent of the

land owner and Sk. Nabi was earlier nominated for

employment by his father Sk. Roshan for acquisition of

plot No. 446 having an area of 0.74 acre and the said claim

was rejected and the nomination of Sk. Nabi for employment

was not made by the land oustee, Md. Yusuf Hasan Ali,

but was made by Sk. Mustafa, the son of Md. Yusuf Hasan

Ali, who has no legal right to nominate Sk. Nabi and as

such, the nomination is in valid and case of giving

employment to Shri Raju and the present case of Sk. Nabi

are quite different, as Shri Raju was nominated by the land

oustee, Laxmanrao Wasekar, who was his grandfather and

both the cases are different and cannot be compared and

Sk. Nabi was more than 35 years of age, when the application

was filed for his employment and on that ground also, he

was not entitled for employment and the union has tried to

brush aside legal issue raised by the management, saying

the issues was not raised before the ALC (C) and such

contention cannot be considered and Sk. Nabi is not entitled

to any relief.

In support of the contentions, reliance has been placed

on the judgement in LPA 412/2002 (M/s. Bharat Coking

Coal Limited, Dhanbad Vs. Union of India & others) and

2002 LAB IC-3810 (Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Vs. Baban Nathuji Sarode & Another).

9. The first submission made by the management

representative is regarding the maintainability of the

reference. It has been submitted that the matter does not

fall within the purview of industrial dispute, as the dispute

has been raised on behalf of a land oustee was not a

workman and there was no relationship of employer between

the land oustee and the management of WCL and the step

taken by the Jt. General Secretary to raise the alleged dispute

does not amount to espousal of the cause by the union, in

absence of any evidence to show that authorization by

way of resolution of the Executive committee has been

obtained in this respect and there is unexplained inordinate

delay in raising the dispute.

LPA No. 412/2000, on which reliance has been placed

by the management representative, the Hon’ble High Court,

Ranchi Bench considered the question as to whether land

losers, whose lands were acquired by the Company were

“workmen”or not and held that such land losers do not

come under the definition of workman. The Hon’ble Court

also held that, “Those land owners had also not raised

such dispute themselves, rather their cause was being

advanced by the trade union. When admittedly they were

not workmen within the meaning of the Act probably were

not entitled to be the members of such union and there was

no industrial dispute within the meaning of section 2(k) of

the Act and the dispute raised on behalf of those land

owners could not have been called as industrial dispute

and such a stale dispute could not have been the subject

matter of the reference under section 10 of the Act.”

In the decision, 2002 LAB I.C. 3810 (supra), the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court have held that, “Delay-Grievance of

employee that he was denied legitimate promotion since

1973 onwards at every stage-Agitated in 1989 i.e. after 16

years for the first time-Employee, not entitled for any relief

on acount of delay in filing complaint.”

In this case also, admittedly, the land loser, Mohd. Yunus

Hasan Ali was not a workman and so also Sk. Nabi is not a

workman and not a member of the union. The dispute was

not raised by the land loser or by Sk. Nabi himself. So, the

dispute cannot be said to be an industrial dispute.

No evidence has been filed to show that the union has

espoused the case of Sk. Nabi or the Sk. Nabi had authorized

the union to espouse the dispute on his behalf. The Jt.

General Secretary, who has raised the dispute, inspite of

the challenge made by the Party No. 1 regarding his

authority, did not file any authority or document to show

that he was authorized by the union to espouse the dispute

on behalf of Sk. Nabi. The Jt. General Secretary does not

have any authority to espouse the dispute on behalf of a

private person or even on behalf of a workman in his

individual capacity, unless and until, it is decided by the

union by way of a resolution to espouse such dispute and

authorized him to take to necessary steps in that regard.

It is also found that there is inordinate delay in raising

the dispute. Admittedly, the land of Mohd. Yunus Hasan

Ali was acquired in the year 1978 and the dispute was

raised on 14.02.2002, i.e. 22 years after the acquisition of

the land, before the Concilation Officer. The delay has not

be explained. On the ground of inordinate delay also, the

reference should not have been made.

However, I think it proper to mention here, the two

decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, as

reported in (2000) 1 SCC-371 (National Engineering

Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and others) and (1984)

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2355

4 SCC-392 (Workmen, Hindustan Liver Ltd. Vs. Hindustan

Liver Ltd.)

In the decision reported in (1984) 4 SCC-392 (Supra), the

Hon’ble Apex court have held that, “Labour and Services—

Industrial Disputes Act, 19470-Sections 10 and 2(k)—Once

a reference is validly made by appropriate Government,

Tribunal must adjudicate the dispute on merits-Practice of

raising preliminary objections to the reference disapproved.

In the decision reported in (2000) 1 SCC-371 (Supra), the

Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, “Condition precedent

for making— Existence or apprehension of an industrial

dispute, held is a condition precedent for making a

reference—High Court can entertain a writ petition

impugning a reference on the ground of non-existence of

an actual or apprehended industrial dispute. But Industrial

Tribunal cannot examine the validity of a reference.

In view of the principles enunciated by the hon’ble Apex

Court in the decisions as mentioned above, the reference

is to be decided on merit.

10. Much stress has been given by the union

representative to the settlement dated 02.11.1992.

Admittedly, in the settlement dated 01.11.1992, the

management of WCL had agreed to finalize the pending

cases for giving employment to the nominees of land oustee

of Pench, Kanhan, Nagpur, Chandrapur areas etc.

expeditiously keeping in view the norms/practices prevalent

in the respective areas at the time of acaquisition of land

by WCL.

It is clear from the terms of the said settlement that the

agreement was in respect of the pending case of giving

employment to the nomineees of land oustee and not in

respect of future cases. It is also clear from the materials on

record that the case of employment of Sheikh Nabi was not

pending on 02.11.1992 and for the first time the application

for, his employment was filed on 29.11.1997. So, the

settlement dated 02.11.1992 has nothing to do with the

case of employment of Sk. Nabi.

11. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the

materials on record it is found that the union has come up

with clean hands and has made untrue pleadings in the

statement of claim. It is not disputed that the land oustee,

Mohd. Yunus Hasan Ali died on 20.08.1994. In the statement

of claim, it is pleaded that one Raju, the nominee of land

oustee of Laxmanrao Wasekar was given employment in

1996, 16 years after the acquisition of the land of Laxman

Wasekar. In paragraph 13 of the statement of claim, it has

been mentioned that, ‘‘On having to come to know that the

nominee of Shri Laxmanrao Wasekar i.e. Shri Raju S/o Vijay

was offered employment and working in Hundusthan

Lalpeth colliery of Chandrapur area, the another land oustee

Shri Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali had also requested the

management of WCL to give employment to his nominee

Shri Sk. Nabi Sk. Roshan which was not entertained by the

management of the WCL on the flimsy grounds on belated

claim.

When the land oustee, Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali died in

1994 and employment was given to Raju in 1996, then, how

it is possible for a dead man to nominate Sk. Nabi after

knowing about the employment of Raju in 1996.

In the entire statement of claim, at different places,

including paragraph 20, where the date of making of the

claim of employment of Sk. Nabi has been mentioned as

29.11.1997, it has been mentioned that Sk. Nabi was the

nominee of Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali and the nomination

was made by Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali, which is not at all

true. It is clear from the materials on record that the land

oustee, Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali had never nominated Sk.

Nabi for employment. It is also clear from the materials on

record that on 29.11.1997, for the first time an application

was filed by Sheikh Mustafa, one of the sons of land oustee,

to give employment to Sk. Nabi. So, the pleadings made by

the union that Sk. Nabi was nominated by Mohd. Yusuf

Hasan Ali is quite wrong and without any basis.

12. It is clear from the own pleadings of the union in

the statement of claim and rejoinder that the maximum age

of a nominee of land oustee for employment in WCL was

35 years, when the application was filed for employment

of Sk. Nabi. It is also crystal clear from the materials on

record that the nomination for employment of the nominee

is to be made by the land oustee. It is also clear from

Annexure-D filed alongwith the affidavit of the witness

for the management that Government of India, Ministry

of Energy, Department of Coal had formulated the guide

lines to give employment to the nominees of the land

oustees through its consultative committee of members

of parliament in the meeting held on 13.10.1983 and

directed that all group “C” and group “D” jobs in the coal

projects will be filled up to the extent possible by

recruitment by selection, through the local employment

exchange, from the families of the land oustee whose land

are acquired for the purpose and “Family” will mean the

person concerned whose land is being acquired, his wife,

sons, daughters or legal heir.

13. So far giving of employment to Sk. Nabi is concerned,

it is found that he was never nominated by the land oustee,

Mohd. Yusuf Hasan Ali, but he was nominated by Sk.

Mustafa, the son of the land oustee, who is not competent

to make the nomination. Sk. Nabi was not a family member

or legal heir as per the definition of “Family” provided by

the government of India in Annexure-D as mentioned above.

Sk. Nabi was also more than 35 years of age on 29.11.1997,

when for the first time application was filed for employment

(as found from the copy of the college leaving certificate of

Sk. Nabi on record). So, Sk. Nabi was/is not entitled for

employment as a nominee of land oustee. Mohd. Yusuf

Hasan Ali and the Party No. 1 did not commit any wrong in

not giving employment to Sk. Nabi. Hence, it is ordered:—

2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

The action of the management of M/s. Western

Coalfields Limited through the Chief General Manager,

Chandrapur Area, P.O. & Distt.Chandrapur in rejecting the

demand of employment of Shri Sheikh Nabi S/o. Sheikh

Roshan being nominee of Land Oustee namely Late

Mohammed Yusuf, whose land admeasureing 2.53 hectares

was acquired by M/s. WCL on 20.03.1978, is legal and

justified. The workman is not entitled to any relief.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 882.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsaFky ijkxuk

xzkehu cSad izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 45@2004½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@46@2003&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 882.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 45/2004 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Santhal Paragana Gramin Bank and

their workmen, received by the Central Government on

21/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/46/2003-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of

I.D. Act. 1947

Ref. No. 45 of 2004

Employer in relation to the management of Santhal

Paragana Gramin Bank, Dumka

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the employers:— None

For the Workman:— Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking

Dated 2/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-12011/46/2003/IR (B-1) dated 04.06.2004

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to ths Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of Santhal

Paragana Gramin Bank in issuing the Cirecular No.

45 of 2002-2003 dated 09.11.2002 and circular No. 47

of 2002-2003 of 12.11.2002 prohibiting the officers of

Santhal Paragana Gramin Bank Adhikari Union to

take part in Union activity or pressing their charter

of demand by agitational means in legal and justified?

If not, to what relief santhal paragana Gramin Bank

Adhikari Union is entitled to?”

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 16.06.2004.

During the pendency of the case, Ld counsel of concerned

Union files a petition for withdrawing this reference. It is

felt that the dispute between parties is resolved. Hence

“No dispute” award is passed. communicate.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 883.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1 èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 47@2000½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@294@1999&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 883.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby pubishes the Award Ref. 47/2000 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 1, Dhanbad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/294/1999-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2357

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 47/2000

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act,

1947.

Employer in relation to the management of Kusunda.

Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT:

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES:

For the employers:

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman:

None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 25/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/294/99/IR(C-I) dated 20.01.2000,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

“Whether the demand of Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh that Sri Dashrath Yadav should be placed in

Excavation Group-D w.e.f. 9.2.83 is proper and

justified? If so, to what relief the workman is entitled

and from which date?”

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 No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 884.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] èuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 1992 dk 19½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@202@1989&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 884.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/1992) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute

between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/202/1989-IR (C-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD

Reference: No. 19/1992

In the matter of reference U/S 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947.

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of

Pootki Blihari Colliery M/S BCCL.

AND

Their workmen.

PRESENT :

Shri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers:-

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman. :-

Sri S.N. Goswami, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 16/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/202/89/IR (Coal-I), dated Jan. 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 demand that the 469 contractor workers

shown in the annexure be treated as employees and

regularized in the service of M/S Bharat Coking Coal

Ltd. is justified? If so, to what relief are the concerned

persons entitled to?”

ANNEXURE

Sl. Name

1 2

1. Ashok Polai

2. Jogendra Dassa

3. Dhoba Dassa

4. Murli Dassa

5. Rama Dassa

6. Sanynsi Dassa

2358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

7. Ovimanyu Dassa

8. Bhaskar Dassa

9. Kishori Dassa

10. Bani Pairada

11. Udya Pairada

12. Muruli Pairada

13. Bipsa Pairida

14. Dandapani Pairida

15. Baim Pairada

16. Kali Pairida

17. Bharat Nahaka

18. Kashi Pairada

19. Bimla Pairida

20. kishori Dassa

21. Ghanshyam Gora

22. Biprn Pairida II

23. Nakula Nahaka

24. Raghu Nahaka

25. Pnaddnai Gora

26. Prabhakar Basmati

27. Nakula Dassa

28. Channa Dassa

29. Bithishai Dassa

30. Bira Dassa

31. Sukroo Dass

32 Rai Balya Dassa

33. Budhiya Sahu

34. Kartik Dassa

35. Bhaskar Pradhan

36. Hira Paira

37. Banamali Paira

38. Banshi Sahu

39. Ulla Dassa

40. Bijay Dassa

41. Jaya Dassa

42. Orikhit Dassa

43. Bhim Dassa

44. Mangloo Dassa

45. Lakhan Polai

46. Chaitan Polai

47. Hira Polai

48. Keshop Bhian

49. Natwar Sahu

50. Makra Dassa

51. Narshinsh Gora.

52. Bhagirath Gora

53. Gangandhar Pradhan.

54. Pano Behra

55. Bijay Behra

56. Kashi Behra

57. Ulle Gore.

58. Saila Nahaka

59. Basu Nahaka

60. Jogindra Nahaka

61. Jaggaranath Dora

62. Sada Nahaka

63. Sahdeo Nahaka

64. Jogindra Nahaka

65. Bhima Nahaka

66. Hira Nahaka

67. Shama Nahaka.

68. Satrughan Nahaka

69. Parsu Nahaka

70. Mittick Nahaka

71. Panchu Nahaka

72. Jay Nahaka

73. Daya Dassa

74. Jyoti Kriahna

75. Mittick Nahaka II

76 Badia Nahaka II

77. Sudashan Nahak II

78. Durja Dassa

79. Ucha Dasa

80. Trinath Dassa

81. Annarnth Dassa

82. Bhasker Dassa

83. Narayan Gora

84. Narihari Nahaka

85. Krishna Nahaka

86. Sudra Nahaka

87. Narhari Dassa

88. Panchu Dassa

89. Nira Nahaka

90. Bhagya Nahaka.

91. Amullya Sahis

92. Amrit Bhian

93. Dasharat Bhian

94. Madan Roy

95. Nakul Dassa

96. Ram Bilasti Yadav

97. Arjoon Dhari

98. Shanker Dhari

99. Jagarnath Dakua

100. Jyoti Krishana swain

101. Bidya Dhar Nahaka

102. Duniya Gora

103. Upendra Dassa.

104. Dhobi Dassa

105. Murli Dassa.

106. Kanoo Dassa

107. Saurashi Dassa

108. Dauda Dassa

109. Biond Paira

110. Ragoo Nahaka

111. Prabhaker Bisai

112. Rajmon Giri

113. Sobha Ciri

114. Mahadev Mallah

115. Rama Vtaar Mallak

116. Dindayal Furha

117. Fulan Singh

118. Badan Manjhi

119. Kara Manjhi

120. Sagar Manjhi

121. Jahur Manjhi

122. Bindu Manjhi

123. Bundhan Manjhi

124. Narhari Manjhi

125. Tribhuwan Prasad

126. Narayan Prasad.

127. Mahabir Prasad

128. Surendra Tiwary.

129. Kesia Tiwary

130. Parshuram Tiwary

131. Ram Shanker Mishra

132. Shiv Ram Prasad

133. Dinesh Singh

134. Uma Shanker Singh

135. Kapil Ram.

136. Bhim Devashi

137. Bishaw Nath Singh

138. Bir Bahadur

139. Makhan Ram

140. Mohan Prasad

141. Mushlim Mian

142. Sanatan.

143. Rama Nand

144. Sahdeo.

145. Marma Orang

146. Kailash Pasi.

147. Shama Rabidas

148. Rajdeo Bhian

149. Bankoo Bhian

150. Paran Rajak

151. Sujan Singh

152. Sahdeo Turi

153. Bhula Saw

154. Anusha Saw

155. Shiv Charan Manjhi

156. Pundeshwar

157. Muni Lal Prasad

158. Rajendar Turi

159. Parsu Ram

160. Rameshwar

161. Bhim Layak

162. Din Dayal

163. Angad Dassa

164. Maheshar Dassa

165. Gadai Bisai

166. Raghoo Polai

167. Sardhar Raiwar

168. Jogi Nahaka -I

169. Panch Nahka

170. Ulla Gora II

171. Panchu Nahaka-II

172. Rabin Mudi

1 2

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2359

173. Pandeshwar Roy

174. Dhaneshwar Roy

175. Seo Charan Mudi

176. Muni Lal Turi

177. Purna Polai

178. Panchu Pradhan

179. Nand Dassa

180. Bindyadhar

181. Hari Dassa

182. Dina Dassa

183. Ramesh Nahaka

184. Sukur Swain

185. Bhagwan Dassa

186. Rama Bhuian

187. Kartick Dassa

188. Baneshi Sahu

189. Hino Polai

190. Bharat Dassa.

191. Nakheshwar Dassa

192. Kentra Dassa

193. Dandpani Jena

194. Dhoba Bhuian

195. Uday Jena

196. Bhobini Jena

197. Bhobini Bshara

198. Gada Dakua

199. Madan Dakua

200. Sahdeo Jena

201. Raghu Polai

202. Mangloo Jena

203. Bhojram Jena

204. Babu Jena

205. Hari Jena

206. Keshi Swain

207. Abimanyoo Swain

208. Ganta Swain

209. Dharma Dakua

210. Jogi Jena

211. Ranko Swain

212. Goura Bhuian

213. Ganpati Bhian

214. Brudaban Bhuian

215. Kangresh Swain

216. Jagli Swain

217. Kondho Swain

218. Naran Dassa

219. Sadhu Dassa

220. Karuna Dassa

221. Ganpati Dassa

222. Shaiba Dassa

223. Benu Swain

224. Kandha Swain

225. Bharat bisai

226. Karuna Bhina

227. Hari Bhuian

228. Naran Jena

229. Makra Jena

230. Bali Bishai

231. Nath Jena

232. Hadu Bhuian

233. Padma Jena

234. Krishna Jena

235. Jogita Dassa

236. Kashi Dassa

237. Kenturi Dassa

238. Kirtan Mandal

239. Mttick Dassa

240. Nand Dassa

241. Rameshwar Nahaka

242. Prabhaker Bisai

243. Saya Bisai

244. Uday Dassa

245. Devraj Behra

246. Simanchal Behara

247. Ganpati Pradhan

248. Bancha Dassa

249. Dhobi Dassa

250. Daya Parida

251. Banmali Parida

252. Bhuian Dassa

253. Bishnu Nahaka

254. Bhimo Malkatta

255. Bijay Parida.

256. Annath Nahaka

257. Bipra Dassa

258. Budhiya Dassa

259. Bimble Parida

260. Bhimo Dassa II

261. Ganpati Nahaka. II

262. Murli Parida

263. Krishna Nahaka

264. Jogi Dassa

265. Hino Parida

266. Hino Nahaka

267. Hino Nahaka

268. Chanu Dassa

269. Hanoo Dassa

270. Suraj Dassa

271. Chil Nahaka II

272. Sanya Dassa

273. Raju Dassa

274. Prafulya Dassa

275. Aloke Pal

276. Panchanand Prasad

277. Anant Lala

278. Niraj Kumar

279. Ludak Saw

280. Ram Ujagir Bharatia

281. Subhash Chandra Bid

282. Dewesh Kumar Sinha

283.

284.

285. Dalbir Singh

286. Awadhes Ram

287. Arun Kumar

288. Arjun Kumar Mehta

289. Umesh Prasad.

Swarnkar

290. Arun Kumar Singh

291. Pradip Kumar

292. Krishna Bhallab Prasad

293. Bijay Kumar Agarwal

294. Sunil Kumar Agarwal

295. Arun Kumar Mehta

296. Ayodhaya Prasad Mehta 297. Chetlal Prasad Yadav

298. Koleshwar Prasad

299. Bisheshwar Prasad

Mehta

300. Bangali Prasad Mehta

301. Jagan Rabi Das

302. Chouwa Mehta

303. Gandhi Nayak

304. Dilip Kr. Barhtiya

305. Sadanand Pradhan

306. Narsingh Sahu

307. Bijoy Kr. Pradhan

308. Arjun Barhatiya

309. Bhubhani Barhatiya

310. Subhash Ch. Paridha

311. Lal Bahadur Bharti

312. Arjun Mehata

313. Rajeshwar Pd. Singh

314. Prem Chand Bharti

315. Ram Suchit Bharti

316. Ramesh Bhuiya

317. Gantad Gour

318. Dandpani Gour

319. Sudarshan Jaina

320. Rawan Das

321. Bijoy Gour

322. Abhiram Bhuiya

323. Hazari Bhuiya

324. Pana Chand Gour

325. Abdhesh Ram

326. Udya Badhatiya

327. Khanu Gour

328. Deo Raj Badhatiya

329. Dand Pani Bhuiya

330. Bairagi Bhiyan

331. Abhimanu Bisai

332. Nawin Bhuiya

333. Ramesh Chandra

Bhuiya

334. Basant Kumar Bhuiya

335. Basant Lal Bhuiyan

1 2

2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

336. Ranjan Kumar Bhuiyan

337. Sudhakar Bhuiyan

338. Shree Harsha Jaina

339. Ashok Kumar Bhuiyan

340. Banmali Bhuiyan

341. Lakhan Bhuiyan

342. Basant Kumar Jaina

343. Sadanand Swai

344. Radha Mohan Swai

345. Kabiraj Polai

346. Upendra Polai

347. Upendra Poliai

348. Jai Ram Polai

349. Rajendra Maharana

350. Pitamber Bhuiyan

351. Jogi Bhuiyan

352. Bijoy Gour

353. Bhagwan Dakua

354. Jagbandhu Bhuiyan

355. San Jaina

356. Tuna Bhuiyan

357. Bhagwan Jaina

358. Panchu Jaina

359. Bouri Sahu

360. Nil Kanth Bhuiyan

361. Charan Bhuiyan

362. Patit Jaina

363. Kowar Gour

364. Laxmi Narayan Badhetiya 365. Raju Badhatiya

366. Bhagwan Swal

367. Ujjal Badhatiya

368. Ram Chandra Karan

369. Raju Pradhan

370. Baraj Sahu

371. Bijoy Bhuiya

372. Haru Bhuiyan

373. Uma Bhuiyan

374. Dak Bishai

375. Krisbna Chand Bhwai

376. Anand Malik

377. Rabindra Kumar Polai

378. Arsul Mullick

379. Hari Mallick

380. Bant Malliok

381. Karun Kar Polai

382. Saheb Swai

383. Abhimanu Swai

384. Narayan Jaina

385. Sudam Charan Swai

386. Niranjan Bhuiyan

387. Dhoba Ram Swai

388. Ramesh Swai

389. Danda Swai

390. Samt Jaina

391. Rabindra Badhatiya

392. Sadawi Dingal

393. Nabratan Polai

394. Ramesh Polai

395. Krishna Maharana

396. Jai Chand Jaina

397. Baburaj Bhuiyan

398. Binod Prasad Singh

399. Ashok Nahak

400. Chaitaina Nahak

401. Krishna Nahak

402. Boldeo Nahak

403. Yadu Nahak

404. Harsu Nahak

405. Pan Nahak

406. Sonu Nahak

407. Santu Nahak

408. Alok Nahak

409. Panchu Nahak

410. Binai Nahak

411. Bimal Nahak

412. Bishsawar Nahak

413. Tilok Nahak

414. Ramu Nahak

415. Ramani Nahak

416. Cenda Nahak

417. Nanhak Nahak

418. Nandu Nahak

419. Tilochan Nahak

420. Pannay Prakash Pandey 421. Birbal Prasad Mehta

422. Teklal Prasad Mehta

423. Ashok Yadav

424. Dhekha Lal Prasad

425. Wakil Prasad

Meheta

426. Bir Pratap Singh

427. Abinay Prasad

428. Kengresh Swani

429. Bhajan Naike

430. Sant Bisai

431. Ghalatan Nahak

432. Jhagru Nahak

433. Jhagga Nahak

434. Nindu Nahak

435. Bishwa Nath Nahak

436. Jhingur Nahak

437. Jhandu Nahak

438. Tileshwar Nahak

439. Ghulaban Nahak

440. Jaichand Nahak

441. Jain Nahak

442. Jainath Nahak

443. Keshwar Nahak

444. Nageshwar Nahak

445. Gopal Nahak

446. Baleshwar Nahak

447. Ganga Nahak

448. Jagarnath Nahak

449. Keso Nahak

450. Kabi Nahak

451. Raju Nahak

452. Ranjan Nahak

453. Baid Nahak

454. Sew Nahak

455. Shyam Nahak

456. Ram Nahak

457. Bhajan Nahak

458. Biju Nahak

459. Raghani Nahak

460. Bijendra Nahak

461. Raghu Nahak

462. Lakhan Nahak

463. Panchanand Barhatia

464. Banshi Barhatia

465. Govind Barhatia

466. Lok Nath Barhatia

467. Menglu Mallik

468. Bharaia Barhatia

469. Anchal Pradhan

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

03.02.1992. After receipt of the reference, both parties are

notice, the workman files their written statement on

08.05.1992. And the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 31.07.1992. Workmen

submitted one document W-1 i.e. failure report of ALC

alongwith Tripartite agreement and examined three

witnesses whereas two witnesses have been examined on

behalf of the management.

3. The claim of the workmen, that they were working in

BCCL under a contractor. But subsequently without

regularizing them, the management terminated their serves.

4. From the workman examined in the case, one WW-3

said that he was given I.D. Card. But he could not produce

the same nor explained under what circumstances he failed

to produce the said I.D. Card Another workman who has

been examined as WW-1 said that he was not given any

Identity Card.

1 2

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2361

5. Lakhan Polai who raised dispute on behalf of the

workmen, has not stated everywhere that he issued I.D.

Card to the workmen. He also failed to produce any

document of contract that he was ordered to engage

workmen in BCCL.

6. As per evidence of the workmen, all stated that they

are a workmen of Lakhan Polai, and Lakhan Polai is my

Contractor. This proves that they were only contractor

workmen.

7. Moreover in the W-1 i.e. Tripartite agreement, name

of 27 persons appears and they have been given

employment. The rest workmen names does not find place

there nor they proves continuous service under the

management.

8. When there is no iota of evidence that all the 469

workmen were the contract workers of BCCL. This

Tribunal is not in a position to pass order to regularize

the workmen.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case.

I hold that the demand of union to regularized the 469

contractor workers shown in the annexure be treated the

service of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. is not justified.

Hence they were are not entitled get any relief.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 885.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 15 of 1996½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@221@1994&vkbZ vkj ¼lh&I ½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 885.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/1996) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 21.02.2014

[No. L-20012/221/1994-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

IN THE MATTER OF REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A) OF

I.D. ACT. 1947

Ref. No. 15 of 1996

Employers in relation to the management of

Bhatdih Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :—

Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman : —

Sri D. Mukherjee, Rep.

State: —Jharkhand

Industry: — Coal

Dated 27.1.2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/221/1994-IR-(C I), dated 09.02.1996,

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 Dispute Act, 1947, referred the following disputes

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand raised after 10 years for

dependent employment by the Union in respect of

Late Angu Roy, Ex-Loader, who died on 28.7.82 is

justified? if so to what relief is the dependent son

Mathur Roy is entitled to?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

20.02.1996. After notice, both parties appeared. The

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

02.01.1997. Thereafter the management files their written

statement on 20.04.2000, rejoinder and filed their respective

doucment from both side, One witness each examined.

3. The short point involved in the case is, demand of

dependant employment after ten years by the union in

respect of late Agnu Roy is justified or not.

4. Agnu Roy a minor loader died on 28.07.1982. It is

stated by the dependent son of Agnu in his evidence that

after the death of his father he applied for job on 30.03.83.

But it is denied by the management.

5. It is not know whether the application of dependent

son filed by Regd. Post with AD or by hand. It is further

curious that, from 1983, the WW-1 waited for long 10 years

and during that period another persons worked as father

2362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of WW-1, and he was dismissed on the ground of

impersonating himself in the name of Agnu Roy.

6. The matter appears to be fishy. Moreover dependant

workman may not be in harness long after ten years. The

years after question on harness is not believed. The claim

of employment ten years after the death of the workman is

not tenable.

7. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case,

I hold that the demand of the union raised after 10 years for

dependent employment in respect of Late Agnu Roy, Ex-

Loader, who died on 28.07.82 is not justified. Hence the

dependent son Mathur Roy is not entitled to get any

relief. The reference is answered in negative.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 886.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkju ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25 dk 2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@100@2010&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I ½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 886.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 25/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of M/s BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 21.02.2014.

[No. L-20012/100/2010-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of reference U/S 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act. 1947.

Reference No. 25 of 2011

Employer in relation to the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/S BCCL

AND

Their workman

Present:— Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers:

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Workman :

Sri K.N. Singh, Rep.

State:—Jharkhand.

Industry:—Coal.

Dated 13/1/2013.

AWARD

By order No.-L.20012/100/2010 IR-(CM-I). dated.

15.04.2011 the Central Govt. in the Ministry of Labour has,

in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub-Section

(1) and Sub-Section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery of M/S BCCL, in dismissing Shri Feroz Mia

M/Loader from the service of the company from

28.8.2004 is fair and justified? To what relief the

Concerned workman is entitled?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

10.05.2011 After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the workman files their written statement on

20.05.2011. And the management files their written

statement-cum rejoinder on 14.03.2013.

3. Before receipt of the documents of the parties, at the

time of preliminary hearing of the case, it is seen that, this

is a case of dismissal. Learned counsel of the management

submitted that the workman has been dismissed as he

remained absent from duty continuously.

4. The counsel for the workman submitted that the

workman is young and be taken to duty without any back

wages.

5. After hearing the parties, it is felt proper to direct the

management to take the workman in job as a fresh entrant.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

This is my award

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 887.—vk|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bZ lh ,y ds

izca/kr= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 28 dk 2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@98@2008µvkbZ vkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2363

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 887.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28/2009) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. ECL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

21/02/2014.

[No-L-20012/98/2008-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

DHANBAD

In the matter of reference u/s 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 28 of 2009

Employer in relation to the management of Mugma Area

M/s. ECL.

AND

Their workmen.

Present :

Sri R.K. Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the employers:

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workman :

Sri U.P. Sinha, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 27/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20012/98/2008/IR (C-I) dated 23.04.2009

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section

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

Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following disputes for

adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Bihar Pradesh Colliery

Mazdoor Congress from the management of Hariajam

Colliery under Mugma Area of M/s. ECL. for

retrenchment benefits under the provision of the I.D.

Act. 1947 to Sri Mansha Manjhi, W/Loader is legal

and justified? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?"

2. This Case is received from the Ministry on 06.05.2009.

During the pendency of the case I.D. counsel of the

workman files a petition and praying to pass No Dispute

award to this reference. It is felt that the dispute between

parties is resolved. Hence "No dispute" award is passed,

communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 888.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch lh lh ,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 53 dk 2009½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@65@2009µvkbZ vkj ¼lh ,e&I½]

,eñ dsñ flag] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 888.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 53/2009) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL, and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

21/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/65/2009-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD

In the mattter of a reference u/s 10(1) (D) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947.

Ref. No. 53 of 2009

Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Area of

M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:—

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the workman :—

Sri M.N. Rewani, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry : Coal

Dated 25/1/2014

2364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/65/2009-IR (CM-I), dt. 29/09/2009,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"(i) Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Mazdoor

Union for reinstatement of Shri O.P. Sharma, Weigh

Bridge Clerk in service by the management of Sijua

Area of M/s. BCCL is justified & legal? (ii) To what

relief is the workman concerned entitled?’’

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

14.10.2009. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed, the Sponsoring Union/workman files their written

statement on 08.12.2009. The management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 22.09.2010. And thereafter the

Sponsoring Union files their rejoinder & document and

examined two witnesses.

3. The claim of the management is that workman

O.P. Sharma alongwith others conspired and charge sheeted

by the CBI and found guilty by CBI Court. On appeal, the

order of conviction was set-a-side and the matter remitted

to Trial Court for fresh decision, within two months. But

before the Trial Court the workmen accused submitted that

they are satisfied with the initial Trial Court judgement for

which the case was closed.

4. But the fact that the workman will be satisfied with

the set-a-side judgment, and the trial closed the case and

will not go against the workman. Moreover no document

filed before this Tribunal as to what judgment was passed

against the workman after remand of CBI case by trial

magistrate. Therefore conviction judgment of the

workman has been set aside and that is the position before

this Tribunal.

5. It is also found among other workman some have

been reinstated, but the present workman was not reinstated

though he gave representation and approached the Hon'ble

High Court. Strangely enough the management took a new

plea of identification before the High Court though the

plea of identification was taken at a belated stage. But in

the reference, the question of identification probably not

raised as otherwise, question of identification must have

been referred in the term of reference. The workman has

filed a series of documents such as Aadhar Card, APL Card

etc. to prove his identity. MW-1 has virtually not stated

anything regarding identity. Rather said during the period,

the workmen were paid in salary sheet.

6. Moreover series of letter right from 1974, has been

issued to workman Sri O.P. Sharma, which he has filed before

this Tribunal. If Mr. O.P. Sharma, says he was receiving

salary from the management during 1971 to 1972, the

management could disprove his claim showing payment

management's pay roll, and that has not been done.

7. O.P. Sharma filed PAN card, Photo I.D. Card proving

his identify, therefore there is not doubt regarding his

identify.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of his case,

I hold that the demand of the Union for reinstatement of

Shri O.P. Sharma, Weigh Bridge Clerk in service by the

management of Sijua Area of M/s. BCCL is justified & legal.

Hence the workman be reinstated in the job without any

back wages within one month from the date of publication

of the award in the gazette.

This is my award.

R.K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 889.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 12 dk 2011½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20012@64@2010&vkbZvkj ¼lh,e&I½]

,eñdsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 889.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/2011) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute be-

tween the management of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-20012/64/2010-IR(CM-I)]

M.K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 1), DHANBAD.

In the matter of a reference u/s 10(1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947

Ref. No. 12 of 2011

Employers in relation to the management of K.B. 5/6 Pits

Colliery, P.B. Area M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2365

Present:—

Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers:—

Sri S. N. Ghosh, Advocate

For the Workman.:—

Sri R. S. Tiwari, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 13/01/2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/64/2010-IR (CM-I), dt. 16/03/2011,

the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in

exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"(i) Whether the action of the management of K.B.

5/6 Pits Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri

Motilal Mahato M/Loader from the services of the

company vide order dated 09.05.2006 is fair and jus-

tified? (ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled to?"

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour on

08.04.2011. After receipt of reference, both parties are

noticed the workman files their written statement on

20.01.2012. And the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 26.10.2012. The point involved

in the reference is that the workman has been dismissed

from his services on ground of absenteeism.

3. During preliminary hearing it is revealed that the case

is dismissal of workman for long absence on duty. It is

found that the workman is young. It is also find that he has

already been out of service for 7 years. It is felt to give

another chance to the workman to serve.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case,

I hold that he be taken into job as a fresh employee.

Therefore the question of back wages does not arise at all.

Communicated.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 890.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUæh; ljdkj chlhlh,y ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky; uañ 1] /kuckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 40 dk 1992½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUæh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&20025@14@1992&vkbZvkj ¼lh&I½]

,eñ dsñ ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 890.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 40/1992) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the manageent of M/s. BCCL, and their workmen, received

by the Central Government on 21.02.2014.

[No. L-20025/14/1992-IR (C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

Reference : No. 40/1992

In the matter of reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of I.D. Act, 1947.

Employer in relation to the management of P.B. Area

of M/s. BCCL

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Sri R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers:

Sri S. Behra, Asstt. Manager

For the Workman :

None

State: Jharkhand. Industry-Coal

Dated 24/1/2014

AWARD

By order No. L-20025/14/92-IR (Coal-I) dated 19th May,

1992, the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

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

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of

Kenduadih Colliery of M/s. BCCL, Pootki Balihari

Area in denying employment to Shri Suresh Paswan

and Dhuran Paswan, Wagon Loader is justified? If

not to what relief are the workmen entitled?"

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 No

Dispute Award is passed. Communicate.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

2366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 20 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 891.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dukjk cSad ds izca/

kr= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] cSaxyksj ds iapkV ¼55@1998½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@187@97&vkbZ vkj ¼ch II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2014

S.O. 891.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 55/1998) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Canara Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 20.02.2014.

[No. L-12012/187/97-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

DATED

1st January, 2014

PRESENT :

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

CR. NO. 55/1998

I Party

II Party

Sh. B.G. Padmanabha Rao, The Deputy General Manager,

S/o Sh. B.S. Gundurao,

Canara Bank,

Ex-shanbogue, Tagalur Tq. Circle Office,

Billichudu - 577 553

No. 86, M G Road,

Chitradurga District.

Bangalore- 560 001.

Appearances :

I Party

Shri N. S. Narasimha Swamy

Advocate

II Party :

Shri T. R. K. Prasad,

Advocate

AWARD

1. The Central Govenrment vide order No. L-12012/187/

97-IR(B-II) dated 10.06.1998 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following schedule:

SCHEDULE

''Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank

is justified in deleting the name of Sh. B. G. Padmanabha

Rao from the panel of daily wagers w.e.f. 20.11.1995 on the

charges of fraudulent act committed by him, is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?''

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in CR

55/1998 when notices were issued to both the sides they

entered their appearance through their respective

advocates and I party filed his claim statement on 19.02.1999

whereas the II party its counter on 09.04.1999. The I Party

in his claim statement while contending that he was not

given fair and proper opportunity in the Domestic Enquiry,

that the Enquiry Officer in his finding held the charges as

proved without any evidence/basis and that on such a

perverse finding the Disciplinary Authority imposed the

punishment of removing his name from the panel of daily

wagers and even otherwise the same is harsh and

disproportionate prayed to set-aside the said order with

direction to the II Party to reinstate him into the original

post and to pay backwages, contrinuity of service and

other consequential benefits. Inter alia, in the counter

statement filed for the II Party it is contended the I Party

was empanelled as daily wager for Chitradura District since

19.12.1984 and was attached to Bilichodu Branch and as he

was engaged on a day to day basis either in leave

vacancies or whenever the exigencies required additional

worker is not in the first instance workman as defined under

Section 2(s) of ID Act as such the reference is not

maintainable. It is further contended that he was served

with a charge sheet dated 15.06.1994 as under:

"You are in the panel of daily wagers of divisional

Office, Davangere.

On 07.12.1992 when you were attached to our

Bilichodu Branch, a cheque bearing number 0515741

for Rs. 16,000 was debited to the SB Account Number

3331 of one Sri Siddappa. The account holder had

denied having drawn the amount. The account holder

was not issued with cheque book and he was

operating the account by means of loose leaves/

withdrawal order forms only.

The following have now come to light:

(a) that when the cheque was to released for payment,

you had reminded Sri D.R. Eswar Prasad;

(b) that you had told the supervisor that the account

holder had called on the Branch on 7.12.1992 for

collecting a cheque book (when infact the account

holder did not come to the branch);

There are, therfore, reasons to believe that you had

in connivance with orders allegedly committed the

fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 16,000 from the SB

Account of Sri Siddappa on 7.12.1992.

By you above action you have wilfully caused/

attempted to cause loss to the property of the Bank

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2367

and/or its customer and thus committed Gross

Misconduct.

Your above action being prejudicial to the interest of

the Bank, you have also committed Gross

Misconduct.

Deputy General Manager"

and was ordered to place disciplinary enquiry by appointing

Sh. G Ravindrakumar as Enquiry Officer and Sh. G.M.

Krishnamurthy as Presenting Officer and as the Enquiry

Officer after holding due enquiry submitted his finding

dated 23.08.1995 the charges being proved after affording

him an opportunity of hearing the impugned punishment

of removing his name from the panel of daily wagers was

imposed and on his appeal the Appellate Authority affirmed

the order of the Disciplinary Authority as such he is entitle

for any of the reliefs sought for.

3. After completion of the pleadings my learned

predecessor having regard to certain allegations made in

the claim statement touching the propriety of the Domestic

Enquiry conducted against him while framing a Preliminary

issue as to "Whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted

against the I Party by the II Party is fair and proper", after

receiving the evidence of the Enquriy Officer in the

Domestic Enquiry as MW 1 and exhibiting Charge sheet

dated 15.06.1994; Circular dated 03.02.1993; reply of the I

party to the charge sheet dated 28.06.1994; Appointment

letter of Enquiry Officer dated 18.07.1994; appointment letter

of Presenting Officer dated 18.07.1994; Notice of enquiry

dated 19.07.1994; letter dated 08.09.1995 addressed by the

Disciplinary Authority to the I party forwarding the enquriy

report; reply of the I Party dated 06.10.1995; letter dated

26.10.1995 addressed to the I party affording him personal

hearing; letter addressed by I party to the Disciplinary

Authority dated 11.11.1995; Order of the Disciplinary

Authority dated 20.11.1995 as Ex M-1 to Ex M-12 and the

evidence of I party as MW 1 by his order dated 09.05.2002

since held the Preliminary Issue in the negative i.e., the

Domestic Enquiry was not fair and proper the II Party was

being given an opportunity to substantiate the charges

against the I Party, the learned advocate appearing for the

II Party while examining Sh. M. R. Maiya, Manager of

Bilichuru Branch of the II Party, Smt. Nagamani T. G. Clerk

said to have been assigned the duties of cash receipt and

cash payments for the relevant period at Bilichodu Branch,

Sh. D. Krishna Murthy Rao, said to be Clerk at Savings

Bank Department at Bilichodu Branch, Sh. D R Eswar Prasad

claims to be then working in the capacity of Special

Assistant at Bilichodu Branch as MW 2 to MW 5

respectively got exhibited Certified copy of the entry in

cheque book register on Pages 41 and 42; alleged signature;

certified copy of the aforesaid cheque; certified copy of

the specimen signature card; certified copy of extract of

the accounts with the bank ledger; relevant entry; certified

copy of the letter dated 18.01.1993; extract to show payment

of daily wages as Ex M-13, M-13(a), Ex M-14 to Ex M-16, Ex

M-16(a), Ex M-17 and Ex M-18. Interalia , the I Party filed

his affidavit in lieu of his evidence on 22.06.2010 and

examined himself on oath as WW 1 and closed his side.

4. With the above pleadings, oral and documentary

evidence brought on record by both the sides the

arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both the

sides on merits being heard the Points that now arises for

my consideration are:

Point No. 1: Whether the II Party prove that the I

Party taken the cheque book signing as Siddappa in

respect of the SB Account No. 3331 and fraudulently

withdrew Rs. 16000.00 from the said account on

07.12.1992 and thereby caused loss to the property

of the bank and its customer and thus committed

gross misconduct?

Point No. 2 : If yes, whether the punishment imposed

by the II party removing his name from the panel of

daily wager is just and proper?

Point No. 3 : What Order/Award?

5. On appreciation of the charge levelled against the 1

Party, oral and documentary evidence brought on record

by both the sides in the light of the arguments put forward

by their learned advocates my finding on Point No. 1 is in

the negative, Point No. 2 as does not survive for

consideration and Point No. 3 as per final Order/Award for

the following

REASONS

6. Point No. 1: At the outset on plain reading of the

charge sheet it suggest the II party having drawn an

inference that I Party had collected cheque book pertaining

to the SB A/c No. 3331 standing in the name of Siddappa

signing as Siddappa in the Cheque Issue register and

utilizing one of the said cheque for drawing a sum of Rs.

16000.00 on 07.12.1992 since the account holder denied

having drawn the said amount and that he was operating

his account without collecting the cheque book on

withdrawal order forms only as he/I Party had told the

Supervisor that the Account holder had called on the Branch

on 07.12.1992 for collecting a cheque book and remained

Sri Eshwar Prasad when the cheque was not taken for

payment because absolutely there is no evidence the

signature appearing either in Cheque Issue Register or the

cheque leaf used to draw Rs. 16000.00 on 07.12.1992 being

actually made by the I Party. MW 2 Sh. M R Maiya the

Branch Manager of the Billchodu Branch at the relevant

time has simply deposed that on 16.12.1992 he was told a

Cheque of Rs. 16000.00 being issued and draw from the

account No. 3331 pertaining to Sh. Siddappa on 07.02.1992

and that on that day 16.12.1991 the account holder who

visited the Branch to withdraw certain amount and

submitted his pass book and the same was returned after

2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

updating the account he told that he has not withdrawn

Rs. 16000.00 on 07.12.1992 and he being illiterate did not

opt for any cheque book nor he was issued with any cheque

and that he was withdrawing the amount with loose

withdrawal slips and then on going through the records

that it was found cheque book was being issued in his

favour and under the first leave an amount of Rs. 16000.00

being withdrawn. Thereby, absolutely there is nothing in

his evidence to suggest that the I Party having collected

cheque book pertaining to Account Nol. 3331 of Siddappa

and utilizing the first leave of that cheque book for

withdrawing Rs. 16000.00 on 07.02.1992. Similarly MW 3,

Mrs. Nagamani who claims that she was working as Clerk

and was assigned with duties of Cash Receipts and Cash

Payments simply states that she having made payment

against the cheque dated 07.12.1992 copy of which is

produced at Ex M-14 against token No. 13 on 07.12.1990

and that she cannot say whether Sh. Siddappa i.e., Account

holder submitted the cheque for encashment and thereby

in her avidence as well there is nothing to suggest aginst

the I Party. Now coming to the evidence of MW 4 Sh. D

Krishna Murthy Rao who claims to have been working at

Savings Bank Account Department simply states that on

presentation of Ex M-14 across the counter he debited the

same cheque at concerned cheque at Ex M-16 and that he

cannot say who pressented the cheque at the counter and

he further states that it was not from out of the staff members

who presented the cheque as such in his evidence

absolutely there is nothing to suggest against the I Party.

Now coming to the last evidence of the II Party MW 5, Sh.

D R Eswar Prasad there is nothing to suggest the I Party

either having taken the cheque book pertaining to Account

No. 3331 or utilizing the first leaf of the same cheque book.

Thus absolutely therebeing no IOTA of evidence direct or

indirect suggesting that I Party having collected the cheque

book pertaining to Account No. 3331 forging the signature

of the account holder Siddappa or utilizing the first leaf of

that cheque book for drawing a sum of Rs. 16000 on

07.12.1992, I arrived at conclusion of answering Point No. 1

in the Negative.

7. Point No. 2 and 3: In view of my finding on Point No.

1 the action of the management removing the name of I

Party from the panel of daily Wagers w.e.f. 20.11.1995 cannot

be sustained and he is entitle for restoration of his name in

the panel of daily wagers as it was as on 20.11.1995. As far

as claim of backwages is concerned having regard to the

nature of the engagement of the I Party by the II Party as

daily wager and long lapse of time it may not be proper to

direct the II Party to pay the full backwages that would

have been paid to him from the date of removing his name

from the panel of daily wagers till his name is restored in

that panel but however he having deprived of rendering

service as daily wager w.e.f. 20.11.1995 without any fault

on his part, I feel it just and appropriate to direct the II

party to pay him by way of compensation equivalent to

10% at the wages payable to the daily wagers w.e.f.

20.11.1995 at the rate prescribed by the Government from

time to time till his name is restored in the panel of daily

wagers and to continue to provide him the work of daily

wager. In the result, I pass the following.

ORDER

The reference is allowed holding that the action of the

management of Canara Bank is not justified in delating the

name of Sh. B G Padmanabha Rao from the panel of daily

wagers w.e.f. 20.11.1995 on the charges of fraudulent act

committed by his is not legal and justified and that he is

entitle for restoration of his name in the panel of Daily

Wagers of Chitradurga District of II Party Bank as it was on

20.11.1995 and by way of compensation wages equivalent

to 10% of the wages payable to the daily wagers w.e.f.

20.11.1995 at the ate prescribed by the Government from

time to time till his name is restored in the panel of daily

wagers and continue to provide his the work of daily wager.

The II Party shall calculate the compensaiton payable to

the I Party under this order within 30 days from the date of

publicaiton of the Award and pay it to the I Party failing

which it will be liable to pay interest on the said total sum

payable to him @ 12 % per annum.

(Dictated to UDC, transcribed by him, corrected and

signed by me on 1st January 2014)

S. N.NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 20 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 892.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dsukjk c®d ds izca/

kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] c®xykSj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 06@2010½ dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 20-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@26@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 20th February, 2014

S.O. 892.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 06/2010) of the Cent.

Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of Canara Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 20/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/26/2009-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2369

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

DATED

31st DECEMBER 2013

PRESENT

Shri S. N. NAVALGUND,

Presiding Officer

C R No. 06/2010

I Party

II Party

Shri Babu Mahagoankar,

The Deputy General

C/o Mahammed Monuddin,

Manager,

Canara Bank, Circle Office,

Flat No. 18, Shanti Nagar,

IMA House, B Nagar,

MSK Mills Road,

Hubli - 29.

Gulbarga

Appearances

I Party

Self

II Party :

Shri T. P. Muthanna

Advocate

A W A R D

1. The Central Government vide order No. L-12012/86/

2009-IR(B-II) dated 22/27.01.2010 in exercise of the power

conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section

(2A) of Section 10 of the Indusutrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14

of 1947) made this reference for adjudication with the

following:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of management of Canara Bank,

Hubli in imposing the penalty of Compulsory

Retirement from service of Shri Babu Mahagoankar,

Ex-Sub-staff w.e.f. 07.01.2006 is justified. What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference while registering it in C R

06/2010 when the notices were issued to both the sides the

I Party appeared in person, whereas, the II Party appeared

through Sh. T. P. Muthanna, advocate and his associates.

The I Party who appeared on 09.04.2010 the first date given

for appearance taken time to file claim statement till

25.05.2010 and on that day also on his request he was

given time to file statement till 02.07.2010 and on that day

though he did not turn up one more opportunity was given

to file claim statement till 04.08.2010 and as on that day also

he did not come one more opportunity was given till

06.09.2010 and on that day he appeared and requested for

time and time was given till 06.10.2010 but on that day

since he did not turn up taking that he has no claim

statement to file the II Party was called upon to file its

statement substantiating its action. Thereafter the I Party

never turned up and participated in the proceedings and

the II Party counsel on 04.11.2010 filed his statement

substantiating the action and also by filing the affidavit of

Enquiry Officer examining him on oath as MW 1 got

exhibited Ex M-1 to Ex M-59 the detailed description of

which are narrated in the annexure and closed its side and

submitted his arguments.

3. According to the II Party Sh. Babu Mahagoankar

(hereinafter referred as I Party) while working as Sub-staff

in the Gulbarga Main Branch during 16.12.1998 to 09.05.2003

was found removing four cheque books (each consisting

of 10 leaves) from the branch which were not issued to the

respepctive account holders and misutilizing 8 cheque

leaves for fraudulent withdrawal of money from the accounts

of the Branch presenting the cheques through clearing by

opening fictitious accounts at Post Office and also

fraudulently withdrawing of Rs. 900.00, attempt to withdraw

of Rs. 900.00 from SB Account of Sh. Gopalkrishna,

collecting Rs. 250.00 from the pensioner drawing his pension

through Gulbarga Main Branch to open an account in the

name of his wife and failing to open an account, remaining

absent from his duties since 02.08.2004 without initmation/

submitting leave application while on deputation to

Regional Office, Gulbarga and in that regard after issuing

show cause notice he was issued with charge sheet and

held the departmental enquiry by appointing Sh. Vijaykumar

B Patil as Enquiry Officer and Sh. Prakash Huddar as

Presenting Officer. The 1 Party since never appeared before

the Enquiry Officer inspite of serving notice and providing

several opportunities he completed the enquiry and

submitted his finding dated, 24.12.2005 holding the charges

as proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority issued show

cause notice proposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement and after affording personal hearing imposed

the punishment of compulsory retirement by his order dated

07.01.2006. Aggrieved by the said order an appeal was

preferred to the Appellate Authroity and Appellate

Authority after affording opportunity to hearing while

upholding the enquriy finding and also the punishment

imposed by the Disciplinary Authority rejected the appeal

by order dated 15.11.2006. Thereafter, the I party had filed

a review petition before the higher authorities and same

was rejected as there was no provision for such a review

petition. Thus, it is contended the I Party having remained

ex-parte in the Domestic Enquiry allowd the evidence

adduced for the management unchallenged as such the

Enquiry Officer without any option held the charges as

proved and on the basis of the same while issuing show

cause notice proposing the punishment of compulsory

retirement after affording opportunity of hearing he has

been compulsorily retired and same has been upheld by

the Appellate Authority as such there is no reason to

interefere in the same.

4. This contention in the counter statement is

substaintiated by examing the Enquiry Officer in the

Domestic Enquiry and getting exhibited Ex M-1 to Ex M-59.

Since the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer discloses that

he afforded opportunity to the CSE/I Party to participate in

2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the enquiry and same was not availed and the Enquiry

Officer after receiving the evidence tendered by the

management submitted his finding the charges being

proved. When this is the situation it was for the I Party to

demonstrate how the finding of the Enquiry Officer is

perverse and the punishment imposed is disproportionate

to the misconduct proved against him but as already

adverted to by me above the I Party did not care to file

claim statement or to challenge the evidence of II Party in

any manner by participating in the proceedings. Therefore,

I having no reason to say that the Enquiry finding is

perverse or the punishment imposed is disproportionate, I

have arrived at conclusion of rejecting the reference holding

that the action of the management of Canara Bank, Hubli in

imposing the penalty of Compulsory Retirement from

service of Shri Babu Mahagoankar, Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f.

07.01.2006 is justified. In the result, I pass the following.

O R D E R

The reference is rejected holding that the action of the

management of Canara Bank, Hubli in imposing the penalty

of Compulsory Retirement from service of Shri Babu

Mahagoankar, Ex-Sub Staff w.e.f. 07.01.2006 is justified.

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE-I

Witnesses examined on behalf of II Party:

MW 1 - Vijaykumar B Patil, Enquiry Officer

Witnesses examined on behalf of I Party

Nil

Documents exhibited on behalf of management:

Ex M-1

Charge Sheet No. BLC/DAC/3043/E.37/CH-

30/2005 dated 06.05.2005

Ex M-2

Letter dated 21.06.2005 of Sri Baby

Mahagaonkar

Ex M-3

Appointment of Sh V B Patil as Enquiry

Officer

Ex M-4

Appointment of Sh. Prakash Huddar as

Enquiry Officer

Ex M-5

Preliminary enquiry notice dated 04.07.2005

Ex M-6

Proceedings of enquiry dated 18.07.2005

Ex M-7

Enquiry notice dated 19.07.2005

Ex M-8

Proceedings of enquiry dated 12.08.2005

Ex M-9

Enquiry Notice dated 25.08.2005

Ex M-10

Proceedings of enquiry dated 13.09.2005,

14.09.2005 and 22.09.2005

Ex M-11

Investigation Report dated 13.02.2004 of

Sri U K Vaidya

Ex M-12

Investigation Report dated 12.04.2004 of

Sri U K Vaidya

Ex M-13

Statement of Babu Mahagoankar dated

30.03.2004 in Kannada

Ex M-14

Statement dated 27.03.2004 of Shankar

Jamdhari

Ex M-15

Letter dated 22.03.2004 of Gulbarga Post

Office addressed of RO, Gulbarga.

Ex M-16

Post Office SB a/c opening form of

Sushilkumar

Ex M-17

Post Office SB a/c opening form of

Mallikarjun

Ex M-18

Investigation Report dated 16.10.2004 of Sri

U K Vaidya

Ex M-19

Statement of Gopikrishna

Ex M-20

Statement of Sharanu dated 28.09.2004

Ex M-21

Ledger Sheet of SB a/c 31064 of gopikrishna

Ex M-22

Cheque No. 566410 dated 19.07.2004 for Rs.

900/-

Ex M-23

Cheque No. 594260 dated 19.07.2004 of Rs.

900/-

Ex M-24

Specimen card of SB 31064

Ex M-25

Statement of Babu Mahagoankar in English

Ex M-26

Statement of Babu Mahagoankar in

Kannada

Ex M-27

Statement of Babu Mahagoankar dated

09.10.2004

Ex M-28

List of cheque book issued to account 31064

Ex M-29

Investigation Report dated 04.09.2004

submitted by Mohd. Moinuddin

Ex M-30

RO Gulbarga letter RO GLB DEV RO STF

2010 04 RAU dated 13.09.2004

Ex M-31

RO Gulbarga letter RO GLB 10 HO GLM

MMD 2004-05 dated 06.08.2004

Ex M-32

Statement of Sri P R Prasad

Ex M-33

SS(W) CO Bangalore letter No. BLSW 22755

E.13 04 dated 28.04.2004

Ex M-34

SS (W) C O Bangalore AWL Proceedings

BLC SSW E 13 70345 91 2004-05 dated

15.12.04

Ex M-35

Specimen card of SB 35816

Ex M-36

Gulbarga Main Branch letter 8 HO Staff

70345 04 dtd. 29.10.2004 to Staff Section

C O Bangalore

Ex M-37

Staff Section (workman) C O Bangalore letter

No. BLSWE 13 260552004 dated 24.09.2004

Ex M-38

Staff Section (workman) C O Bangalore letter

No. BLC SSW 11032 EP 2004 dated

02.11.2004

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2371

Ex M-39

Specimen card of a/c 31064

Ex M-40

Cheque No. 566410 dtd. 19.07.04 for Rs. 900

Ex M-41

Cheque No. 594260 dtd. 19.07.04 for Rs. 900

Ex M-42

Statement of Sharnu dated 07.09.2004

Ex M-43

Investigation Report dated 09.09.2004

Ex M-44

Handwriting Expert Smt. CV Jayadevi

Report dated 20.09.04

Ex M-45

Leave Pass Sheet of Babu Mahagoankar

Ex M-46

Written Brief dated 30.09.2005 submitted by

Presenting Officer

Ex M-47

Letter dated 05.10.2005 submitted by Sri

Babu Mahagaonkar to Enquiry Officer

Ex M-48

Findings of the Enquiry Officer dated

14.12.2005

Ex M-49

Letter dated 14.12.2005 forwarding the

proceedings of Enquriy Officer to I Party

by Deputy General Manager

Ex M-50

Submissions dated 24.12.2005 of the

claimant on the Enquiry Officer fidings

Ex M-51

Letter BLC DAC 2 2006 dated 03.01.2006

regarding personal hearing sent to Sri Babu

Mahagaonkar

Ex M-52

Proceedings of the personal hearing dated

07.01.2006

Ex M-53

Punishment proceedings BLC:DAC:

4402:E.37:2006 dated 07.01.2006

Ex M-54

Orders of the Disciplinary Authroity dated

07.01.2006

Ex M-55

Appeal dated 20.012006 filed by Sri Babu

Mahagaonkar

Ex M-56

Letter No. BLCM:DAC:1099:2006 dated

12.10.2006 regarding personal hearing of

Appeal

Ex M-57

Orders of the Appellate Authority dated

15.11.2006

Ex M-58

Review petition dated 18.12.2006 preferred

against the orders of the Appellate

Authority by Sri Babu Mahagaonkar

Ex M-58

Ind. Rel. Section, Personnel Wing, HO

Bangalore letter IRS DP HBL 5747 RSP

dated 05.01.2007

Documnets eshibited on behalf of the I Party:

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 893.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdkas vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

ukxiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 96@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@08@1996&vkbZvkj ¼ch&1½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 893.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 96/2003 of the Central

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-12011/08/96-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/96/2003

Date: 29.01.2014

Party No. 1

The Dy. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Kingsway,

Nagpur-440001.

Versus

Party No. 2

: General Secretary,

State Bank Workers Organization

(NOBW)

H.No. 542, Dr. Munje Marg, Congress

Nagar, Nagpur-440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 29th January, 2014)

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, Nagpur and their

workman, Shri D.S. Joshi, for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-12011/08/1996-IR (B-I) dated 01/02.04.1998, with the

following schedule:—

"Whether the demand of the Union for treating Shri

D.S. Joshi on duty from 24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995 is

legal and justified? If so what relief the workman is

entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the reference, the parties were noticed

to file their respective statement of claim and written

2372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

statement and accordingly, the statement of claim was filed

by the Union, State Bank Workers' Organization ("the

union" in short) on behalf of the workman, Shri D.S. Joshi,

("the workman" in short) and the written statement was

filed by the management of SBI, ("Party No. 1" in short).

The case of the workman as presented by the union in

the statement of claim is that the workman was working in

Nagpur branch of S.B.I. in the year 1995 and he was the

general secretary of the union and he had to attend the

departmental enquiry of one S.P. Mahajan as defence

representative, at Dhule on 26.07.1995 and the date of

enquiry was intimated to the workman by Party No. 1 vide

letter dated 20.07.1995 and the workman started the journey

for Dhule on 24.07.1995 and he attended the said enquiry

on 26.07.1995 and the workman reported at Nagpur branch

on 31.07.1995, after attending the enquiry as per the routine

time of arrival and handed over the certificate issued by

the enquiry officer for attending the enquiry at Dhule, to

the Assistance Manager (cash) at 10.30 A.M. and the same

was duly acknowledged by the Assistance Manager (cash)

and the Assistance Manager (cash) informed the workman

that his name to have been struck off from the daily

attendance register on 25.07.1995 and he was advised to

see the Manager (Accounts) or Asstt. General Manager

for other details and throughout the day, the workman

requested for the transfer order and the letter of

introduction, but the same were not issued to him, so finally,

the workman submitted the letter of presence on 31.07.1995

to the AGM, Nagpur branch, which was returned by the

AGM to the workman at 5.30 P.M., with the remarks that,

"You have already been transferred to Itwari branch at the

close of business on 25.07.2005. A notice to that effect has

already been displayed in the notice board on 19.07.1995

and also a registered letter was sent to you on 21.07.1995.

Please report to Itwari Branch directly," and it was obvious

from the said remarks that it was not the transfer order at all

and the workman reportedly pursued for the transfer order,

but the management truned down the request and

ultimately, the organization raised the dispute by giving

the strike notice on 25.08.1995 and during the course of

conciliation, on 01.09.1995, the Party No. 1 gave the transfer

order and the letter of introduction to the workman and as

per the advice of the Asstt. Labour Commissioner, the

workman reported to Itwari branch on 01.09.1995 and during

the pendency of conciliation, the Party No.1 on 29.09.1995

issued a letter intimating that 30 days salary was recovered

from his salary for the month of August, 1995 payable to

him, for the unauthorized absence between the period from

24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995, as per the details of the absence

given in the said letter and ultimately, the dispute was

referred for adjudication.

It is further pleaded by the union on behalf of the

workman that the present dispute was created out of the

transfer of the workman from Nagpur branch to Itwari

branch under the "Five year Transfer Policy" and the Party

No. 1 had formulated the said policy in consultation with

their recognized Federation and though the union did not

oppose the said policy, there were always disputes in the

implementation of the same and the management had

extended special protection to the office bearers of the

recognized union, where as, the members and office bearers

of the minority unions were harassed under the grab of the

said policy and the case of the workman is also an example

of such harassment and because of the pressure from the

recognized union, the Party No. 1 decided to transfer the

workman, the Vice President, Shri S.L. Bhisikar and the

Zonal Secretary, Shri J.G. Nazar of the union from Nagpur

branch to other branches of Nagpur city and it was

obligatory on the part of the Party No. 1, as per the

provisions of para 535 of Sastry Award to intimate the

concerned employees and the union about the

contemplated transfer at least five days before, but Party

No. 1 failed to do so and the Party No. 1 relieved Shri

Bhisikar and Shri Nazar on 25.07.1995 and the name of the

workman was also struck off from the muster sheet on 25th

July, 1995, when the workman was on duty leave to attend

the departmental enquiry at Dhule, without any intimation

to him and the action of Party No. 1 was completely

motivated and irregular and the transfer was also illegal, as

the same was done in contravention of the provisions of

para 535 of Sastry Award and such action was taken by

Party no. 1 with the malafide intention to demoralize the

minority union and to favour the recognized union and the

Party no. 1 did not serve any communication regarding the

transfer to the workman till 5.30 P.M. on 31.07.1995 and

Party No. 1 did not serve any order of transfer on the

workman till 01.09.1975 and during the period from

31.07.1995 to 01.09.1995, the workman had tried on number

of occasions to report on duty at Nagpur branch, but Party

No. 1 did not permit him to join duty or served the order of

his transfer to Itwari branch and it is clear from the remarks

of the Asstt. General Manager that the decision for transfer

of the workman to Itwari branch was taken prior to 19.07.1995

and the workman was in Nagpur branch till 2.30 PM on

22.07.1995, being Saturday and the decision of transfer of

the workman to Itwari branch and the order in that respect

could have been served on the workman alongwith the

letter of intimation to attend the enquiry at Dhule dated

20.07.1995, which was received by him on 21.07.1995, but

Party No. 1 did not communicate the order of transfer till

2.30 P.M. of 22.07.1995 and the Party No. 1 illegally deducted

the wages of 30 days from the salary of the workman and

the union had raised the dispute before the A.L.C. on

25.08.1995 and Party No. 1 deducted the wages of the

workman during the pendency of the conciliation, without

the permission of the A.L.C., in violation of section 33 of

the Act and the workman had explained the details of his

movement during the period from 22.07.1995 to 21.08.1995,

by his letter dated 22.08.1995 and Party No. 1 did not give

the workman any opportunity to explain the reasons of his

absence and it was the period of lockout for the workman.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2373

The union has also pleaded that the workman was

engaged in the departmental enquiries from 24.07.1995 to

31.07.1995 at Dhule, from 05.08.1995 to 09.08.1995 and

16.08.1995 to 22.08.1995 at Khamgaon and he being the

office bearer of the union was busy in organizational activity

during 01.08.1995 to 04-08-1995 and 10.08.1995 to 15.08.1995

and the workman again approached the concerned

authorities to report for duty on 22.08.1995, but all his efforts

went in vain and the workman had been granted four days

journey periods for to and fro journey to Dhule, but the

Party No. 1 sanctioned two days journey period for

attending the departmental enquiry at Dhule on 26.07.1995

and therefore, the action of Party No. 1 to deduct wages for

24.07.1995 to 28.07.1995 was illegal and the workman vide

his letter dated 22.08.1995 had clearly mentioned that

because of late arrival of train, he could not attend the

Bank on 29.07.1995 and 30.07.1995 being a Sunday, he

reported to Nagpur branch at 10.30 A.M. on 31.07.1995 and

handed over the certificate granted by the enquiry officer

to the Asstt. Manager (cash) and the Party No. 1 did not

hand over the order of transfer to him on 31.07.1995 and for

its own mistake, the Party No. 1 deducted the wages of the

workman and the workman attended Nagpur branch daily

from 22.08.1995 to 31.08.1995, but he was not allowed to

perform the duties and the workman was on leave on

29.07.1995, 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995 and 09.08.1995 to

16.08.1995 and because of such unforeseen and

unwarranted circumstances, it was not possible for the

workman to submit leave application for the said periods

and Party No. 1 did not follow the laid down procedure

before the recovery of the amount from his salary.

Prayer has been made by the union to direct the Party

No. 1 to withdraw the order of transfer of the workman and

so also that of Shri S.L. Bhisikar and Shri J.G. Nazar and to

pay the wages of 30 days to the workman.

3. The Party No. 1 in the written statement has pleaded

inter alia that an individual dispute has been projected as

an industrial dispute and the onus is on the union/workman

to prove that the alleged dispute is an industrial dispute,

but there is no substantial material to support the claim

and as such, the reference is to be answered against the

workman.

It is further pleaded by the Party No. 1 that as per the

five year transfer policy of the Head Office, Mumbai, it was

decided by the Zonal Office, Nagpur controlling the entire

Vidharbha zone to transfer the employees working in the

same branch for more than five years to other branches of

the Bank within the same city and in terms of the said

policy, the zonal manager, zonal office, Nagpur by order

dated 18.07.1995 directed the branch Manager/Asstt.

General Manager, Nagpur branch to transfer the employees

working in Nagpur branch to some other branches of the

city, as per list and the AGM, Nagpur branch on 19.07.1995

placed a notice on the notice board of the branch, the list

of the transferred employees and place of transfer and sent

copy of the said order by registered post with AD to the

individual employees and on 24.07.1995, the workman left

for Dhule to attend the enquiry of another employee, but

however, he was expected to know about his transfer, as

the transfer order was placed on the notice board of the

branch on 19.07.1995, i.e. about six days in advance and in

usual course, the workman should have reported on

28.07.1995, but he did not report on 28.07.1995 alleging that

the train was late, but no proof of late arrival of the train

was produced by the workman and on 31.07.1995, the

workman by his letter submitted at 5.00 P.M. intimated that

he reported for duty and was in the branch premises up to

5.20 P.M., but the branch did not find any evidence of his

reporting to the branch and the workman might have visited

the premises and delivered the letter dated 31.07.1995 at

about 5.00 P.M. and it was brought to the notice of the

workman by making endorsement on the letter dated

31.07.1995 itself about his transfer to Itwari branch, at the

closure of the business on 25.07.1995 and about display of

the notice in that regard on the notice board of the branch

on 19.07.1995 and sending of registered letter on 22.07.1995

and he was directed to report to Itwari branch, Nagpur and

there was no communication from the workman till

21.08.1995 for the reasons best known to him and the

workman by his letter dated 22.08.1995 informed Nagpur

branch that he is reporting for duty, but Nagpur Branch

vide its letter dated 24.08.1995 informed the workman that

he had been transferred to Itwari branch and his contention

of his reporting for duty on 31.07.1995 at 10.30 A.M. to

Deputy Manager (Cash) was not correct and to justify his

absence from headquarters he has to submit his case before

Itwari branch and all adverse allegations made by the

workman in his letter dated 22.08.1995 were denied and the

workman instead of reporting for duty to Itwari Branch,

Nagpur, threatened the bank by another letter dated

26.08.1995 and made some wild and baseless allegations of

illegal lockout and his union also served a strike notice

dated 26.08.1995 and approached the ALC and as

suggested by the ALC to resolve the dispute. Another

letter was issued to the workman for reporting to Itwari

branch and the workman reported to Itwari branch for duty

on 01.09.1995 at about close of the business i.e. at about

5.00 P.M. and as the workman did not report for duty at

Itwari branch till 02.09.1995, as per transfer order dated

19.07.1995, the branch manager of Itwari branch by letter

dated 29.09.1995 advised the workman that salary of five

days in July, 24 days in August and 1 day in September,

1995 to have been proposed for deduction, as his absence

was unauthorized during the above said period.

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

was well aware that his immediate division in charge was

Chief Manager (Accounts and Administration) and not

the Asstt. Manager (Cash) and there was no need to report

to Asstt. Manager (Cash) and the workman intentionally

2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

created false evidence of reporting to the Assistant

Manager (Cash) and the workman has pleaded on the issue

of illegality of transfer order, which cannot be agitated in

the present proceedings and as the workman was already

transferred to Itwari branch and his name was struck down

from the roll of Nagpur branch from 25.07.1995, due to his

transfer order dated 19.07.1995, there was no question of

allowing the workman to sign the master roll and there was

no question of the bank waiting for the return of the

workman from Dhule, as there is no such law, rule or

regulation in vogue in the bank and the transfer order was

valid and legal and the said order was duly displayed in the

notice board on 19.07.1995 and was also sent to the workman

by registered post, so, it cannot be said that the order of

transfer was not served on the workman and the workman

has no say as to what he was doing from 31.07.1995 till

01.09.1995 and the union of the workman is not a recognized

union in the bank, so the allegations of advance intimation

does not hold water and it followed due procedure about

the transfer of the workman and the letter dated 29.09.1995

was not illegal and as the workman was absent without

sanctioned leave, the salary of the workman was rightly

deducted for the period of absence and such deduction

was not in violation of section 33 of the Act and the

workman was not prevented by any authority from

submitting leave application and the workman never

demanded any introduction letter and it is admitted in the

statement of claim that the workman was absent on

29.07.1995, 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995 and 09.08.1995 to

16.08.1995 and due to unwarranted circumstances, it was

not possible from him to submit leave application for the

said period and it was the duty of the workman to submit

the leave application and he cannot shift the burden on the

bank to demand leave application and when no leave

application had been submitted, it had every right to deduct

the wages for the period of absence and the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

4. Besides placing reliance on documentary evidence,

both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their

respective claims. The union has examined the workman as

the only witness to prove the stands taken by it.

In his examination-in-chief, which is on affidavit, the

workman has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim. However, in the cross-examination, the workman

has stated that he approached the union in writing to raise

the dispute on his behalf on 31.07.1995 and he has filed the

originals minutes book of the union, Ext. W-4 and the union

passed the resolution to raise his dispute on 30.07.1995

and Ext. W-5 is the resolution dated 30.07.1995 and the

meeting dated 30.07.1995 was held one day after the

submission of his application to the union. The workman

has further admitted that the last four lines of Ext. W-5 are

in a different ink and different hand writing than the rest

contents of Ext. W-5 and Ext. W-5 does not have his

signature and so also the signature of the person, who

recorded the same. The workman has also admitted that

his union is not a recognized union of the bank and the

office bearers of an unrecognized union of the bank and

the office bearers of an unrecognized union were not entitled

for the privileges available to the office bearers of

recognized union and he was intimated by the AGM that

he had already been transferred to Itwari branch and the

notice to that effect had been displayed on the notice board

on 19.07.1995 and registered letter was sent to him on

21.07.1995 and he was directed by the AGM to report to

Itwari Branch directly and inspite of the direction of the

AGM on 31.07.1995, he did not join at Itwari branch till

01.09.1995 and after 31.07.1995, he did not submit either at

Nagpur branch or at Itwari branch any letter stating that

due to non-supply of transfer order and letter of

introduction, he was not able to join at Itwari branch and

he did not submit any leave application to the bank for

grant of casual leave on 29.07.1995 and he did not intimate

the bank in writing about his not attending duty on

29.07.1995 due to late arrival of the train in which he was

travelling to Nagpur and he also did not submit any leave

application to the bank for grant of leave from 31.07.1995 to

01.09.1995.

5. One Subroto Aboni Bhushan Mukherjee, an officer

of Party No. 1 has been examined as a witness by Party No.

1. This witness has in his examination-in-chief on affidavit

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the written statement.

Though, this witness has been cross-examined at length,

nothing of substance has been brought out to discredit

his testimony.

6. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the union that the workman being informed

by the Party No. 1 as per letter dated 20.07.1995, which was

received by him on 21.07.1995, left for Dhule on 24.07.1995

to attend the departmental enquiry as a defence

representative, fixed on 26.07.1995 at Dhule and reported

back to Nagpur Branch on 31.07.1995 and handed over the

certificate issued by the enquiry office of his attending the

enquiry on 26.07.1995 at Dhule, to the Asstt. Manager (Cash)

at 10.30 AM and he acknowledged the same and though

the workman was informed that his name had been struck

off from the daily attendance register on 25.08.1995, no

order of transfer and letter of introduction were given to

him, inspite of his repeated request until 5.20 PM and

therefore, he submitted a letter of presence on 31.07.1995

at 5.20 PM to AGM and the AGM made endorsement on

the letter submitted by him that the workman had already

been transferred to Itwari branch at the closure of the

business on 25.07.1995 and that a notice to that effect was

displayed on the notice board on 19.07.1995 and that a

registered letter was sent to him on 21.07.1995 and the

workman was also directed to report at Itwari branch and

the said order cannot be said to be the transfer order and

the Party No. 1 turned down the repeated request of the

workman for transfer order and letter of introduction from

31.07.1995 to 24.08.1995 and thereby, the Party No. 1

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2375

restrained the workman from resuming duty and therefore,

the union raised the dispute before the ALC on 25.08.1995

by serving strike notice and on 01.09.1995, the Bank gave

the order of transfer and introduction letter to the workman

for the first time and Party No. 1 on 29.09.1995 issued a

letter to deduct wages of 30 days from his salary on the

ground of unauthorized absence between the period from

24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995 and the workman in his letter dated

22.08.1995 addressed to AGM, Nagpur branch fully

explained his movement during the period from 22.07.1995

to 21.08.1995 and the order of the transfer of the workman

was illegal and so also the order of recovery of the wages

of 30 days from the salary of the workman is illegal and the

Party No. 1 did not allow the workman to submit any

application for sanction of leave and Party No. 1 created

the circumstances of illegal lay off from 31.07.1995 to

31.08.1995 and bank had never asked the workman to submit

leave application, even though, the workman had sufficient

leave at his balance and the action of the bank is absolutely

unjustified, illegal and malafide and it is a clear case of

colourable exercise of power by the bank and there was

violation of the provision of section 33 of the Act, as the

letter dated 29.09.1995 for deduction of 30 days pay was

issued while the dispute was pending for conciliation before

the ALC and the workman is entitled for the declaration

that he was on duty from 24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned advocate

for the Party No. 1 that the present dispute has been raised

by the General Secretary of the union on behalf of the

workman and the union is not a recognized union in the

bank and the workman has admitted such fact and as such,

the union has no right to raise the dispute on behalf of the

workman and the dispute is not an industrial dispute as it

is clear from the contents of the statement of claim, evidence

on record and that the claim is in respect of recovery of one

month's salary of one employee only and the dispute is an

individual dispute and the well known doctrine of "Unity

of interest" has not been ful filled in the instant case, hence,

the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the

dispute and it is clear from the evidence produced by the

workman and his own admission in the cross-examination

that the workman has misused his position as the General

Secretary of the union and fabricated the records for filing

the dispute on 31.07.1995 and the claim of the workman is

against the averments made in the statement of claim and

the action of Party No. 1, bank is justified and the workman

is not entitled for any relief.

8. The first contention raised by the learned advocate

for the Party No.1 is that the union has no authority to

raise the dispute and the dispute is not an industrial dispute

and an individual dispute has been given the colour of

industrial dispute and it is clear from the statement of the

workman in his cross-examination that the workman, who

was the General Secretary of the unrecognized union at the

relevant time, took advantage of his position and

manipulated the records of the union for filing of the dispute

and as such, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate

the dispute.

In reply, it was submitted by the learned advocate for

the workman, that the issue as to whether the dispute is an

industrial dispute or not has already been decided by this

Tribunal by order dated 25.08.2011 and it has been held

that the dispute to be an industrial dispute and therefore,

there is no necessity to decide the said issue again. It was

submitted that the industrial dispute was raised by the

union on behalf of the workman, before the ALC and the

union represented the workman during the conciliation

proceedings and on failure of the conciliation, the Central

Government referred the industrial dispute for adjudication

making the union as a party and in view of the provisions

of section 36 of the Act, the union is competent to represent

the workman.

Admittedly, by order dated 25.08.2011, the issue as to

whether the dispute is an industrial dispute or not was

decided by this Tribunal, on the application filed by the

management and the dispute was held to be an industrial

dispute. So, there is no question of considering the same

issue again by this Tribunal.

So far the contention raised by the learned advocate for

the Party No.1 regarding the union of having no authority

to raise the dispute on behalf of the workman is concerned,

it is found from the record that the union had raised the

dispute before the ALC on behalf of the workman and on

submission of the failure report by the ALC, the Central

Government referred the dispute for adjudication, making

the union as a party. From the above stated facts and in

view of the provisions of section 36(2) of the Act, it is held

that the union is entitled to represent the workman in this

reference.

9. At the outset, I think it necessary to mention that this

reference has been made to adjudicate the legality or other

wise of the demand of union to treat the workman to be on

duty for the period from 24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995. It is also

well settled beyond doubt by the principles enunciated by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in a string of decisions that the

Tribunal cannot travel outside the terms of reference and

the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in industrial disputes is

limited to the points specifically referred for its adjudication

and matters incidental there to.

So, the contention raised by the union on behalf of the

workman that the transfer of the workman and the Vice

President and the Zonal Secretary of the union from the

Nagpur branch to other branches of Nagpur city was with

malafide intention and was illegal cannot be considered.

Moreover, it is the admitted case of the union that it is a

minority union and is not a recognized union of the Bank.

It is also admitted by the union that the Bank has formulated

the "Five Year Transfer" policy in consultation of the

2376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recognized federation and it (union) has not opposed the

policy in principle. It is also admitted by the union that the

transfer of the workman and two other office bearers of the

union was made by Party No.1 on the basis of the "Five

Year Transfer" policy. According to the union, such transfer

was malafide, as because five clear working days' notice

was not given as required under para 535 of the Sastry

Award. However, such allegation is patently wrong, as the

provisions of para 535 of the Sastry Award are applicable

only in regard to the transfer of the President, Vice-President

and the Secretaries of recognized union of the Bank.

Moreover, it is clear from the materials on record that the

order of transfer of the workman was put up on the notice

board of Nagpur branch on 19.07.1995 and his name was

struck off from the roll on 25.07.1995, after closure of the

business hours. It is not the case of the union that no such

notice was put up on the notice board. So, there was even

compliance of the provisions as provided in para 535 of

Sastry Award.

10. On perusal of the materials on record including the

evidence adduced by the parties, it is found that it is the

admitted case of the union and so also the workman that

on 31.07.1995, the workman was intimated by the AGM in

writing that he had already been transferred to Itwari branch

and a notice to that effect had been displayed on the notice

board on 19.07.1995 and a registered letter was also sent to

him on 21.07.1995 and the workman was also directed by

the AGM to report to Itwari branch directly, but still then,

the workman did not join at Itwari branch. According to the

workman, as the transfer order and letter of introduction

were not given, he did not join at Itwari Branch. However,

there is no legal evidence on record to show that the

workman demanded for the transfer order and letter of

introduction from Party No.1 to join at Itwari branh. It is

clear from the own pleading of the workman that he remained

absent from 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995 and 10.08.1995 to

15.08.1995, as he was busy in organizational activity of the

union during the said period. It is also the admitted case of

the workman that he did apply for any type of leave for

remaining absent from duty for those days. So, there is no

question of treating the workman to be on duty from

01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995 and 10.08.1995 to 15.08.1995.

11. According to the claim of the workman and the

union, the workman was engaged in the departmental

enquires from 24.07.1995 to 31.07.1995 at Dhule and from

05.08.1995 to 09.08.1995 and 16.08.1995 to 22.08.1995 at

Khamgaon. According to their own case, the workman was

intimated by the concerned authority to attend the

departmental enquiry at Dhule as a defence representative

fixed on 26.07.1995 and prior to the same, the workman had

been granted four days journey time for to and fro journey

to Dhule. However, no legal evidence has been adduced

by the union in support of such claim. On perusal of the

letter dated 29.09.1995, issued by the Party No.1, it is found

that the workman was granted 25.07.1995 and 27.07.1995

i.e. two days for to and fro journey to Dhule to attend the

departmental enquiry fixed on 26.07.1995 and did not

propose to recover the salary from 25.07.1995 to 27.07.1995.

There is no material on record to show that the workman

had been permitted to attend the departmental enquires at

Khamgaon. However, on perusal of the letter dated

29.09.1995, it is found that Party No.1 taking into

consideration of the workman attending the departmental

enquires at Khamgaon on 07.08.1995 and on 18.08.1995

and 19.08.1995 did not propose to recover the salary for

the period from 06.08.1995 to 08.08.1995 and 16.08.1995 to

19.08.1995. So, there is no illegality in the action of the

Party No.1 treating the workman absent from duty on

24.07.1995, 28.07.1995 to 31.07.1995, 01.08.1995 to 05.08.1995,

09.08.1995 to 15.08.1995 and 20.08.1995 to 31.08.1995 and

01.09.1995 and to recover the salary for those days.

12. According to the workman and the union, the

workman did not know about his transfer till 31.07.1995

and no transfer order was given to the workman till

01.09.1995. However, the own document produced by the

workman shows such claim to be untrue and that the

workman knowing very well about his transfer to Itwari

branch prior to 31.07.1995 tried to stall and avoid the transfer

and intentionally did not join at Itwari branch till 01.09.1995

by taking an untenable plea of not handing over of the

transfer order to him. The workman has produced the

Minutes book of the union, which has been marked as Ext.

W-4. According to the workman, there was a resolution by

the union on 30.07.1995 to espouse his case before the

ALC. The minutes of 30.07.1995 of the union has been

marked as Ext.W-5. On perusal of Ext. W-5, it is found that

in the said resolution, it has been mentioned that while the

workman had gone to Dhule to attend the departmental

enquiry, he had been transferred to Itwari branch and as

such, the matter is required to be raised before the ALC.

According to the workman on his application, the resolution

was passed by the union. So, it is clear that the workman

prior to his leaving for Dhule, Knew about his transfer to

Itwari Branch.

It is to be mentioned here that the copy of letter of

presence submitted by the workman on 31.07.1995 to the

AGM has been filed as Annexure-III alongwith the

statement of claim. On perusal of the said letter of presence,

it is found that the workman had not mentioned the time as

to when he reported to the branch, to whom he reported

and that he submitted the certificate granted by the enquiry

officer for attending the enquiry on 26.07.1995 at Dhule to

the Asstt. Manager (Cash) and so also the fact that he was

informed by the Asstt. Manager (cash ) that his name had

been struck off from the roll at the end of the business on

25.07.1995 and he asked for his transfer order and letter of

introduction, but the same were not given to him. Omission

of such important facts in Annexure-III and the admission

of the workman that in the statement of claim the name of

the officers, whom he met to get his transfer order and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2377

letter of introduction has not been mentioned clearly show

that the workman had never demanded any transfer order

and letter of introduction from Party No.1 to join at Itwari

branch. It is clear from the pleadings of the union and the

evidence of the workman that the workman was interested

to do the organizational work of the union than to join duty

and instead of joining duty from 01.08.1995 to 04.08.1995,

he has claimed to have been engaged in organizational

work of the union for the said period, without applying for

any leave or intimation to the proper authority in that regard

and inspite of the same, he has claimed to be on duty for

those days.

It is the admitted case of the workman that on 01.09.1995,

he was given the order of transfer and letter of introduction

and he joined at Itwari branch on 01.09,1995. So, it cannot

be said that the letter dated 29.09.1995 was issued in

violation of section 33 of the Act.

From the materials on record and the discussions made

above, it is found that the action of Party No. l to recover

the wages of 30 days as per letter dated 29.09.1995 cannot

be said to be illegal or unjustified. So, the claim of the

union to treat the workman to be on duty from 24.07.1995

to 01.09.1995 is unjustified. Hence, it is ordered:—

ORDER

The demand of the Union for treating Shri D.S.Joshi on

duty from 24.07.1995 to 01.09.1995 is illegal and unjustified.

The workman Shri D.S. Joshi is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 894.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dk /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad] ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

fnYyh ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 25@97½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@146@1995&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 894.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/97) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Delhi as shown

in the Annexure, in the industiral Dispute between the

management of State Bank of India and their workmen,

received by the Central Governrment on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/146/1995-IR(B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present:-

Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 25/97

Sh. A.K. Saxena

Versus

State Bank of India

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide

notification No.L-12012/146/95-IR (B-I) dated 25.10.97

referred the following industrial Dispute to this tribunal for

the adjudication:

The Point runs as hereunder:—

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank

of India, Meerut, Zonal Office in Discharging

Sh. A.K. Saxena Clerk Cum Cashier from service is

Just fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled

to?"

On 03.02.97 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 25/97 and claimant/workman

was called upon to file claim statement with in fifteen days

from date of service of notice. Which was required to be

accompanied with relevant documents and list of witnesses.

Smt. Chitra Saxena alleged herself to be wife of Deceased

workman Late Shri A.K. Saxena filed claim statement on

17/9/1998 alongwith her affidavit.

On the basis of arguments made in it. She prayed that

order of discharge passed by the Management on 28/07/

1993 be declared as illegal suspension/discharge of the

workman till his death as illegal and consider the workman

as in service till his death and the workman may please be

awarded all the service benefits including retirement

benefits and job on compassionate grounds to her.

Smt. Manju Saxena alleging herself to be wife of workman

Late Shri A.K. Saxena filed claim statement on 17/12/1998

along with affidavit.

On the basis of pleadings mentioned in it she prayed

that the order of punishment be held illegal and invalid; the

enquiry held against the workman is vitiated and the

punishment is excessive harsh and disproportionate. It may

further be held that the workman deemed to have been in

service till his death/or retirement as the case may be and

all back wages and other monetary benefits be awarded to

the claimant. The terminal benefits, P.F., Gratuity etc. may

also be given to the claimants.

Management in reply filed WS on 13/3/1999 wherein it

denied the arguments of claim of statement and also alleged

other grounds on the basis of which it prayed for dismissal

of claim statement.

2378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In reply to W.S. Smt. Manju Saxena on 16/11/2000 filed

rejoinder. Wherein she denied the allegation of W.S. and

reaffirmed the contents of her claim statement.

My Ld. Predecessor has not framed any issues but

proceeded on the basis of reference to decide the questions

of determine mention in its schedule.

The Case of the workman is that he was served with a

charge-sheet regarding filing of false Leave Fare

concession for Rs. 6591 for going Puri.

In support workman case WW1 Smt. Manju Saxena filed

affidavit on 9/5/2001. Wherein she mentioned as follows:—

1. That the deponent is legally wedded wife of the

deceased workman and represent the present case

in this Court/Commission and is well acquained with

the facts and circumstances of the case as deposed

hereunder.

2. That the deponent and claimants No. 2 to 4 are legal

heirs of the deceased workman. Claimant No. 2 to 4

are Daughters and Son of their parents deceased

workman and deponent. The succession certificate

obtained by the LR's of the deceased workman from

a competent Civil Court of Bulandshehar. The

workman died on 12/01/1996. Deponent is being the

mother of her daughter and son make the following

claim.

3. That the deceased workman was working in the State

Bank of India in the clerical cadre. His services

conditions are governed by various Awards, Bipartite

settlements, etc. He was charge sheeted vide charge

sheet dated 30/10/1991 for misconducts.

4. That the workman availed leave for concession in

terms of his service conditions in January, 1989 due

to family problems he could not submit his bills and

requisite proformas immediately, but did the same

on 02/03/1990.

5. The bank initiated a departmental enquiry against

the workman. During course of the enquiry the

workman learnt that he has mentioned two sets of

tickets numbers in his L.F.C. bill one having 4 digits

numbers and the second having 5 digits numbers,

but due to delay in lodging the bill, have inadvertently

mixed in the details creating confusions dobuts. It

also transpired that the Eastern Railway Tundla issue

5 digits tickets. Therefore, mentioned two sets of

numbers in the bills was correct otherwise.

6. That before the bank's representative placed his

evidence in the departmental enquiry, the workman,

on the basis of the understanding his representative

reached with the A.G.M., R-II, made a statement

accepting the possibility of the mix-up in the details.

The Bank accepting the Statement did not proceed

further with the enquiry and the enquiry was waived

and closed at that very stage. During the course of

enquiry the workman made a statement before the

enquiry officer, accepting only the possibility of mix-

up in the details of the tickets and after the statement

of the workman the said enquiry was closed. The

claimant never accepted charges leveled against him

and also not accepted that he had not undertaken

the journey.

7. That as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement

providing for waiver of enquiry, it is stipulated that

"an enquiry need not be held if".

A (i) The Bank has issued a show cause notice to the

employee advising him of the misconduct and

the punishment for which he may be liable for

such misconduct.

(ii) The employee makes a voluntary admission of

his guilt in reply to the aforesaid show cause

notice; and

(iii) The misconduct is such that even if proved, the

bank does not intend to Award the punishment

of discharge or dismissal. However, if the

Employee is concerned requests a hearing

regarding the nature of Punishment, such a

hearing shall be given.

B (i) An enquiry need not be held, if the employees

is charged with minor misconduct and

punishment proposed to be given is working of

censure.

It is respectfully submitted by the Management the

existence of the Bipartite Settlement and admitted/

undisputedly the same has not been complied with the

case of claimant. The alleged show cause notice was not

issued inconsonance of Bipartte Settlement not there was

any unequivocal admission of the charge, neither there

was any enquiry conducted by the Management. The

punishment in question is based on no enquiry what to

say of any credible evidence.

8. That the Enquiry Officer recorded a perverse finding

holding that the Banks respresentative has ably presented

his case, whereas, the enquiry proceedings were closed on

the basis of the statement of the workman, even before the

Bank's representative had presented his case. The finding

reflects the bias of the enquiry officer; not based on

conjectures. During the course of employment, the

workman was intoxicated. Hence, the Charge and findings

are illegal and invalid, being outside the principle of nature

justice and fair play.

9. That the decision of the A.G.M. Region-II (Disciplinary

Authority) On the Basis of basis of probable, imagination,

presumption and assumptions instead of any proof. It is

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2379

submitted that in his statement the employee has

categorically stated (a) that he did travel to Puri-which is

not refused by the Bank; (b) that he noted down the ticket

numbers, submitted by the Bank reported to have been

received from the Railway marked as P13 & P20 do evidence

that 4 & 5 digits tickets do exist-this is also not refused by

the Bank's Representative; (c) that the employee has

categorically stated in his statement that trains he

mentioned in the bill do exist and gave a copy of the time

table in support thereof-this has also not been refuised by

the Bank's representative; (d) that the employee has stated

that he was enjoying his own way on the holiday trip and

might have mixed up the details—this to has not been

refuted by the Bank's representative. The Bank's

representative has not recorded any evidence while he has

filed the list of witness. If a witness appears before the

enquiry officer and deposes to the truth of contents of

document them submits himself to cross-examination,

therefore, the bank has failed to prove his case and all the

documents are inadmissible in the evidence, filed by the

bank. It is the case of no evidence, hence the decision of

the AGM Region-II made up the charges after considering

the submission made by the employee during the personal

hearing.

10. That the workman protested/represented against the

illegal decision and short a personal hearing in the matter

vide his representation dated 2nd may 1993.

11. That the Asstt. General Manger was reminded about

the understanding given to the workman's representative

that in the event the workman gives the statement as

recorded, he would not be discharged or dismissed and

instead the Disciplinary Authority would to be discharge

or dismissed and instead the Disciplinary Authority would

waive the enquiry interms of the enquiry in terms of the

provisions stated in para 7 above, but due to some unknown

ill-will the Asstt. General Manager did not keep up his works

and the rules and discharged the workman without notice

in terms of paragraphs 521(5)(e) of the Shastry Award read

with para 18.28 of the Desai Award.

12. The punishment inflicted by the Bank as is at

variance with the para 521 (5) of Shastry Award with the

above provisions and is thus illegal. The Management has

not followed the proper procedure in accordance with the

provisions of the Bipartite Settlement.

13. That aggrieved by the harsh and illegal disproportion

the workman appealed to the Dy. General manager, State

Bank of India, Meerut Zonal Office, vide his representation

dated 20th September, 1993. The punishment imposed upon

the claimant was harsh and disproportionate the charges

leveled against him. It is submitted that the punishment

imposed upon the claimant is based on no evidence neither

nay enquiry was conducted as per the list of witnesses

was ever examined. The whole punishment is based on a

statement of the delinquent, which cannot be turned in

any manner an admission or confession of the charge

levelled against him. It is again submitted the incident was

of the year 1989 and the alleged enquiry was started in the

year 1992, however, no credible effort was made by the

Management.

14. That the Dy. General Manager, SBI Zonal Office,

Meerut, did not apply his mind to the pleadings/documents

submitted by the woman and instead confirmed the illegal

decision of the Asstt. General Manager vide letter No. MRT/

R-II/PCF/45 dated 27th April, 1994.

The Dy. General Manager has also failed to appreciate

that the enquiry proceedings were closed, without either

side presenting and providing its case. And in the instant

case the onus to prove the case was upon the Management.

The Dy. General Manager cannot point out the weakness

of the defence to prove the case instead, of establishing

the misconduct on the basis of the bank's own evidence. If

the Dy. General Manager had applied his mind he he mind

he would have observed that the adoption of the procedure

of the enquiry followed by the Enquiry Officer was

insufficient or irregular. It is again return on the cost of

repetition that no prudent person can arrive on the

conclusions arrived by the enquiry officer and confirmed

by the AGM, Region-II, and also by the Dy. General

Manager. There is no evidence in the present case against

the delinquent.

15. That the Bank denying natural justice and the

workman is left with no alternative but to request you

honour to intervene in the matter. It is stated that the

statement of the employee is not clear and unequivcal does

not come under the admission, therefore, a decision based

upon inadmissible admission is denied of natural justice,

hence the alleged enquiry is farce.

16. That the Claimant/Deponent Mrs. Manju had been

nominated for receiving Gratuity and PF by the deceased

and even otherwise the claimants alone are legally entitled

to all monetary and other benefits.

She tendered her affidavit on 24/01/2005 and she was

cross examined on the same day. Her Examination in chief

and cross examination is as follows:—

I have filed my affidavit in my evidence. The facts

mentioned therein are true and correct. The same be read

as part of my statement. I have also filed succession

certificate and I rely on the same. My affidavit is Ex.

WW1/A and succession certificate is Ex. WW1/1. I am

legally wedded wife of Late Shri A.K. Saxena. We had one

son named Pankaj Saxena, 27 years of age and two

daughters namely Mrs. Anuradha Saxena and Mrs. Sarita

Saxena, out of the wed-lock.

××××By Shri Rajat Arora Advocate A/R for the

Management.

I have come to know later on that some departmental

enquiry was conducted against my late husband. I had

2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

never attended the said enquiry against my husband. It is

correct that I have no personal knowledge of the said

enquiry. Vol. that my husband had told me about the said

enquiry. I do not know that contents of my affidavit Ex.

Again said I was told about the contents of the said affidavit

by my advocate. I do not know English. I am illetrate. I can

only know how to sign in Hindi. I was explained the contents

of the said affidavit by my counsel. However, I do not

know recollect the same now. I do not know any personal

knowledge of any settlement between my husband and

management as mentioned in my affidavit. Vol. I was told

about the same by my counsel. I do not know Mrs. Chitra

Saxena. However I have been her in the court only. My

husband had never told me about her before. I do not

know the year when my marriage took place. However, I

was married on 24th of November I now do not recollect

the day which fell on 24th of November. My marriage has

taken place in Sanjay Nagar Shankar Nagar Delhi and my

husband hailed from Aligarh My inlaws house is situated

at Aligarh.

I had filed the succession in certificate Ex. WW1/1 which

I obtained from Bulandsehar Court. Myself and my children

had gone to Bulandsehar court to attend the proceedings

for obtaining succession certificate. It is incorrect to

suggest that enquiry conducted against my husband was

fair and legal. It is incorrect to suggest that I and my children

are not entitled to the claim. Succession certificate is not

certified true copy of the succession certificate from the

Court.

That the Management initiated departmental inquiry

against the workman. The workman learnt during the course

of inquiry that he has mentioned two sets of tickets in his

LFC bill because of lapse of time and due to confusion

mixed up the two sets of tickets inadvertently.

The Inquiry Officer verified the genuineness of these

tickets and Railway authority denied issuance of the tickets

of (04) digit. The Inquiry Officer on the report of the railways

drew a perverse conclusion and held misconduct of the

workman. The Workman had admitted that there was mixing

of tickets because of confusion. The Enquiry Officer did

not apply his judicial mind and he has held him guilty

hastily and he was pre-determined to hold so. The Enquiry

Officer has illegally held that the workman has failed to

furnish any valid supporting document to prove that he

actually visited the place mentioned in the bill.

That the Enquiry Officer did not consider the statement

of mixing up of the tickets.

The case of the management is that two ladies namely

Smt. Manju Saxena and Smt. Chitra Saxena are claiming to

be the wives of Late Shri A.K. Saxena. The Court has no

jurisdiction to decide as to who was the real legal

representative of the workman.

The findings of the Inquiry Officer are not whimsical.

He has acted in a reasoned and methodical manner. The

claimant in the inquiry proceedings has admitted the

charges leveled against him. The claimant had mentioned

two sets of ticket numbers in his LFC bill. One having (04)

four digit number and the second having (05) five digit

number. There has been no hurry on the part of the Inquiry

Officer.

That the Inquiry was closed after the claimant had

accepted the charges leveled against him vide charge-sheet

dated 30/10/1991. During the course of inquiry the CSE

made statement before the Inquiry Officer admitting the

charges leveled against him and on subsequent dates it

was further stated clearly and unequivocally by the

employee as well as defence representative that the charges

leveled against the employee are admitted and prayed for

taking a lenient view and close the inquiry. The Inquiry

Officer closed the inquiry, as no evidence was to be taken

in view of unequivocal confession of the workman.

The Workman has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder he has

reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has

denied most of the paras of the written statement. The

management has also denied most of the paras of the claim

statement.

Management in support its case filed affidavit of

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Gupta wherein he stated as follows:—

1. That the deponent at the outset states that the two

statements of claims have been filed one on behalf

of Smt. Manju Saxena and another claim on behalf of

Smt. Chitra Saxena both claiming themselves to be

the legally wedded wife of the deceased workman

namely late Shri A.K. Saxena. The deponent submits

that the Hon'ble Court may decide upon the validity

of two statements of claim while filed by either of the

ladies claiming themselves to be the lawfully wedded

wife of Late Shri A.K. Saxena. The Hon'ble Court

would be governed under section 10 of the ID Act

1947 and would have to decide the reference in

accordance with law and the controversy with regard

to the legally wedded wife of the claimant being not

a matter before this Hon'ble Court, may be left to the

discretion of the competent court to decide.

2. That the deponent submits that the deceased

workman namely Shri A.K. Saxena was served with a

charge sheet dated 13.12.1991 where in it was alleged

against him that he has submitted a false leave

concession fare form. The reply given to the

chargesheet being found unsatisfactory, a

departmental enquiry was initiated against the

deceased workman in which Shri I.C. Trikha was the

enquiry officer and Shri Joginder Singh was the

presenting officer. The workman had participated in

the enquiry and had admitted to the charges. The

entire enquiry proceedings have been filed before

the Hon'ble Tribunal and the same goes on to show

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2381

that the same were held in accordance with the

principles of natural justice and the workman

accepted the charges leveled against him.

3. That after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry,

the Enquiry Officer gave his findings where he held

the charges against the workman were proved in

view of the admission of the charges. The Disciplinary

Authority thereafter proposed the punishment of

dismissal from service and a personal hearing was

also given. That after the personal hearing, the

Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 22.08.1993.

4. That the workman had thereafter preferred a appeal

to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate

Authority after considering the case of the claimant

had confirmed the order of punishment of discharge

imposed upon the claimant vide its order dated

27.04.1994.

5. That the deponent states that the enquiry

proceedings were held in accordance with the

principles of natural justice in which all opportunities

were given to the claimant to prove his case. The

deponent further submits that the list of documents

filed by the management along with its written

statements dated 13.3.1999 and 01.02.2000 may be

read as part and parcel of this affidavit also.

He tendered his affidavit on 27/02/2006 and he was partly

cross examined on the same day and partly on 18/04/2006.

His examination in chief and cross-examination is as

follows:—

I have filed my affidavit in evidence on behalf of

the management alongwith copies of documents. The

facts mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct

as per record. My affidavit Ex. MW1/A be read as

part of my statement. The workman is not entitled to

the relief claimed.

I am not aware if any succession certificate has

been deposited with the management by wife of the

workman. Enquiry was conducted by the bank in

this matter. Due procedure of conducting the enquiry

was adopted by the bank. The workman was afforded

opportunity to appear in the enquiry and he

participated during the proceedings of the enquiry.

It is correct that management has mentioned in the

written statement that the workman has admitted the

charges leveled during the enquiry. The workman

have admitted his statement made during enquiry.

Workman has admitted the charge leveled against

him during enquiry proceeding in question is mark A

to A page 7. It is incorrect to suggest that the workman

made any admission as stated. The workman never

stated anywhere during enquiry or otherwise that he

did not undertake the journey. It is incorrect to

suggest that the management respondent did not

adduce any evidence oral as well as documentary. It

is incorrect to suggest workman was not afforded an

opportunity to cross-examine the witness produced

on behalf of the management. It is incorrect to

suggest that principles of natural justice were

violated during the enquiry as the same were not

followed. It is incorrect to suggest that the

punishment awarded to the workman claimant is

disproportionate to the charge. Vol. punishment was

awarded as per relevant rules/law. It is incorrect to

suggest that I am deposing falsely or that the

workman/L.R's of workman is entitled to any relief

claimed.

I have heared the arguments of the Ld. A/R's for

the parties and perused the pleadings and evidence

of parties including written arguments of workman.

Smt. Manju Saxena has filed succession certificate

of Civil Court and Smt. Chitra Saxena has filed warison

certificate. Payment EPF has been made to Smt. Manju

Saxena.

It has been submitted from the side of the workman

that he was in the habit of remaining under the

influence of alchohol, so he could not know the

timings of the trains and train number and the number

of tickets on onward journey and return journey so

he mixed up the tickets and under the influence of

alchohol he gave false particulars in his LFC bill. His

confession is not voluntary as the management is

duty bound to hold a detailed inquiry. The statement

made by the workman is not clear conclusive. It

cannot be inferred that the workman pleaded himself

guilty before the management.

It was submitted from the side of the management

that the workman has clearly and specifically admitted

the charges leveled against him. He has admitted the

charges in the presence of the employee

representative and he has also stated that "EPA

admits the charges". The workman has admitted that

he travelled to Puri along with his family and brother-

in-law but as he was fond of drinking and sometimes

got over intoxicated in the process and that he may

have noted down the tickets and train number wrongly

under the influence of liquor. He has further stated

that he was sorry that due to his bad habit of drinking

he made mistake and mixed up the tickets etc. while

preparing the bill.

He has further admitted that he has got short his

journey at Puri due to some family dispute.

The workman has admitted in his cross-

examination that he has a bit more than his normal

drinking therefore; he remembered no details of the

place of his destination.

2382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman has also admitted that in the inquiry that

it is also possible that under the effect of intoxication he

would have noted the ticket numbers, train numbers and

timings wrongly.

It was submitted from the side of the management that

the EPA has admitted categorically inequivocally during

the course of inquiry that he failed to note down the ticket

number, train number and timings wrongly, so in his fake

TA bill the workman has mentioned wrong train number,

wrong ticket number and wrong timings and he had

mentioned noted all particulars of ticket number, train

number and timings wrongly under the influence of liquor.

The admission of the workman has been admitted even by

his defence representative. The workman admitted before

Sh. S.K. Pandey, employee Representative these facts and

he wrote a letter dated 25.05.1993 to DA and prayed for

holding a linient punishment as it would affect livelihood

of his family.

Thus, in the letter dated 25.05.1993, the workman has

prayed for awarding a linient punishment. He has not

disputed that inquiry was not held against him.

It becomes quite obvious from perusal of the LFC bill of

the workman that not only ticket number, train number but

the timings are also not correct. He may not have noted

down the train number and the timings as he taken more

than the normal alchohol but he was taken more than the

normal alchohol but he was accompanied by his brother-

in-law and members of his family and they could have told

him the real timings and train numbers.

It was not necessary for him to admit that he has wrongly

mentioned wrong train number, timings and ticket numbers.

He can have filed even the proof of his journey to Puri and

his presence in Puri during the relevant period but the

workman has not filed any such document regarding his

visit and stay at Puri.

It appears that the workman has actually not undergone

his journey and he intended to claim LFC without

undergoing the journey by mentioning wrong train number,

ticket number and timings. He actually did not perform the

journey.

I have perused the admission of the workman in the

inquiry proceedings and the confirmation of the same by

the employee representative. The admission of the

workman has been confirmed by his representative and he

has written to the DA for taking lenient view. In the

circumstances, admission is categorical and ambigious.

It appears that he always remained under the influence

of alchohol. There is no justification in releaving such an

employee. Smt. Manju Saxena has received EPF amount

whereas Smt. Chitra Saxena has been mentioned as nominee.

However, Smt. Manju Saxena is the real legal representative

of the deceased workman Sh. A.K. Saxena as per succession

of the Civil Court.

It was not necessary to hold further inquiry by the

Inquiry Officer in view of the inambigious voluntary and

unequivocal admission of workman. Thus, it is established

the workman Sh. A.K. Saxena has not undergone the

journey i.e. why he has mentioned wrong train number,

ticket number and wrong timings but because punishment

is Disportionate to misconduct. Thus in the instant case

punishment of workman as being excessive and harsh. His

punishment of removal is accordingly modified to

punishment of stoppage of three increments on the basis

of principle laid down by their lordship of Hon'ble High

Court in case of M/s. Co. Operative Store Ltd. Vs. Usha

Kumar 1997 LAB I.C. 833. Reference is liable to be decided

in favour of the Workman and against the Management.

Which is accordingly decided.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated: 16/01/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 895.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k]

gSnjkckn ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 5@2009½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[la- ,y&41025@01@2014&vkbZvkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 895.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 5/2009) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as

shown in the Annexure, in the industiral dispute between

the management of South Central Railway and their

workmen, received by the Central Govenrment on

21/02/2014.

[No. L-41025/01/2014-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 27th day of December, 2013

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC No. 5/2009

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2383

Between:

Shri Avidi Pallaya,

S/o Avidi Adiyya,

C/o R. Yogender Singh,

Advocate, 1-10-123,

Temple Alwal,

Secunderabad—500 010.

....Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager,

South Central Railways,

Secunderabad.

2. Financial Advisor & Chief Accounts Officer,

FA & CAO's Office,

South Central Railways,

Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad.

...Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner :

M/s R. Yogender Singh, C.V.N.

Rama

Krishna

S. Maheshwarudu, Advocates

For the Respondent:

Party in Person

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri Avidi Pallayya the workman

invoking Sec. 2A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking

for setting aside the termination order dated 14.10.2005

passed by the Respondent declaring it as void, illegal and

also direct the Respondent to reinstate the workman into

service with back wages and all attendant benefits and

also to regularise his services.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are as

follows:—

Petitioner was appointed as bungalow peon attached

to Deputy E.A. & CAO/CII/SC vide Office Order

dated 11.11.2004. During September, 2005 since his

father fell sick Petitioner requested his employer to

grant leave to enable him to attend his father. At that

time his employer asked the Petitioner to write a letter

as per his dictation. Petitioner is a Telugu medium

student and he is not acquainted with English

language. Whatever his employer has dictated

Petitioner has written on the paper and submitted it

to his employer. Petitioner received a letter

dt. 13.9.2005 directing him to report and resum duties

immediately. Though he reported he was not taken

into service on some or other pretext. Since then he

was made run around the office for his employment.

Vexed with the same he has written letter

dated 6.8.2007 with the help of an officer. As there

was no reply he again wrote a letter on 25.8.2008 to

which the 2nd Respondent issued a reply dated

19.9.2005 stating that Petitioner has already resigned

the job. It has been a shocking news to the Petitioner.

Petitioner was engaged for a period of 330 days at a

stretch without any break of any sort. During that

period he received only Rs. 9814/-in the Month of

January, 2006. As per railway rules a casual employee

is entitled for regularization immediately after

completion of 180 days. But, Petitioner's services

were not regularised. Whatever correspondence took

place on behalf of the Petitioner was drafted by the

employees/officials of the Respondent and he got

no knowledge of the contents of the letter except the

fact that he received an amount of Rs. 9814. Only in

the month of September 2008 he came to know that

the letter written by him as per dictation was

resignation letter. He was informed that his services

were terminated by virtue of his resignation

dated 19.9.2005 which was accepted on 14.10.2005.

Thus, it is clear that his services were terminated on

14.10.2005 without following due process of law. The

termination order is to be declared as void and illegal.

He is to be regularised in service with back wages

and all other consequential benefits.

3. Respondents No. 1 & 2 filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

Union of India is not made a party to this petition

hence, this petition is liable to be dismissed for non-

joinder of necessary party. Contention of the

Petitioner that second Respondent has obtained

signatures of the Petitioner on blank papers is false

and it is a malafide and frivolous contention.

Petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 5733 (Gross)

and his net pay was Rs. 5673/- after deducting Rs.60

towards Professional Tax towards his salary for

September, 2005. He was paid an amount of

Rs.1971 (gross) and Rs. 1955 (net) after deducting

Rs.16 as professional tax as salary for 11 days in

October, 2005 consequent upon regularization of

absent period as leave following his resignation

which is accepted with effect from 14.10.2005 vide

order dated 7.11.2005. A net of amount of Rs. 7704

was drawn vide bill dated 8.12.2005. Further, an

amount Rs.1886/- was also paid vide bill dated

8.12.2005 for PLB for 2004-2005. These amount were

paid with bank account with Bank of India,

Tadepalligudem pertains to the Petitioner. Petitioner

was pad total salary for the period of his services.

For the period after the resignation was tendered,

question of payment of wages does not arise.

Contention of the Petitioner that he worked for about

an year after tendering resignation and he has not

received any wages is not correct. It does not entitle

him for payment of wages. He voluntarily tendered

resignation by letter which was received on 19.9.2005

in his own handwriting duly signed by him. The said

resignation was accepted by first Respondent vide

office dated 7.11.2005. Accepting the resignation with

effect from 14.10.2005, the same was communicated

2384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to the Petitioner to his native address. Two years

thereafter i.e., on 6.8.2007 and later on 25.8.2008

Petitioner gave representation requesting for his

reinstatement into service. His representation dated

25.8.2008 was replied by the Respondents on

12.9.2008. Petitioner is not an illiterate. He passed

intermediate and got ITI certificate as fitter which

prove that he is literate and got knowledge in English

language. He is capable of reading and writing

English. Question of regularization of his services

arises only after his completing three years

continuous and satisfactory service as per Railway

Boards' policy letter regarding engagement of

Bungalow peon circulated by CPO/SC vide letter

dated 18.10.2004. The same was also incorporated

under condition No.3 of the appointment Order of

the Petitioner. Petitioner has not even completed one

year of service. He served only for 11 months and

one day, i.e. 11.11.04 to 14.10.05. Further he himself

resigned the service voluntarily and the same has

been accepted by virtue of order dated 7.11.2005.

Thus, question of regularization of his services does

not arise. He was paid wages for his entire period of

work. Thus, question of reinstatement of the

Petitioner into service also does not arise. Petition is

liable to be dismissed.

4. To substantiate the contentions of the Petitioner WW1

was examined and Ex. W1 to W3 were marked. On behalf of

the Respondent MW1 was examined and Ex. M1 to M12

were marked.

5. Written arguments were filed for the Petitioner. Heard

either party.

6. The points arise for determination are:

I. Whether the order terminating the services of the

Petitioner/workman by the Respondents is valid and

legal?

II. Whether the Petitioner/workman is entitled for the

relief of reinstatement into service, regularization of

his services, back wages and other attendant

benefits?

III. To what relief he is entitled?

7. Point No. 1

Petitioner/workman has been appointed as Substitute

Bungalow Peon to the then Dy. FA & CAO/C-II/SC vide

order dated 11.11.2004. Sri Raju Kancherla was the said

officer at the relevant time. He has been examined as MW1.

Ex W1 is the order of appointment dated 11.11.2004 under

which the Petitioner has been appointed as substitute

Bungalow Peon. Ex. M7 is also copy of the same

appointment order. Admittedly Petitioner has worked as

substitute bungalow peon for MW1 for 11 months only, as

even as per his own version, since 14.10.2005 he failed to

attend to his duties. Ex. W2 the letter dated 6.8.2007 and

Ex. M4 the letter dated 25.8.2008, both of which are the

letters addressed by Petitioner to the Respondents, do

contain an averment that Petitioner has not attended to his

duties since 14.10.2005.

8. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he could not

attend to the duties since 14.10.2005 due to his father's ill-

health and also his own ill-health. Whereas it is the

contention of the Respondents that Petitioner has resigned

his job. According to them Petitioner submitted the original

of Ex. M3, the letter of resignation, which has been received

in their office on 19.9.2005. It is also their contention that

the resignation tendered by the Petitioner has been

accepted with effect from 14.10.2005 by virtue of Ex. M12

order dated 7.11.2005. That means, as per the contentions

of the Respondent, since 14.10.2005 Petitioner ceased to

be their employee, by virtue of acceptance of resignation

tendered by him.

9. As can be seen from the contentions of the Petitioner

put forth in this proceeding, he is not denying his giving

Ex. M3 letter. He is admitting that it is in his own hand

writing and that it bears his signature. But it is his contention

that he never tendered any resignation and that he has

written Ex. M3 letter to the dictattion of MW1 without

having comprehension of the wording therein, since he

got no acquaintance with English language as he has been

a Telugu Medium student. MW1 vehemently denied the

truth of this contention.

10. The fact remains that Ex M3 letter, which is in English

is admittedly in the hand writing of the Petitioner workman.

A perusal of Ex. M3 is giving rise to an impression that

Petitioner who is the scribe of the said letter, is well

accustomed to writing in English. Further more, the copies

of the education qualification certificates pertaining to the

Petitioner and which are produced before the court by the

Respondent and marked as Ex. M1, M2, M9 and M10 clearly

prove that Petitioner got acquaintance with English

language. There is every possibility for him to be proficient

in the said language since he studied upto intermediate

English as his second language and securing sufficient

marks to pass the said subject. Considering all these aspects

one can reasonably believe that the contention of the

Petitioner, that wihtout having comprehension of the

wording in Ex. M3 he has written the said letter is not an

acceptable version.

11. It is the contention of the Petitioner that he has

written Ex. M3 letter to the dictation of MW1, thinking that

it has been a leave letter. This is an improbable version.

Even a person who got only school education can

understand the difference between the words "resignation"

and "the leave" whereas Petitioner studied upto

intermediate.

12. One other circumstance to be noted is that, Petitioner

is contending that he has written a letter with the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2385

understanding that he was seeking for grant of leave but

to the dictation of MW1 before proceeding on leave, but

he in his written representations submitted to the

Respondents i.e., Ex. W2 and Ex. M4, conspicuously he

failed to mention about his submitting a letter seeking for

grant of leave. On the other hand he categorically claimed

that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty since

14.10.2005.

13. 14.10.2005 is a crucial date for the reason that as per

Ex. M12 order the resignation said to have been tendered

by the Petitioner has been accepted with effect from the

said date. Another important circumstance to be noted is,

Ex. M3, the letter of resignation has been received in

Respondents office on 19.9.2005. Even thereafter and upto

14.10.2005, the date with effect from which the resignation

has been accepted, Petitioner continued to attend to his

duties. If actually he was of the mind to seek for grant of

leave by virtue of Ex. M3 letter, on the ground of the serious

illness of his father and was intending to proceed on leave

immediately, he would not have been worked upto

14.10.2005, since the said letter has been addressed much

prior to the date 14.10.2005.

14. In view of the fore gone discussion of the material

on record one can see that the contention of the Petitioner

that without having any comprehension of the purport of

Ex. M3 letter and to the dictation of MW1 he has written

that letter thinking that it has been a letter seeking for grant

of leave, is not at all a correct version. On the other hand it

can safely be taken that being a person reasonably

acquainted with English language and well accustomed to

write English, he has written Ex. M3 letter which has been

received by the Respondent's office on 19.9.2005. The fact

that Petitioner never complained against MW1 stating that

he was made to write Ex. M3 letter by MW1 and that he

was never intended to resign from his job is a fact to be

well noted. Since, it is already held for the reasons given

supra, that his contention that he got no comprehension

of the contents of Ex. M3 letter is not acceptable.

15. In view of the fore gone discussion of the material

on record it can safely be held that the impugned order

dated 7.11.2005 under which the resignation tendered by

the Petitioner has been accepted by the employer can not

be taken as suffering from any illegality or unreasonableness

and therefore it does not warrant any interference.

This point is answered accordingly.

16. Point No. II

In view of the finding given in point No. I, Petitioner's

services were not terminated by the Respondents on the

other hand he himself voluntarily submitted his resignation

which has been accepted by the Respondents by virtue of

Ex. M12 order. Therefore, the question of Petitioner's

reinstatement into service does not arise and thus, he is

not entitled for any such relief.

17. Admittedly, Petitioner has worked only for 11 months.

As per Ex. M7 and M8 for regularization of services of

substitute bungalow peons 3 years continuous service is

mandatory. Thus, Petitioner can not seek for regularization

of service.

18. As to the reliefs of back wages are concerned

admittedly Petitioner has been paid remuneration for the

period of his work. As already observed above he is not

entitled for reinstatement into service. Therefore the

question of payment of any back wages does not arise.

19. But a perusal of Ex. M8 which contains the policy of

South Central Railway on the subject of engagement of

bungalow peons indicates that in cases of loyal bungalow

peons whose services have been terminated after 26.5.2003

for reasons other than unauthorised absence, indiscipline,

misbehaviour, unsatisfactory work etc., and who have

completed 120 days of work, and thus became entitled for

temporary status can be reviewed and they can be taken

and posting orders be given against Group D vacancies.

Petitioner has worked evidently to the satisfaction of his

employer while he was in service. This can be said so since

his services were never terminated for any misbehaviour

or misconduct on the part of the Petitioner. On the other

hand even as per contention of the Respondents, due to

personal exigencies Petitioner tender resignation and thus,

he ceased to be their employee. Thus, he was a loyal

bungalow peon. When it is the policy of the South Central

Railway to consider and absorb such persons who are not

guilty of unauthorised absence, indiscipline, misbehaviour,

unsatisfactory work etc. but who ceased to be their

employees for other reasons, against Group D vacancies

as per Ex. M8, the question arises as to why the case of the

Petitioner can not be considered under this policy. None

can say that he can not be considered as his services were

to the satisfaction of the employer while he was under the

employment of South Central Railway. Only and due to

personal exigencies he could not continue in their

employment and now he is seeking for considering him for

continuing in their service. Therefore Respondents are to

be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner as per

their policy as specified in Ex. M8.

This point is answered accordingly.

20. Point No.III

Result:

In the result Petition is answered as follows:

The impugned order dated 7.11.2005 is neither illegal

nor void and it is not liable to be interfered with. Thus,

Petitioner is entitled for neither reinstatement nor

regularization into service. He is not entitled for any back

wages either. The Respondent is directed to consider the

case of the Petitioner within one month from the receipt of

this award in the light of policy of South Central Railway

incorporated in Ex. M8 i.e., the proceeding No. P(R)564/

2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

BP/II dated 18.10.2004 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer,

SC Railway.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Typed to my dictation by Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal

Assistant corrected by me on this the 27th day of December,

2013.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri Avidi Pallaya

MW1: Sri Raju Kancherla

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1:

Photostat copy of appointment order dt.

11.11.2004

Ex. W2:

Photostat copy of representation f WW1 dt.

6..8.2007 to the Respondent

Ex. W3:

Photostat copy of Ir. No. AAD/R.95/Vol. IX dt.

12.9.2008—reply to Ex. W2

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Photostat copy of SSC certificate of WW1

Ex.M2:

Photostate copy of intermediate certificate of

WW1

Ex.M3:

Photostate copy of resignation letter of WW1

dt. 19.9.2005

Ex.M4:

Photostate copy of application of Petitioner dt.

25.8.2008

Ex.M5:

Photostate copy of lr. of acceptance of

resignation of WW1 dt. 14.10.2005

Ex.M6:

Phtotostate copy of lr. Dt. 8.12.2009 of

Respondent

Ex.M7:

Phtotostate copy of office order No. 228/2004

Ex.M8:

Photostate copy of circular on policy reg.

engagement of bungalow peon dt. 18.10.2004

Ex.M9:

Photostate copy of National Trade Certification

of the Petitioner dt. 6.12.1993

Ex.M10:

Photostate copy of Transfer certificate of

Petitioner

Ex.M11:

Phtotostate copy of Particulars of pay and

allowances of Petitioner

Ex.M12:

Phtotostate copy of office order No. 223/05

acceptance of resignation letter of Petitioner by

Sr. AFA/G.F.A & CAO/SC dt. 7.11.2005.

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 896.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj ,u ,Q jsyos izca/k

ra= ds lc) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k xqokgkVh ds

iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 02@2011½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&41011@122@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 896.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref.2/2011) of the

Cent.Govt.Indus.Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati as

shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between

the management of N.F. Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 21/02/2014

[No. L-41011/122/2010—IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Shri L.C. Dey, M.A., LL.B., Presiding Officer,

CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No. 02 of 2011

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

The management of N.F. Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati.

-Vrs-

Their Workman Sri K.C. Kalita.

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Mr. H. Rahman, Advocate.

Mr. I. Ahmed, Advocate.

For the Management. :

Mr. K.C. Sarma, Advocate.

Date of Award: 31.01.14.

AWARD

1. This Reference was initiated on an Industrial Dispute

raised by the workman Sri K.C. Kalita, which was referred

by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi

vide their order No. L-41011/122/2010-IR(B-I) dated

13.01.2011. The Schedule of this Reference is as under.

SCHEDULE

"whether the action of the Management of N.F.

Railway in transferring the post K.C. Kalita, S.E. (C &

W) to a non-sanctioned post & imposition of

punishsment to carry out a wrongful office order is

proper and justified? To what relief the workman is

entitled?"

2. On receipt of the order of Reference, this Reference

case was registered and notices were issued upon all

concerned. Accordingly both the management and the

workman appeared and contested the proceeding by filing

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2387

their respective claim statement/written statement.

3. The case of the workman, in short, as it appears from

the record, is that the workman was working as Section

Engineer (SE) (C & W), Rangiya Railway Station and he

was transferred from Rangiya to Murkac Challeng on

24.12.2007 in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/- but

on that date there was no working post as Section Engineer

in the pay Scale of Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 10,500/- at Murkac

Challeng. But the said post was shown to have been

transferred to Murkac Challeng by Additional Divisional

Railway Manager (ADRM), N.F. Railway, who has no power

to transfer or vary the post from one station to another and

from one scale to another scale. In the mean time the name

of the workman was struck off from the Attendance Register

of Rangiya Office with effect from 10.7.2008 thereafter the

workman was issued memorandum of charges on 29.10.2007

and punishment was imposed on the workman on 24.8.2009.

The findings of the enquiry was 9.10.2008 and the

forwarding letter of the said findings was sent on 19.5.2008

and as such, when the forwarding letter was signed i.e. on

19.5.2008 there was no findings on the enquiry report and

the findings of the enquiry report was presumed to have

been dictated by the higher authority influencing the

Enquiry Officer. Thus the action of the management is

illegal, malafide and the punishment imposed upon the

workman is illegal. Thereafter the management of N.F.

Railway filed an FIR dated 23.7.09 bearing No. Misc/C&W/

RNY/31/09 to the O/C, GRPF and RPF, N.F. Railway wherein

it was alleged that the workman created inconvenience

and trouble to be working staff by shouting loudly rebuking

officials and staff during the office hours, and thereby

restricting the workman from entering the office premises.

After striking the name of the workman from the Attendance

from the office from August, 2008 till February, 2013 showing

zero payment and as such, the workman has not been paid

his salary since then. Thereafter the workman by his letter

dated 15.7.2008 addressed to the Sr. DME, Rangiya

informed that he could not sign the Attendance Register

as his name was struck off from the Attendance Register of

Rangiya Railway Station with effect from 10.7.2008 but no

action taken on this and as such, the issue of non-payment

of salary for no fault of the workman and by illegal removal

of the name from the Register of the workman is not proper

and legal. Thus the punishment imposed by the

Management on the workman is illegal.

4. The Management, in their W.S. pleaded that the

present reference is not maintainable in law as well as in

form and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. The

Management stated that the penalty of reduction of lower

grade imposed upon the workman by adopting proper

procedure of Discipline and Appeal Rule, 1968 and that in

course of enquiry under Discipline and Appeal Rule the

workman admitted that he did not attend the Mock drill for

which the Enquiry Officer did not feel necessity to issue

summon for examination of the witness Sri Laskar Boro to

substantiate the charge framed against the workman.

Further the workman also did not take any step for

summoning Mr. Laskar Boro as witness if so desires. It is

also stated by the Management in their W.S. that the

workman was transferred from Rangiya to Murkac Challeng

for a period of one year against temporary variated post on

administrative ground and the variation can be made with

the authority of Senior Administrative Grade Officer and

the said post was variated with the apporoval of the

competent authority viz. ADRM, Rangiya. It is also

mentioned that the date of forwarding letter of the enquiry

is 9.5.2008 but due to oversight the enquiry Officer has put

the date is 19.10.2008 on the findings.

Further case of the Management is that the workman

was transferred from Rangiya to Murkac Challeng for a

period of one year against temporary variated post on

administrative ground for better accomlishment of work

there vide DRM(P)/Rangiya's office order No. E/283/RM/

Pt. I dated 24.12.2007 as per SOP February, 2007, 2008 (non-

gazetted matters) section-B item No. 5.2 with the apporval

of ADRM, Rangiya. The workman requested to differ his

sparing for his home needs but he was advised by the then

Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Rangiya orally to

proceed to Murkac Challeng in a later date and accordingly

the workman was spared from Rangiya vide SSE (C&W),

Rangiya's letter No. 2 EL/RN/08 dated 26.06.2008 but he

refused to receive the sparing letter. Thereafter the workman

was offered another sparing letter vide No. M/RNY/EST/

Transfer & Posting dated 09.07.2008 and at that time also

the workman refused to accept the same inspite counseling

him to receive the sparing letter, rather disobeyed the order

of HOD of Mechnical Department. The Management added

that whenever a staff is ordered to be transferred from one

station to another his name is struck off from the former

station and taken to the roll of station where the staff has

been transferred and accordingly his name was struck off

from the roll of Senior Section Engineer (C&W), Rangiya

with effect from 10.7.2008. Non receipt of official

communication is a severe offence which is liable for facing

Discipline and Appeal Rule action but the workman was

not taken up under Disciplinary Appeal Rule action

immediately. However, the workman was takn up under

Discipline and Appeal Rule against by issuing SF-5 only

after reported by personal branch, Rangiya regarding

absenting from duty vide letter No. 2-K/M dated 03.06.2009,

to which the workman submitted his defence statement on

16.9.2009. After getting the defence statement the

Discipilnary authority decided to conduct a Discipline and

Apeal Rule enquiry into the case by appointing the then

ADME, Rangiya as Enquiry Officer and the enquiry was

fixed on 10.7.2009 but the enquiry could not be conducted

as the Enquiry Officer was pre-occupied on that day and

hence the enquiry was postponed to 23.7.09 with intimation

to the workman. On 23.7.09 the workman submitted on

medical certificate for his illness and did not attend the

enquiry. Thereafter the workman submitted fitness

certificate on 02.08.2009 which was issued by the Medical

and Health Officer, Rangiya with an application requesting

2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to issue letter to Railway Doctor and to examine and issue

a fitness certificate. The next date of enquiry was fixed on

28.08.2009 and on that day the workman attended the

chamber of Enquiry Officer and when he was asked whether

he was ready to proceed with the enquiry the workman

submitted an application for adjournment on the enquiry

till fulfillment of his requirement as mentioned in his

application and left the chamber of Enquiry Officer. Then

the Enquiry Officer on perusal of the application submitted

by the workman, found that there was no relevancy of the

documents as mentioned in the said application with the

enquiry. In this way the workman was showing non-

cooperative attitude with the enquiry and playing the roll

to prolong the conduct of the enquiry. While the DRM,

Ranigya was pressing hard to finalise the case quickly.

Thus the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry ex-parte

against the workman on 28.8.2009 and accordingly the

Enquiry Officer on completion of enquiry submitted its

report and findings which was sent to the workman vide

letter No. Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Ranigya

(DA)'s L/LO. M/RNY/EST /SF-5/51 dated 26-10-09. The

workman instead of submitted final representation

submitted an application stating the enquiry conducted

by the Enquiry Officer as biased. then the Sr. DME, Rangiya,

on the basis of the relevant document and report of the

Enquiry Officer, finalized the case converting the major

memorandum to minor and imposed the penalty of stoppage

of two sets of privilege Pass.

Further contention of the Management is that on

28.10.07 a mock drill was conducted by safety department

by blowing siren/hooter to check the readiness/promptness

of the staff assigned to BD Van/ARME/RNY but the

workman being In-charge of the BD Van/ARME/RNY failed

to report his duty place after blowing siren/hooter. Hence,

the workman was taken under Discipline and Appeal Rule

action by issuing SF-5 for his negligence towards duty by

not attending duty on emergency call of BD Van/ARME/

RNY. It is also pointed out that due to oversight the date of

Mock drill was written in Article of both Annexure-I&II of

the SF-5 issued to the workman as 23.10.07 instead of

28.10.07 and the same was informed to him by issuing a

corrigendum bearing No. M/RNY/Operation/DAR dated

14.01.08. Accordingly the workman submitted his defence

statement on 14.11.07 and after getting the same the

Disciplinary Authority the then Sr. DEM, Ranigya decided

to conduct a Discipline and Appeal Rule (in short DAR)

enquiry into the case by appointing the then ADME/RPAN

as Enquiry Officer vide SF-7 bearing No. M/RNY/Operation/

DAR Dated 6.12.07. On completion of enquiry the

Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of down

gradation of JE-II/C & E in the pay scale Rs. 5000/- to Rs.

8,000/- from existing grade of SE/C & E and pay is fixed at

Rs. 5000/- (Vth CPC for years from immediate effect and on

completion of five years he would be restored to his existing

grade i.e. SE(C&W). On receipt of the NIP the workman

submitted an appeal to the Appellate Authority i.e. ADRM,

Rangiya on 16.9.09 but the appeal was rejected by the

Appellate Authority. Thereafter the workman submitted a

Revision Petition to CME, Maligaon requesting the review

his penalty. The CME, Maligaon on receipt of the revision

petition filed by the workman asked the working

performance of the workman after imposing of penalty and

accordingly the same was sent to CME, Maligaon. The

speaking order passed by the CME, Maligaon was

conveyed to the workman vide DME/RNY's letter dated

05.02.2010 but the workman has not obeyed the order of

the CME, Maligaon yet. The management further stated

that in Railway system all the posts both revenue charged

posts and work charged posts are sanctioned posts and

the workman was transferred from Rangiya to Markac

Chellang purely on administrative ground only for one year.

Such transfer order issued by the Management against the

workman is not the illegal one and hence, the workman is

not entitled to any relief as he has been absenting from

duty with effect from 10.7.08.

5. In order to prove his case the workman examined

three witnesses including himself while the Management

examined one witness namely Sri Ritu Das, Assistant

Personnel Officer, Rangiya Division, N.F. Railway. Both

the sides have proved the documents relied upon them.

Let me discuss the evidence of both the sides at first.

6. The workman Sri K.C. Kalita (W.W.1) in his evidence

mentioned that he was working as Sectional Engineer ( C&

W), Rangiya and a memorandum of charge was issued

against him on 29.10.07 vide Exhibit-1 but the allegation

levelled against the workman was not proved during the

course of enquiry as no witness was examined by the

Disciplinary Authority and the procedure of Discipline and

Appeal Rule was not followed thereby, moreover, penalty

was imposed upon him violating the Rules and Procedure

as prescribed in Rule 9 of Disciplinary Rule. He also stated

that he was transferred from Rangiya to Markac chellang

in the scale of Rs. 6500/- to 10,500/- on 24.12.2007 but on

that there was no working post of SE (C & W) in the scale

of pay of Rs. 6,500/- to 10,500/- at Markac chellang; and the

said post was shown to have been transferred to Markac

chellang by the ADRM who is not the authority to transfer

or vary the post from one station to another or from one

scale to another scale. In this regard the workman has

proved the (certified copy) of book of sanction as on 01.04.07

wherein the position of the Post at Markac chellang is

shown at Exhibit-2(1) wherein there is no mention of the

post of the Section Engineer at Markac chellang. He has

also proved the delegation of power vide Exhibit-3 and the

extent of the power in respect of the power of Assistant

Divisional Railway Manager at page 9, Ch-4, Section-B

non gazetted matter in the schedule of power marked as

Exhibit-3(1). The workman mentioned that he was

communicated about the findings of the enquiry report

dated 9.10.98 but the signature on the forwarding letter

was done on 19.5.08 and as such, on 19.5.08 there was no

findings on the enquiry and hence, it is clear that the action

of the Management transferring the workman from Rangiya

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2389

to Markac chellang and reversion (Reduction to lower

stage) are illegal and the punishment is liable to be set

aside. He has also proved a memorandum bearing No. 2EL/

RNY/08 dated 10.7.08 issued by the Senior Section Engineer

(C & W), Rangiya regarding striking of his name from the

Attendance Register with effect from 10.7.08 vide Exhibit-4

whereupon Exhibit-4(1) is the signature of the then Section

Engineer (C&W), Rangiya. In course of his cross-

examination the workman mentioned that in his claim

statement he has not mentioned specifically the

circumstances under which the charge sheet was framed

and enquiry was held against him, and that the allegations

levelled against him by the Management in their W.S. have

not been denied in the Additional W.S. He also mentioned

that he attended the departmental proceeding started

against him and Luskar Boro was his Senior Supervising

Officer who reported against him that he did not attend the

mock dril which was made known to him from the

memorandum of charge sheet; but said Luskar Boro was

not called by the Enquiry Officer as witness nor did he

proposed to call said Luskar Boro as witness to the said

enquiry. He admitted that due to his absence in the mock

drill conducted by the Management the enquriy was

initiated against him and the penalty as mentioned in his

W.S. has been imposed against him. He denied the

suggestion tendered by the Management that he did not

cooperate with the Management incourse of proceeding

and that due to his fault i.e. for not attending the mock drill

he was punished for which he did not mention the above

fact in his W.S. The workman witness No. 1 mentioned that

the mock drill was arranged in connection with the accident

in order to test the alertness and sincerity of the employees

of concerning department relating to the nature of accident.

He also admitted that he did not join the Murkac chellang

where he was transfered by the Management and due to

his refusal to join at Murkac Chellang the Management

struck off his name from the Attendance Register and

stopped his salary and also prohibited him from entering

into office of the C&W, Rangiya. He also denied the

suggestion that the Management have taken the action

against him rightly due to his default in attending the mock

drill on 28.10.2007 and that the action of the Management

was taken illegally.

At the instance of the workman witness No. 2, Sri Pradip

Kumar Taludkar Inspector of Police, O/C, GRPF, Rangiya

Railway Station and W.W.3, Ranjit Kumar Bezbaruah,

Inspector RPF, Rangiya Railway Station were summoned

to the Court to appear along with the documents/records,

if any in connection with the GD Entry/FIR/Memo filed by

the Management of Rangiya Railway Station Authority for

restraining the workman from entering into the office of

C & W, Rangiya Railway Station and both the witnesses

have categorically mentioned that they have made thorough

search and inspected the records such as Register of

Receipts, maintenance files, etc. but found no entry in those

Section Engineer (C & W), N.F. Railway, Rangiya Railway

Station against the workman.

7. The Management witness No. 1, Sri Ritu Raj Das,

Assistant Personnel Officer, Rangiya Division in his

evidence mentioned that in the year 2007 the workman was

working as Section Engineer under Rangiya Division and

he was posted at Rangiya Station; and that on 28.10.07 at

9.28 P.M. mock drill of Railway was arranged by the

authority of Rangiya Station in the pretext of accident of

Train No. 5813 UP. As per procedure once such siren blown

all the brake down staff (staff related to brake down) and

other staff are to report to Accident Relief Medical

Equipment Van (ARMEV) but the workman did not attend

the mock drill and due to default of the workman the charge

sheet was issued by the Senior Divisional Mechanical

Engineer, Rangiya on 29.10.07 vide Exhibit-A. On receipt of

the charge sheet the workman submitted his reply on

14.11.07 that no mock drill was held on 23.10.07. Then the

Railway Authority issued a corrigendum correcting the date

of mock drill held on 28.10.07 vide Exhibit-C whereupon

Exhibit-C(1) and C(2) are the signatures of the then Senior

Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Rangiya. Thereafter a

departmental proceeding was initiated against the workman

vide memo No. M/RNY/Operation/DAR dated 5.12.07

appointing Mr. Bhuben Nath as Enquiry Officer vide

Exhibit-D, and a copy of the said order was furnished to

the workman. In the mean time the Enquiry Officer was

transferred for which Mr. P.K. Hira, Additional Divsional

Mechanical Engineer, Rangiya was appointed as Enquiry

Officer and accordingly the notice dated 27.12.07 was

issued upon the workman asking him to appear before the

Enquiry proceeding to be held on 4.1.08 and to take defence

vide Exhibit-E. On 4.1.08 the enquiry proceeding was held

and it was concluded on the same day. In the said

proceeding the workman was present and the copy of the

proceeding of the departmental proceeding was forwaded

to the workman who acknowledged receipt of the same

putting his signature. He has proved the proceeding of

departmental proceeding vide Exhibit-F and the signatures

of the workman acknowledging receipt of the copy of the

same vide Exhibit-F(1). He also said that subsequently on

3.4.08 the proceeding was held in which the workman was

present and copy of the proceeding marked as Exhibit-G

was furnished to the workman who acknowledged receipt

of the same vide Exhibit-G(1). The Management witness

further stated that on completion of the the enquiry the

enquiry Officer submitted his findings with observation

that charges framed agaisnt the workman had been

established vide Exhibit-H. The witness concerned has

also mentioned that prior to initiation of the departmental

proceeding the workman was transferred from Rangiya to

Murkac Chellang on administrative ground on 24.12.07 vide

Exhibit-I. It is further mentioned that on receipt of the report

and findings of the Enquiry Officer, Appropriate Authority

accepted the said report submitted its report along with

the proposed punishment against the workman vide

Exhibit-J. Thereafter the workman submitted an appeal

before the Highest Authority i.e. CME/Maligaon vide

2390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Exhibit-K and on receipt of the appeal as per order of the

Chief Mechanical, Engineer Maligaon, APO (I), Rangiya

vide his letter No. E/283/RN/Pt. 1 dated 16.2.10 asked the

workman to join at Murkac Chellang and then after

improving his performance he should appeal vide Exhibit-

L. The Management witness No. 1 mentioned that the

workman was transferred to Murkac Chellang on

administrative ground before imposing punishment and

the departmental proceeding as well as the punishment

imposed against the workman and the transfer of the

workman have no relation with each other. The workman

did not comply with the order of transfer issued by the

Railway and due to his absence from duty the name of the

workman was struck off from the Roll maintained by Senior

Sectional Engineer, Rangiya on 10.7.08. The Management

witness also said that due to disobedience of the workman

to comply with the trasnfer order and absence from duty

another charge sheet was issued by the Sr. DME, Rangiya

vide Exhibit-M and on receipt of the same the workman

submitted his reply vide Exhibit-N; and on being dissatisfied

another departmental proceeding was initiated against the

workman appointing the Enquiry Officer, Mr. M.

Chakrabarty, ADME, Rangiya vide Exhibit-O and

investigation was issued upon the workman vide Exhibit-

Q whereupon Exhibit-Q(1) is the signature of the workman

acknowledging the receipt of the same. Accordingly enquiry

was held on 28.08.09 but the workman was absent on that

date for which the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte

against the workman and passed an exparte order on the

same day holding that the charge against the workman has

been proved beyond doubt vide Exhibit-R whereupon

Exhibit-R(1) is the findings of the enquiry officer; and on

receipt of the report along with the findings of the Enquiry

Office, the Appropriate Authority viz. Sr. DME, Rangiya,

Mr. G. Talukdar has imposed punishment against the

workman stopping of two sets of privilege pass vide

Exhibit-S.

In course of his cross-examination he stated that the

statements made in the W.S filed by his predecessor

Mr. Narayan Chandra Saha, the then APO are true and

correct. He also mentioned that Sri Luskar Boro who was

the complainant against he workman was not called for in

the enquiry proceeding and the enquiry proceeding

regarding absence of the workman was conducted ex-parte.

He clarified the word"administrative ground"including the

administrative convenience, administrative interest and it

is for the benefits of the Administration. He said that there

were departmental complaints against the workman and in

the enquiry conducted against the workman for not

attending mock drill the penalty of reduction in the lower

grade was imposed; and as per the enquiry held against

the workman due to refusal to carry out the transfer order

issued by the Railway the name of the workman was struck

off maintained by the Rangiya Railway station with effect

from 10.7.08. He added that the disobedience to carry out

the order of transfer by the workman the enquiry was

initiated under Railway Discipline and Appeal Rule. The

Management witness No. 1 again mentioned that on 10.7.09

enquriy was fixed and on that day the workman appeared

but due to his failure to submit his name of the defence

counsel as well as pre-occupation of the Enquriy Officer

the enquriy was postponed on that day and fixed on 23.07.09

but on that day the workman was absent due to his illness

thereafter another date was fixed on 28.08.09 and on that

date the workman was present and submitted application

seeking some documents and other requirements such as

subsistence allowance, passes, etc. He also said that the

DRM, Rangiya was pressing hard for finalization of the

case that is why the enquriy was conducted against the

workman ex-parte and the name of the workman was struck

off from the role under the Rules of Railway Discipline and

Appeal Rule but as per provision of Administrative policy.

He added that after striking the name of the workman from

the Roll he used to come of his working place and created

problem as reported by the supervisor and hence they

informed the matter to the GRP and RPF. He categorically

mentioned that the workman was neither suspended nor

dismissed till date. The workman was found absent at his

place of transfer viz. namely Murkac chellang for which his

pay was not given; and after informing the GRPF and RPF

the workman came to his working place and drew his money

from the Provident Fund.The Management witness No. 1

further said that the application for drawing provident fund

amount by the workman was processed through Rangiya

Railway Division, Personnel Branch and the application

for the post of Senior Lecturer for training Institute of N.F.

Railway submitted by the workman was forwarded by the

Rangiya Railway Station through proper channel on 21.7.08

i.e. after striking of name of the workman from the roll on

10.7.08. It is also mentioned by the MW. 1 that in the said

forwarding letter the workman was shown as Sectional

Engineer (C & W), Rangiya, and the workman has been

residing in Railway quarter at Rangiya till date. Beside that

all the communication made to the workman both by

sending special messenger and by registered post to his

quarter. He also mentioned that he can not say under what

provision of law/rule the salary of the workman was not

paid with effect from 10.7.08.

8. I have heard argument from both the sides at length.

Mr. K.C. Sarma, learned Advocate for the Management

submitted that the workman Sri K.C. Kalita was transferred

after variation of the post from Rangiya to Murkac chellang

for a period of one year against the temporary variafed

psot on administrative ground with the approval of

competent authority viz. ADRM, Rangiya as per the

provisions of the Schedule of power of Railway

Organisation, but the workman did not comply with the

order of the Management. He also mentioned that the

workman requested to differ his sparing for his family

necessity, while Sr. DME, Rangiya orally advised the

workman to proceed to Murkac Chellang on a later date

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2391

and the workman was spared from Rangiya vide letter dated

26.06.08, while the workman refused to receive the sparing

letter; and thereafter Sri Kalita was again offered by the

sparing letter by the ADME, Rangiya and at that time

Sri Kalita refused to accept the same in spite of counseling

him in this respect. Thereafter as per the procedure the

name of the workman Sri Kalita was struck off from the roll

of the Rangiya, Railway Station and taken to the roll of the

Station where he was transferred. Mr. Sharma, Learned

Advocate added that initially no action was taken by the

Management under Discipline Appeal Rule of Railway and

subsequently on report by the Personal Branch, Rangiya

regarding absenting from duty the action under DAR.

Started and after submission of defence statement by the

workman the Disciplinary authority decided to conduct

departmental enquiry into the case by appointing ADME,

Rangiya as Enquiry Officer who fixed the date on 10.7.09

informing the workman to submit the name of his defence

counsel. But the workman failed to submit the name of his

defence counsel although he attended the enquiry

proceeding on 10.07.09. But the enquiry could not be

conducted due to other pre-occupation of the Enquiry

Officer who refixed the date on 23.07.09 with intimation to

the workman. Due to non-cooperative attitude of the

workman the enquiry was conducted ex-parte against the

workman and on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry

Officer along with the enquiry proceeding and the relevant

documents the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty

of stoppage of 2 sets of privilege pass.

Mr. Sarma, Learned Advocate further submitted that

another departmental enquiry was initiated agaisnt the

workman under Discipline and Appeal Rule on the charge

of failure of the workman to report to him duty place on

28.10.07 for attending the mock drill and after completion

of the said enquiry the Disciplinary Authority imposed the

penalty down grading the workman to JE-II (C&W) in the

pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8000/- from existing grade of

SE/C&W fixing the pay at 5,000/- for 5 years from immediate

effect. While the workman submitted an appeal which was

rejected by the appellate authority. Then the workman

submitted a petition for revision before the Chief Mechanical

Engineer, Maligaon requesting for reviewing the penalty

while the CME, Maligaon asking the working performance

of the workman after imposition of the penalty, but the

workman did not obey the order of the CME, Maligaon.

Hence, Mr. Sarma pleaded that the workman was transferred

from Rangiya to Murkac Chellang on administrative ground

and the workman had been found disobeying and violating

the Rules and procedure of the Discipline and Appeal as

such, there is no irregularity and illegality in transferring

the workman from Rangiya to Murkac Chellang hence

Mr. Sarma also plodded that the Management instead of

taking serious view imposed minor punishment on the

workman leniently giving him an opportunity to rectify but

the workman did not do so. Hence, Mr. Sarma submitted

that the domestic enquiries against the workman were held

as per the provision of DAR without any violation of natural

justice and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief

as claimed.

9. Mr. Rahman, Learned Advocate for the workman, on

the other hand, submitted that as there was no post of SE

(C&W) at Murkac chellang Railway Station the workman

did not join there and submitted an appeal before the

appropriate authority; and as the ADRM has no power to

vary/change the post and create and as there is no mention

of the post of the workman in the Book of Sanction (Exhibit-

2) the alleged order of transfer issued to the workman vide

office order No. DRM(P)/RNY dated 24.12.07 is illegal,

arbitrary which is liable to be set aside. Mr. Rahman, Learned

Advocate for the workman again submitted that altogether

two domestic enquiries were made by the Management

against the workman, on the charges of absent of the

workman from the mock drill and disobedience of the order

of the appointing authority by refusing to carry out the

order of transfer from Rangiya to Murkac Chellang. He

added that the enquiries were made ex-parte without giving

sufficient opportunities to the workman to defend his case;

and the Management by filing FIR before the GRPF and

RPF for restraining the workman to enter into his working

place the workman could not join his service and as the

names of the workman was struck off from the Roll of the

Rangiya Railway Station resulting in depriving the workman

to get his salary, the Management has done grave injustice

to the workman. Mr. Rahman again pointed out that the

workman is still holding the post of SE (C&W), Rangiya

since neither he was suspended nor dismissed by legal

procedure and since the petition submitted by the workman

for the post of Lecturer in the Railway Training Institution

and the advance from GPF was also granted and the amount

was paid to the workman showing the workman as SE

(C&W), Rangiya, the workman appears to remain as SE

(C&W), Rangiya Railway Station. It is also submitted that

the workman has been remaining in the railway quarter,

Rangiya till date and as such, the workman appears to

have continued to the post of SE (C&W), Rangiya. Thus

Mr. Rahman contended that all the actions taken by the

Management against the workman are illegal and hence,

the workman is not bound to comply with the illegal order

passed by the Management.

10. On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record along

with the documents relied upon by both the parties and

taking the account the submissions of the Learned

Advocates it is found admitted that the workman K.C. Kalita

was transferred from Rangiya to Murkac Chellang where

there was no sanctioned post of SE (C&W) and due to

non- compliance of the order of the Management the name

of the workman was struck off from the Roll of Rangiya

Railway Station resulting in non payment of salary of the

workman. On scrutiny of the copy of Book of sanction

2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

produced by the workman it appears that there was no

sanctioned post of SE(C&W) at Murkac Challeng at the

relevant time and the workman was tranferred by the ADRM,

Rangiya as per the Schedule of Power as it appears from

the letter No. M/RNY/EST/Transfer and Posting dated

3.3.2011 submitted by the Senior Divisional Mechanical

Engineer, N.F. Railway, Rangiya. From the Schedule of

Powers (non establishment and establishment matter) dated

7th February, 2008 proved as Exhibit-3, it is found that in

the said "Schedule Pt-B, Chapter-IV Establishment matter

Section B. .................non-gazetted matter Item No. 18.1

marked as Exhibit-3(1) that the ADRMs have no power to

transfer of Post and creates temporarily in respect of non

gazetted staff from one station to another. Although it was

pleaded that the workman was transferred purely on

temporary basis for a period of one year on administrative

ground varying the post of SE (C&W) from the Rangiya

Railway Station to Murkac Chellang with the approval of

the Appropriate Authority but no evidence adduced by

the Management in support of their plea. As such, it can

safely be held that the transfer order issued with the

approval of ADRM, Rangiya varying the post of SE (C&W)

to Murkac Chellang itself is found not as per Provisions of

the Schedule of Powers of Railways. Hence, it can safely

be held that the order of transfer issued by the ADRM,

Rangiya transferring Sri K.C. Kalita, SE (C&W), Rangiya is

not proper and legal.

11. Due to non compliance of order of transfer by the

workman the name of the workman has been struck off

from the Roll of the Office of Senior Sectional Engineer

(C&W), Rangiya and subsequently enquiry proceeding

was initiated against the workman in connection with the

Sr. DME, Rangiya vide Memo No. M/RNY/EST/SF-5/51

dated 4.6.09. Accordingly enquiry was held on 28.8.09 in

the chamber of ADME, Rangiya on the allegation that the

workman was ordered for transfer from Rangiya to Murkac

chellang vide DRM(P), Rangiya's office bearing No. E/283/

RM/Pt.-I dated 24.12.2007, but the workman has not carried

the transfer order and absenting himself from duty with

effect from 10.7.2008 till date; and thereby the action of the

workman constituted an offence tantamount to gross

negligent in duty in contravention of Rule No. 3.1(II) and

(III) of Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966. It appears

from the enquiry report proved by the Management vide

Exhibit-R that initially the enquiry was fixed on 10.7.09 and

after summoning the charged officer to attend before the

Enquiry Officer along with his defence counsel. Charged

Officer (workman) appeared on 10.7.09 without his defence

counsel but the enquiry could not be conducted on 10.7.09

due to other pre occupation of the Enquiry Officer and the

enquiry was postponed on 23.7.09. On that date i.e. 23.7.09

the workman did not appear and accordingly the date of

enquiry was again re-fixed on 28.8.09. The workman

appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 28.8.09 and

submitted an application for adjournment of the enquiry

fixing another date after fulfilment of his requirements as

mentioned in his application while the Enquiry Officer on

perusal of the application found the requirements not

relevant with the enquiry and finding the workman

maintaining non-cooperative attitude in connection with

the enquiry, conducted the enquiry ex-parte against the

workman.Accordingly the Enquiry Officer submitted his

report along with the findings opining the charges framed

against the workman are established. Subsequently the

Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry report

and the relevant documents imposed penalty as under:—

"His 2 (two) sets of privilege pass are stopped".

On perusal of the evidence in connection with the

departmental enquiry held on 28.8.09 together with the

enquiry report marked as Exhibit-R it is clear that the enquiry

was held after rejecting the application of the workman for

fulfillment of his requirements submitted by the workman,

without giving any opportunity of hearing of the workman.

There is also nothing on record to show that the enquiry

proceeding along with the report of the Enquiry Officer

have been furnished to the workman by the Disciplinary

Authority before imposing punishment. In this connection

I am inclined to reply upon the decision in P. Karunakaran-

Vs-The Union of India and Ors. reported in 2014 LAB

I.C. 146 (Madras High Court) wherein it was laid down that

without conducting enquiry and without affording

opportunity of hearing to employee, the enquiry is violative

of principle of natural justice, which is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly the domestic enquiry held on 28.8.09 against

the workman in violation of the Provision of Discipline and

Appeal Rules as well as principle of natural justice and

hence, the findings on the enquiry proceeding held on

28.8.09 is not valid and legal and as such, it is liable to be

set aside.

12. From the above discussion it can safely he held that

the order of transfer issued against the workman

transferring him from Rangiya to Murkac Chellang varying

the post of SE (C&W) to Murkac chellang and imposition

of punishment by the Disciplinary authority due to non

compliance of the said illegal order passed by the

Management of ADRM, Rangiya is not proper and justified.

In course of hearing Learned Advocate for the workman

pleaded that while the workman was working at Rangiya as

SE (C&W) he was issued with a memorandum of charges

on 29.10.07 on the allegation that he did not attend mock

drill conducted by the Management and on the basis of

the memorandum of charges enquiry was held ex-parte

without calling any witnesses and penalty was imposed

on the workman by the Management reducing the workman

to lower grade; and as such, the finding of the Enquiry

Officer and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority upon the workman is against the Discipline and

Appeal Rule and the Provision of Constitution as well as

the principle of natural justice. Hence, the Learned

Advocate for the workman submitted that the punishment

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2393

imposed against the workman is liable to be set aside. The

evidence of the Management witness No. 1 clearly shows

that the enquiry held on the basis of the memorandum of

charge dated 29.10.07 is in no way connected with the

transfer of the workman and hence, this matter can not be

taken up in this proceeding. The record shows that the

transfer order was issued on 24.12.07 and the alleged act of

negligence of duty in attending the mock drill by the

workman took place on 23.10.07 upon which the enquiry

was held on 3.1.08 and 4.1.08 and as such, the said enquiry

has no relevancy with the transfer order as alleged. The

Ministry has referred this dispute for adjudication of the

issue,

"Whether the action of the Management of N.F.

Railway in transferring the post of K.C. Kalita, S.E.

(C&W) to a non-sanctioned post and imposition of

punishment to carry out a wrongful office order is

proper and justified?

It is the established principle that the Tribunal has got

no jurisdiction to travel beyond the issue contained in the

Schedule of Reference except otherwise provided by law.

From the above discussion it has been made clear that this

domestic enquiry held on 3.1.08 and 4.1.08 against the

workman has no relevancy as it is in no way connected

with the transfer of the workman and as such, this matter

regarding the domestic enquiry held on 3.1.08 and 4.1.08

against the workman can not be considered at this stage.

13. The workman in his pleadings mentioned that due to

non receipt of the salary the workman had been suffering

and prayed for granting back wage. It is crystal clear that

the workman has not been paid the salary with effect from

the striking off the name of the workman from the Roll of

the Sr. Sectional Engineer (C&W), Rangiya and hence, he

is entitled to backwage. Considering the totality of the

facts of this case and the conduct of the workman as it

reveals from the pleadings as well as the evidence of both

the sides, and having regard to the principle "no work, no

pay", I find it difficult to saddle the burden of entire back

wage upon the Management. The workman was transferred

on administrative ground and he repeatedly refused to

accept the sparing order issued by the Railway Authority.

Even after filing of his appeal before the CME, Maligaon,

consequent upon proving the charges framed against him

in the enquiry held in connection with the negligence of

duty of the workman in attending the mock drill on 28.10.07

the CME, Maligaon has passed the orders,

"in the light of report of Sr. DME, Rangiya his

revision petition kept pending. He can join at Murkac

chellang and then after improving his performance

he should appeal."

For argument shake although the tranfer order issued

by the Management against the workman is found to be

illegal, the workman appears to have shown his

disobedience to his employer which amounts to gross-

misconduct. In this connection I would like to rely upon

the principles of law laid down in Hindustan Paper

Corporation Limited and Another-VRs-Ranjit Kumar Deb

and Another reported in 2014 LAB. I.C. 222 (Gauhati High

Court) (Para-B) wherein it was held "Suffice it to say that

the principle of 'no work, no pay' cannot entirely apply in

this case inasmuch as the respondent was wrongfully

removed from service as indicated earlier. Nevertheless, on

considering the totality of the facts in this case and also of

the difficulty being faced by the petitioner-Corporation, it

will not be equitable to saddle them with the entire back

wages either. Under the circumstances, by striking a balance

between the interests of the Corporation and the

Respondent No. 1, I decide to give back wages to the

Respondent No. 1 only with effect from 20.12.2005 when

the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal."

In view of my above discussion and taking into account

the decision of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court as

mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the workman is

entitled to 50% of his salary with effect from 10.7.08 i.e. the

date of striking out of the name of the workman from the

Attendance Roll of the Office of the Sr. Sectional Engineer

(C&W), Rangiya, which I hope, will meet the ends of justice.

14. Accordingly it is held that the order issued by the

Management of N.F. Railway transferring the workman from

Rangiya to Murkac challeng varying the post of SE (C&W)

at Murkac challeng is wrongful and illegal and hence, the

action of the Management of N.F. Railway in transferring

the post of K.C. Kalita, SE (C&W), Rangiya to a non-

sanctioned post and imposition of punishment ot carry

out a wrongful office order is not proper and justified; and

the workman is entitled to 50% of his gross pay with effect

from the date of his striking off his name from the Roll of

the Office of the Sr. Sectional Engineer (C&W), Rangiya till

his re-instatement.

This Reference is disposed of on contest.

No cost is awarded.

15. Send the Award to the Government as per law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

31st day of January, 2014 at Guwahati.

L.C. DEY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 897.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj eqacbZ iksVZ VªLV ds

izcaèr= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

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

U;k;ky; eqacbZ ds iapkV ¼dsñ lñ vkSñ vñ&2@11@2010½ izdkf'kr

djrh gSa tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21&02&2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&31011@6@2009&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

2394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 897.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2010) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, No. 2,

Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute

between the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 21-2-2014.

[No. L-31011/6//2009-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/11 of 2010

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE

MANAGEMENT OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST

The Chairman

Mumbai Port Trust

CP & IRM's Office

Port Bhavan, S.V. Marg

Mumbai 400 001.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

The Secretary

Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees' Union

Port Trust Kamgar Sadan

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon

Mumbai 400 010.

APPEARANCES:

For the employer

Mr. Umesh Nabar,

Advocate.

For the workman

Mr. J.H. Sawant,

Advocate.

Mumbai, dated the 1st November, 2013

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-31011/6/2009-IR (B-II) dated

12.01.2010 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 demand of the Mumbai Port Trust,

Dock and General Employees Union that Shri V.S.

Ingalikar's Jr. Assistant, Medical Department period

of suspension from 29.06.1996 to 28.09.2003 be

treated as period spent on duty for all purposes and

the workman shall be given all the consequential

benefits is legal, justified and proper? What relief

the workman is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were issued to

parties. In response to the notice, the Second party filed its

statement of claim at Ex-7. According to the second party

the workan V.S. Ingalikar is employee of first party serving

as Jr. Assistant, Medical Department. He was suspended

from service from 29/06/1996 as he was arrested by Police

and was prosecuted in a criminal case. In the year 2003

Sessions Court acquitted the workman. Thereafter the first

party reinstated him on 28/09/2003. Thereafter workman

has applied for the wages and other benefits during the

period of suspension as if he was on duty. The first party

held that the acquittal of the second party was on the

ground of benefit of doubt therefore they granted him only

80% of the pay and allowances for the period of suspension.

Therefore the workman has raised the dispute before ALC

(C), Mumbai. As conciliation failed, on report of ALC (C),

the Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal. The

Second party herein prays that the workman be awarded

full pay and all consequential benefits during the period

from 29/6/1996 to 28/9/2003 i.e. for the period of suspension

form service as if he was on duty for all purposes and also

prays for 18% interest and cost of the reference.

3. The first party resisted the statement of claim vide its

written statement at Ex-8. According to them the workman

was suspended as he was arrested by Police and remained

in jail and he was prosecuted by Sessions Court in Criminal

Case no. 1110/1996. Though he was acquitted it was not

clear or honourable acquittal. On the other hand he was

acquitted by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore on his

application management has paid him 80% of his

remuneration. He is not entitled to the full pay allowances

and other benefits as claimed for. Therefore they pray that

the reference be dismissed.

4. Following are the issues for my determination. I record

my findings thereon for the reasons to follow:

Sr.No.

Issues

Findings

Whether the period of suspension

No.

from 29/6/1996 to 28/9/2003 of

Shri V.S. Ingalikar, Jr. Assistant

Medical Department of Mumbai

Port Trust can be treated as a period

spent on duty for all purposes

and whether the workman is

entitled to all the consequential

benefits?

Whether the workman is entitled to

No.

any relief?

What order?

As per final order.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2395

REASONS

Issue no. 1&2:—

5. In the case at hand facts are not disputed that the

applicant was involved in a criminal case. He was arrested

by Police on 29/06/1996 and he remained in custody upto

11/07/1997. Fact is also not disputed that the workman was

accused in Sessions Court case no.1110/1996. As the

workman was arrested by police and the remained in jail for

more than two weeks, therefore as per rule the workman

was put under suspension. The fact is also not disputed

that the workman was involved in an offence outside the

premises more particularly it was offence U/S 498 A,

306 r/w 34 IPC. Fact is also not dispute that the first party

company had not taken any cognizance of the offence and

the trial of the workman. They have neither issued any

charge sheet not initiated domestic inquiry against the

second party. Fact is also not disputed that after workman

submitted the copy of order of acquittal passed by the

Sessions Court, the first party immediately reinstated the

workman in the services. The fact is also not disputed that

workman applied for back wages and the management after

considering the judgement of the Sessions court observed

that it was not a clear acquittal. On the other hand benefit

of doubt is given to the workman. Therefore instead of

granting full back wages, and all other consequential

benefits, management granted him 80% back wages.

6. Workman herein is claiming full back wages. In this

respect the ld. adv. for the second party workman submitted

that the workman was acquitted by the Sessions Court.

Neither any charge sheet was issued to the workman nor

any departmental inquiry was conducted against him. In

the circumstances, the ld. adv. submitted that the workman

is entitled to full back wages as he is acquitted by the

Court of Sessions. In support of his argument ld. adv.

resorted to Madras High Court ruling in State Bank of India

V/s. Mohd. Abdul Rahim 2012 I CLR 899 wherein the Hon'ble

Court observed that:

"Looking to the facts of the case particularly with

reference to acquittal order of the Appellate Court, in

the criminal case against him and in the background

of no departmental proceedings held by the appellant

management, the Court would not find any

justification to deny full pay and allowances to the

respondent workman for the period he was

discharged from service till he was reinstated in

service."

7. In this respect I would like to point out that the fact of

the case at hand are quite different. In that case the workman

therein was palced under suspension inspite of registration

of case and he continued to work with the Bank till the date

of conviction. On appeal against conviction, the sentence

was suspended by the Appellate Court. Inspite of that

management did not permit the workman to work. In the

circumstances the Hon'ble Court in para 9 of the judgement

observed that:

"It was pointed out that inspite of the said suspension

of sentence, the management however, did not permit

the writ petitioner to work. Thus on acquittal by the

criminal court, the petitioner was entitled to

reinstatement of service as well as back wages

payable to the writ petitioner."

8. In addition to that further I would like to point out

that in that case the workman therein was not acquitted

merely by giving benefit of doubt. On the other hand his

acquittal in that case was honourable acquittal. On the

point Hon'ble Court in para 13 of the judgement further

observed that:

"...it was not just a case of acquittal by giving him

the benefit of doubt but on the other hand going

through the evidence, the appellate court pointed

out that the allegations were merely an afterthought

and were not true. Thus the acquittal is more in nature

of honourable acquittal."

9. In short, in the above referred case there was fault on

the part of the Management of the Bank who did not allow

the workman to work though his conviction and sentence

was suspended. Furthermore the acquittal in that case was

honourable in nature. As compared to that in the case at

hand, there was no fault on the part of the management

herein. The workman remained in jail for more than 12/13

days. Therefore as per the rule he was palced under

suspension. When order of acquittal was communicated

to the management, immediately they reinstated the

workman. Management herein has remained passive. They

are not at fault. The workman was arrested and prosecuted

by the Police Department on the complaint filed by the

relative of the deceased. In the case at hand neither his

acquittal is honourable nor first party has any concern

with the criminal case. The trial court has given the benefit

of doubt and acquitted the workman. Immediately thereafter

with all fairness, first party reinstated the workman in the

service. The first party could have initiated domestic inquiry

against the workman. However they did not take any such

action as the offence in which workman was arrested though

was of serious nature, it has no concern with the company.

In the circumstances, I found no fault on the part of the

management and the management or the State Ex-chequer

need not be burdened by paying full back wages to the

workman who has not performed any work during the

period of suspension. The management has no role and it

was not at fault in suspending the workman. The fact of

the above referred case is totally different. The

management therein was at fault as they did not allow the

workman to work even after his sentence was suspened.

Furthermore the acquittal therein was of honourable natue.

In the circumstances I hold that ratio laid down in the above

case is not attracted to the set of facts of the present case

2396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

especially in the light of well settled principle of 'no work

no-wages' laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K. Soumini

Vs. State Bank of Travancore AIR 2003 SC 3137. In the case

at hand the workman was arrested by Police and prosecuted

on complaint of his relative. The first party has no role

either in lodging the complaint or in prosecuting the

workman. The first party has no concern with the arrest

and prosecution of the workman. They acted in good faith

and suspended him as per the rules. With all fairness the

first party has also paid 80% subsistence allowance to the

workman which is more than sufficient relief given by the

first party. In the case at hand 'no work no pay', rule is

squarely applicable. The first party or the state ex-chequer

need not be burdened with no fault on their part. In this

back drop, I answer these issues nos. 1 & 2 in the negative

and proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference stands rejected with no order as to cost.

Date: 01.11.2013

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 898.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vfèfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkQ cM+kSnk ds

izcaèr= ds laca) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa

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

U;k;ky; pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 23@2012½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gSa

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21@2@2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

[lañ ,y&12012@79@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 898.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2012) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute

between the management of Bank of Baroda and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

21/2/2014/.

[No. L-12012/79//2011-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 28th October, 2013

PRESENT:

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 23/2012

(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 Bank of Baroda and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri J. Tamil Selvam :

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The General Manager :

2nd Party/Respondent

Bank of Baroda

Regional Office

82, Bank Road

Coimbatore-641018

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

Sri S. Saravanan, G.B.

Saravanbhavan,

Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Respondent: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Governmen, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/79/2011-IR(B-II)

dated 26.03.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of

Baroda in terminating the services of Sri. J. Tamil

Selvam w.e.f. 01.09.2004 is legal and justified? What

relief the workman concerned is entitled to?"

2. After receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 23/2012 and issued notice to both

sides.

3. The averments raised by the petitioner in the Claim

Statement are these:

The petitioner has been working under the

Respondent Bank. On 01.09.2004 the petitioner was

orally directed to quit from the service of the

Respondent. The petitioner has requested the Branch

Manager and other higher officials to take him back

into the service of the Bank. A covenant has been

made during the meeting of the Trade Union of

National Level and Bank Employees Federation

regarding confirmation of temporary employees. On

coming to know of this, the petitioner has again

approached the Branch Manager to take back the

petitioner into the service of the Bank. The B.M. has

threatened the petitioner that the covenant is not

applicable to him but is applicable only to those

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2397

temporary workers who are in service. On 26.05.2009

the petitioner has sent a letter to the Respondent

requesting to revoke the oral termination. By reply

dated 16.06.2009 the Respondent has informed that

the request of the petitioner cannot be considered.

The petitioner had approached the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (Central) requesting to revoke the oral

termination and reinstate the petitioner into service

with backwages and other benefits. The termination

of the petitioner is against law and is against natural

justice. Though conciliation was held before the

Labour Commissioner, the Respondent was not

willing to accede to the request of the petitioner to

reinstate him. The petitioner is entitled for

reinstatement in the service of the Respondent with

backwages and other benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed counter Statement

contending as follows:

The petitioner was engaged as casual workman on

daily wages in Nabiyur, Kadathur and Erode

branches of the Respondent Bank between 1990 and

2004 on temporary ad-hoc basis for passing

contingencies of work, whenever the regular staff

were on leave. Though was making representation

for absorption and regularization, it was not

considered as the practice was to recruit candidates

from among those sponsored by Employment

Exchange. The petitioner stopped coming for work

after 17.09.2004. He seems to have obtained job as

Supervisor in a Poultry Farm after this. After cessation

of the employment of the petitioner in 2004 the

employees federation of the Respondent bank have

raised and Industrial Dispute over the issue of

absorption of casual workmen. A settlement was

arrived at providing for regularization and absorption

of temporary and casual employees who are still

working under the Bank. Since the petitioner was

not in service, he does not qualify for absorption as

per the terms of the settlement. The petitioner is not

entitled to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and MW1 and exhibits marked as Ex.W1 to Ex.W23

and Ex.M1 to Ex.M4.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the termination of the services of the

petitioner by the Respondent is legal and justified?

(ii) What is the relief, if any to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The points

7. The petitioner has claimed in his Claim Statement that

he was an employee of the Respondent Bank and was

orally terminated from service on 01.09.2004 without any

justification. The nature of employment of the petitioner is

neither specified nor is clear from the Claim Statement.

However, it is seen from the Counter Statement filed by the

Respondent that he was casually employed by the Bank as

a Peon and he had worked in Nambiyur, Kadathur and

Erode branches of the Bank. According to the Respondent

the petitioner had stopped coming to the bank voluntarily

from 17.09.2004 and had gone in search of greener pastures.

It is stated by the Respondent that the petitioner had got

job as Supervisor in a poultry farm which was giving him

better emoluments and this is why he stopped coming to

the Bank.

8. The question to be answered is whether the petitioner

is entitled to reinstatement in service or any other relief in

the circumstances narrated by him and established in

evidence. During his cross-examination the petitioner has

stated that he had last worked in Erode branch of the

Respondent Bank and that was on 17.09.2004. This itself

would show that his claim in his Claim Statement that he

was orally terminated on 01.09.2004 is not correct. He also

admitted during his cross-examination that he was working

for the last two years with a Poultry farm. The Respondent

has also produced a document showing that the petitioner

is now working in the Poultry farm and that he is a

permanent worker there. This document is marked as Ex.M2.

However, this would not show that the petitioner has started

working for the poultry farm immediately after he had quit

the services of the Respondent Bank.

9. Again, the case of the Respondent in the Counter

Statement that the petitioner had stopped coming to work

on his own is proved false by the very admission made by

MW1 in the Proof Affidavit. What is stated in the Proof

Affidavit is that in September 2004 there was a general

direction that at a time no branch should have more than

one Peon unless express permission was given and

therefore the Respondent Bank has stopped engaging the

petitioner from 17.09.2004 while other worker of similar

status was retained. What is stated in the Proof Affidavit is

that the Respondent had reason to belive that the petitioner

had another source of income by way of engagement in a

poultry farm and this was why the bank had stopped

engaging him.

10. It could be seen from the various documents

produced by the petitioner that the Managers of the branch

where the petitioner had been working had been certifying

his conduct to be good and recommending him to be

included in the waitlist of casual workers for the purpose

of absorption. Ex.W1 is one such certificate given by a

Branch Manager. Ex.W6 and Ex.W7 are also similar

certificates. By Ex.W8 the concerned Branch Manager has

written to the Regional Manager to ask whether the name

of the petitioner shall be included in the waitlist. In Ex.W9

one Branch Manager has written that the petitioner has

already completed more than 90 days in the Bank in order

to ascertain if wages is payable to him a Sundays also.

2398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. The case of the Respondent is that in no year in

which the petitioner has he woked for more than 240 days

and for this reason also the petitioner would not be entitled

to any relief. But this is seen false from the document

produced by the Respondent itself. Ex.M1 is the application

made by the petitioner for the post of Peon showing the

days he had worked for the period from June 1992 to March

1997. This would show that he had worked for more than

240 days in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996.

12. The petitioner, though unceremoniously turned out

of the services of the Respondent Bank as early as in

September 2004 seems to have been keeping silent against

his termination. He seems to have approached the

Respondent with a request for reinstatement only in May

2009. Even as stated by him in his Claim Statement, he has

come to know that a covenant was made between the Bank

and Employees Federation on 18.03.2008. The petitioner

seems to have approached the Bank again on coming to

know about this covenant. However, what is seen from the

terms of the covenant is that the petitioner would not be

entitled to reinstatement on the basis of the same. The

document itself is marked as Ex.W21. This provides for

absorption of casual or temporary workers in phases.

However, the terms of the settlement is applicable only to

those casual employees who were still working under the

Bank and no those who have ceased to work under the

Bank for whatever reasons. So the petitioner would not be

entitled to reinstatement on the basis of the terms of

settlement which has come into existence on 13.03.2008,

long after he had quit the services of the Bank.

13. The Apex Court has stated that reinstatement in

service was not to be given as a matter of course. It has

been stated by the Apex Court that though Limitation Act

is not applicable to the reference under the ID Act, delay in

raising Industrial Dispute is an important circumstance

which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of

exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such

objection has been raised by the other side (unreported

decision in ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJASTHAN STATE

AGRICULTURE MARKETING BOARD VS. MOHAN

LAL—DATED 16.08.2013). The petitioner has been

maintaining silence after he was sent out from the service

of the Respondent Bank for a long time. He seems to have

been satisfied with the other employment he was having.

He thought of going back to the Bank only on coming to

know of the settlement regarding absorption of casual

workers. In such circumstance, the claim of the petitioner

for reinstatement certainly could not be allowed.

14. It is a fact that the petitioner has been working with

the Bank for a long time, for several years. Even as admitted

by the Respondent he had worked in different branches of

the Bank at different times. In spite of that he was sent out

without any compensation. Considering this, the petitioner

is entitled to compensation from the Respondent, which is

fixed as Rs. 75,000.

15. The Respondent shall pay the petitioner

Rs. 75,000 was compensation within two months. In the

event of default of payment of the amount within the

stipulated period, it will carry interest @ 6% per annum

from the date of the order.

16.The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 28th October, 2013)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner Union :

WW1, Sri J. Tamil

Selvam

For the 2nd Party/Management

MW1, Sri M. Mohan

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

02.01.1990

Community Certificate of the

Petitioner

Ex.W2

27.07.1990

Record Sheet of the Petitioner

Ex.W3

06.06.1991

Certificate

given

the

Respondent

Ex.W4

13.08.1991

Call for publication issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W5

19.08.1991

Ceretificate given by the

Respondent

Ex.W6

11.08.1992

Certificate

given

the

Respondent

Ex.W7

12.08.1992

Certificate

given

the

Respondent

Ex.W8

27.04.1994

Holiday salary intimation by the

Respondent

Ex.W9

05.02.1996

Service regularize letter in STF/24

Ex.W10

04.07.1996

Conduct certificate given by the

Respondent

Ex.W11

25.03.1997

Confirmation letter of petitioner

service

Ex.W12

24.04.1997

Service regularize letter in STF/23

Ex.W13

13.05.1998

Communication letter of the

Respondent

Ex.W14

31.03.1999

Statement of the petitioner given

by the Respondent

Ex.W15

13.05.1999

Recruitment in Sub-Staff cadre of

temporary workers

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2399

Ex.W16

Arrears amount payable to the

petitioner

Ex.W17

24.01.2001

Service regularize letter in ER/

GEN/27/1187

Ex.W18

22.06.2001

Verification of community letter of

the petitioner

Ex.W19

07.12.2001

Communication letter from the

AIBOBOA

Ex.W20

30.11.2001

Service reqularize letter

Ex.W21

08.03.2008

Settlement

Ex.W22

26.05.2008

Letter by the petitioner

Ex.W23

16.06.2009

Letter by the Respondent

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Application for the post of Peon

Ex.M2

28.06.2012

Letter from—GM-Shanthi Poultry

Farm Pvt. Ltd., Pappampatti

regarding permanent employment

of petitioner with them

Ex.M3

Extract of Book of instructions as

on 31.12.2003—covering—

Covering policy on recruitment—

Chapter 20 Page Nos. 310 to 323

Ex.M4

17.09.2004

Voucher

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 899.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dksphu iÙku U;kl

ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k

esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] v:ukdqye ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 17@2012½ dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&35011@01@2011&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 899.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

17/2012) of the Cent. Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the

industrial dispute between the management of Cochin

Port Trust and their workmen, received by the Central

Governmnet on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-35011/01/2011-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

ERNAKULAM

Present: Shri D. Sreevallabhan, B.Sc., LL.B.,

Presiding Officer

(Thursday, the 24th day of October, 2013/02nd Kartika,

1935)

ID 17/2012

Unions:

The Convenor

Kochi Thuramugha Samrakshana

Samithi

CPSA Office

W/Island

KOCHI (KERALA)-9

The Chairman

Trade Union Co-ordination Committee

Building Bristow Road, W/Island

COCHIN-3

By Adv. Shri B.N. Shiva Shanker

Managements:

1. The Chairman

Cochin Port Trust

W/Island

Cochin-682009

2. The General Manager

India Gateway Terminal Pvt. Ltd.

W/Island Cochin

By M/s Menon & Pai

Thise case coming up for final hearing on 23.10.2013

and this Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 24.10.2013 passed

the following:

AWARD

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 (14 of 1947), the Government

of India/Ministry of Labour by its Order No-L-35011/01/

2011-IR(B-II) dated 25.04.2012 referred this industrial dispute

for adjudication to this tribunal.

The dispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Cochin

Port Trust and IGPTL in not addressing the issues

raised by the KTSS & Trade Union Co-ordination

committee in connection with continued operation

of RGCT is justified? What relief the member workers

of these unions are entitled to?"

2400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. After receipt of summons both the two unions and

the two managements entered appearance. First union did

not file any claim statement. 2nd union filed claim statement

alleging that the denial of employment to more than 100

workmen of the two unions in this case who were engaged

in leashing and unleashing work in the Rajiv Gandhi

Container Terminal (RGCT) administered by the Cochin

Port Trust in the International Container Transportation

Terminal (ICTT) after its formation under the pretext that

they had voluntarily retired from service is unlawful and

the refusal of the managements to address the issues raised

by the two unions about it is unjustifiable.

4. Managements 1 & 2 filed separate written statements.

After denying the employer-employee relationship it is

contended that the claim is made for 153 non-port workers

who were engaged by the contractors of the port users.

Except 21 out of them all others had voluntarily retired from

service. From the 21 only one of them had applied for

employment and thereby he was already employed.

5. After filing claim statement unions were continuously

absenting on all the posting dates and hence set ex-parte.

An affidavit was filed from the side of managements in

support of the contentions raised in the written statement.

6. Since the unions have not adduced any evidence to

prove the allegations in the claim statement and there is no

material on record to satisfy that the refusal to address the

issues raised by the unions in connection with continued

operations of RGCT is not justifiable it is not even possible

to find that there is employer-employee relationship

between the workmen and the managements to raise an

industrial dispute. Unions have failed to prove that there is

no justifiability in not addressing the issues raised by the

unions as to the continued operation of RGCT.

7. In the result an award is passed holding that the

management of the Cochin Port Trust and IGPTL in not

addressing the issues raised by the KTSS and Trade Union

Coordination Committee in connection with continued

operation of RGCT is justified and hence the member

workers of the unions are not entitled to any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its

publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed

by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 24th day of

October, 2013.

D. SREEVALLABHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 900.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vksojfll

cSad ds izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/k esa fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/kdj.k@Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 94@2013½ dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk

FkkA

[lañ ,y&39025@01@2010&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 900.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award Ref. 94/2013 of the Cent. Govt.

Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in

the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Governmnet on 21/02/2014.

[No. L-39025/01/2010-IR(B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 27th January, 2014

Present :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 94/2013

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under

clause 2(A)(2)(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (as

amended by Act-24 of 2010 w.e.f. 15.09.2010). between the

Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri P. Sasikumar

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Management of Indian Overseas: 2nd Party/1st

Central Office at No. 763, Anna Salai

Respondent

Chennai-600002

2. The Deputy General

2nd Party/2nd

Manager :

Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank

Central Office at No. 763, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner: M/s. T. Ramkumar & C.D.

Sugumar, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st &

M/s. T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

2nd Management:

Advocates

AWARD

The petition is filed under Section-2(A) of the Industrial

Disputes Act:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2401

2. In the petition the petitioner has challenged the action

of the Respondent in terminating his service and seeks the

relief of reinstatement in the service of the Respondent.

3. The petitioner seems to have raised the dispute before

the Labour Commissioner also. The dispute has been

referred by the Government to this Court and it has been

taken on file as ID 3/2014.

4. The subject matter of ID 3/2014 and that of this petition

is one and the same. In view of this the petitioner has filed

a memo stating that he prefers to pursue ID 3/2014 only

and that appropriate orders may be passed in this case.

5. There is no necessity for the petitioner to pursue this

case also since he has decided to pursue the matter that

has been referred by the Govt. to this Tribunal for

adjudication.

6. So this matter is only to be closed.

Accordingly, the ID is closed.

(Dictated to the P.A., transcribed and typed by hi,

corrected ad pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 27th January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management:

None

Documents Marked

On the Petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 901.—vkS|ksfxd vf/kfu;e 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dkiksZjs'ku cSad ds

izca/kra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjks ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼06@2011½ izdkf'kr djrh gS tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 21@02@2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@61@2010&vkbZvkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 901.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 06/2011) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute

between the management of Corporation Bank and their

workman, received by the Central Government on

21/02/2014.

[No. L-12012/61/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 28th November, 2013

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI,

Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 6/2011

(In the matter of the dispute of adjudication under clause

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

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

Management of Corporation Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

Smt. N. Amala

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager:

2nd Party/

Corporation Bank, Zonal Office

1st Respondent

Whites Road, Chennai-600014

2. The Branch Manager:

2nd Party/2nd

Corporation Bank

Respondent

Ground Floor, Midland

Insurance Bldg.

Anna Salai, Teynampet,

Chennai-600018

3. The General Manager :

2nd Party/3rd

Corporation Bank, Head Office

Respondent

Pandeshwar, Managlore-575001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner: M/s T. Fennwalter

Associates, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/1st, 2nd : M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

& 3rd Respondents

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12012/61/2010-IR (B-II)

dated 14.12.2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of

Corporation bank, Chennai in terminating

2402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Smt. N. Amala, an Ex-Sweeper-cum-Office Assistant

from the service w.e.f. 12.03.2006 is legal and justified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?"

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal has

numbered it as ID 6/2011 and issued notice to both sides.

Both parties appeared through counsels and filed their

claim and counter statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement of the petitioner

are these:

The petitioner had entered the service of the

Corporation Bank in its Teynampet Branch on

15.12.2004 as Sweeper-cum-Office Assistant. She was

continuously working in the branch and was carrying

out her work sincerely. The petitioner used to reach

the Office at 09.30 AM, and apart from doing the

cleaning work as Sweeper, she was also taking letters

and parcels to Zonal Office and also assisting the

bank staff by doing the work entrusted with her. The

Respondent Bank had terminated the services of the

petitioner without issuing any notice or any charge

sheet. She was not paid any compensation also. The

petitioner had completed more than 480 days in the

service of the Respondent. She was paid salary

through vouchers. The petitioner had issued notice

to the Respondent against her illegal termination.

The petitioner has approached the Assistant

Commissioner of Labour since her attempt to get

back into service by herself failed. The petitioner is

entitled to an order of reinstatement with continuity

of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

Teynampet Branch of the Respondent Bank was

opened on 15.12.2004. The petitioner's brother who

was working as Attender of another branch of the

bank had approached the Chief Manager with request

to engage her as Sweeper. He had informed that she

is a widow and she is to bring up her two children.

On humanitarian consideration, she was engaged as

casual sweeper. It was made clear to her at that time

that the engagement would cease once the

empanelled candidate is posted at the branch. At the

time when the Teynampet branch was opened the

panel of temporary sweepers for the Respondent

Bank had exhausted. Later requisition was sent to

the Employment Exchange to sponsor candidates

for the post of temporary sweepers. One out of the

candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange

was selected and was posted at Teynampet Branch

w.e.f. 12.03.2006. The petitioner though registered

with the Employment Exchange, her name was not

sponsored for the post. The petitioner is not entitled

to any relief.

5. The evidence in the case consists of oral evidence of

WW1 and MW1 and documents marked as Exs. W1 to Ex.

W11 and Ex. M1 and Ex. M2.

6. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the Respondent is justified in terminating

the service of the petitioner?

(ii) What is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner was engaged as a casual sweeper in

the newly opened branch of the Respondent Bank at

Teynampet on 15.12.2004. The petitioner has stated in her

petition that she had been sincerely working with the branch

continuously but she was retrenched without any

compensation and that she was not issued any charge

sheet before she was sent away from service. She has further

stated that she has completed service of more than 480

days under the Bank. However, she has not stated in her

Claim Statement on which date she ceased to be employed

by the Respondent Bank.

8. The Respondent has admitted in the Counter Statement

that the petitioner was in its service as a casual employee

from 15.12.2004 on which date the Teynampet Branch was

opened and had worked upto 12.03.2006. Though, the date

of termination is not stated by the petitioner in the petition,

she has admitted during her cross-examination that she

had worked in the bank till 11.03.2006. The period of

employment of the petitioner with the bank is a little more

than 1 year and two months. So the claim of the petitioner

that she was employed for more than 2 years with the

Respondent is not correct. So also the claim that she had

completed 480 days work within the said period also could

not be correct. In any case, beyond doubt she had worked

for more than 240 days with the Bank. The petitioner has

filed IA 41/2013 before this Court to direct the Respondent

to produce documents like salary vouchers, delivery register

book, attendance register, etc. for the period from 15.12.2004

to 12.03.2006. In answer to this IA the Respondent has

stated that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working

in the establishment for the period.

9. The case that is advanced by the petitioner is that

having completed her service with the Respondent for more

than 2 years, she should not have been turned out from

work by the Respondent and that she is entitled to be

reinstated in service.

10. The contention that is raised by the Respondent is

that the engagement of the petitioner was only for a

temporary period. What is stated in the Counter Statement

is that even at the time of engagement the petitioner was

made aware that her engagement would cease once the

empanelled candidate was posted at the branch. According

to the Respondent, the practice was to maintain a panel for

temporary sweepers but at the time when the new branch

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2403

was opened the panel has exhausted and it was accordingly

the petitioner was engaged for the work. It is further stated

in the Counter Statement that subsequently requisition

was made to the Employment Exchange to sponsor

candidates and out of the 10 candidates who were sent,

one Pushpalata was selected and was appointed w.e.f.

12.03.2006 and accordingly the engagement of the petitioner

has ceased. This case of the Respondent is admitted by

the petitioner during her cross-examination. She has stated

during her cross-examination that the Teynampet Branch

Manager of the bank had told her that she will be posted in

the branch only till a regular sweeper is posted. According

to the counsel for the Respondent, the termination of the

petitioner comes under Clause-(bb) of Section-2(oo) of the

Industrial Disputes Act which defines the term

"retrenchment". The Sub-clause states that the termination

of service of workman as a result of non-renewal of the

contract of the employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or such contract being

terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained

therein will not be retrenchment.

11. Probably there was an understanding that the

engagement of the petitioner as Sweeper with the Bank will

be only till a permanent arrangement for the same is made.

Probably it can be taken as one that comes under Clause-

(bb) of the definition to the term "retrenchment".

12. However, the argument that is advanced by the

counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled

to continue in service of the Respondent on the basis of

policy adopted by it and the circular issued by it on

23.03.2006 in this respect. According to the counsel, the

petitioner was not allowed the benefit of the circular only

on the basis that she was over-qualified. The circular which

is marked as Ex. W2 states that Part-Time Sweepers who

are working on consolidated wages in branches, extension

counters and other offices as on 28.02.2006 as a one-time

measure will be converted to regular Part-Time Sweeper on

1/3rd graded scale wages w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Certain

conditions are also imposed for this regarding the

educational qualifications of the persons, etc. Apparently,

the petitioner was working with the bank as on 28.02.2006

and she would have been entitled to the benefit of the

circular.

13. It seems the petitioner was not given the benefit of

the above circular on the basis that she was over qualified.

The Respondent has examined MW1 who was working as

Branch Manager at Teynampet Branch at the time when

the branch was opened. He has stated during his cross-

examination that because of over-qualification of the

petitioner she was not appointed as a Sub-Staff. The policy

adopted by the branch regarding the educational

qualification required for the Sub-Staff is found in Ex. M1,

the circular issued by it. It states that for a part time sweeper

there is no minimum qualification but should not have

completed 7th Standard. As seen from the documents

produced by the petitioner herself, she seems to be a victim

of over-qualification. Unfortunately, she has studied upto

10th standard, though, she has not passed the examination.

This is seen from Ex. W1, the representation given by her

to the General Manager to give regular appointment to her.

As seen from Ex. W3 and Ex. W4 subsequently also she

had given representation to the Bank. If the evidence of

MW1 is taken into account she was denied regular

employment because of the over-qualification. Even in the

affidavit in lieu of chief examination, MW1 had stated that

the petitioner could not have been included in the panel

since she has studied upto 10th standard. He has stated

that over-qualification is a disqualification.

14. The Apex court has stated that over-qualification

could not be taken as a disqualification. In the decision in

Mohammad Riaszul Usman Gani and others Vs. District

and Ssessions Judge, Nagpur and others reported in 2000

(1) Supreme 460, the Apex Court has held that the criteria

that applicants who studied above 7th standard should

not be called for interview for the post of Class-III and IV

has the effect of denying a candidate his right to be

considered for the post. The Apex Court has observed that

higher qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the

candidate and that the criteria put is irrational. In the

decision Rajalakshmi Vs. The Tahsildar, Vanur taluk reported

in CDJ 2011 MHC 2597 also it is held that higher

qualification should not become a disadvantage to a

candidate to be appointed in a particular post. In the

decision in Kerala Solvent Extractions Ltd. Vs. Unnikrishnan

Nair reported in 1994 (2) LLJ 888, the question was one of

suppression of fact. The workman in the case had obtained

employment suppressing his qualification. He had got

empanelled as Badli Workman obtaining a certificate that

he had passed 7th standard, but actually he had completed

10th standard. The Labour Court had left that it did not

amount to false representation. The High Court stated that

no prejudice would be caused to the employer and directed

reinstatement as a special case. The Division Bench

dismissed the appeal. Before the Apex Court the counsel

for the employer had argued that those employees who

stated the truth had been at a disadvantage and those who

suppressed it stood to gain in view of the decision. He

argued that laxity of judicial reasoning would introduce

slackness and unpredictability in the legal process and in

the final analysis corrode legitimacy of the judicial process.

Agreeing with this submission of the counsel the Apex

Court has held "reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen

to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law

and should not incur and justify the criticism that the

jurisdiction of the Courts tends to regenerate into misplaced

sympathy, generosity and private benevolence.

.............Expansive judicial mood of mistaken and misplaced

compassion at the expense of the legitimacy of the process

will eventually lead to mutually irreconcilable situations

and denude the judicial process of its dignity, authority,

predictability and respectability". The Apex Court has thus

2404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

allowed the appeal. It could be seen from the above

reasoning to the Apex Court that it was only referring to

the suppression of the fact by the concerned worker. The

dictum laid down by the Apex Court earlier that over-

qualification could not be a disqualification still holds good.

In the present case, there was no suppression of the fact.

The petitioner has truthfully stated in her application that

she has studied upto 10th standard. If over-qualification is

not a disqualification she was entitled to continue in service.

Considering these aspects I find that the petitioner is entitled

to be reinstated in service as a casual worker which she

was at the time of termination.

15. The Respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner

in service within a month. She will not be entitled to any

back wages or other benefits.

16. The reference is answered in favour of 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 28th November, 2013).

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

WW1, Smt. N. Amala

For the 2nd Party/Management:

MW1, Sri K.

Vijayaraghavan

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

19.08.2005

Petitioner's application was

forwarded for employment

by the Respondent

Ex.W2

23.03.2006

Circular issued by the Respondent

Ex.W3

08.08.2006

Representation given by me for

employment

Ex.W4

20.02.2007

Representation given by me for

employment

Ex.W5

—

Ration Card

Ex.W6

—

Transfer Certificate

Ex.W7

13.02.2007

Service Certificate issued by the

Respondent

Ex.W8

18.04.2007

Reply given by the Respondent

Ex.W9

25.01.2008

Legal notice given by the

petitioner

Ex.W10

20.05.2008

Representation given by the

petitioner

Ex.W11

16.11.2009

Reply filed by the Respondent in

2 (A) petition.

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

18.03.1998

Respondent's Head Office Circular

No. 97/98

Ex.M2

26.06.2009

Head Office Circular No. 374/2009

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 902.—vkS|ksfxd vfèfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk 14½

dh èkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u cSad ds izcaèra= ds

lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqcaè esa fufnZ"V

vkS|kfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vfèdj.k@Je U;k;ky;]

pSUubZ ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ lañ 43@2013½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12011@83@2012&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&II½]

jfo dqekj] vuqHkkx vfèdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 902.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/2013) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown

in the Annexure, in the Industrial dispute between the

management of Indian Bank and their workman, received

by the Central Government on 21.02.2014.

[No. L-12011/83/2012-IR (B-II)]

RAVI KUMAR, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 3rd January, 2014

PRESENT :

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 43/2013

(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 Indian Bank and their workman)

BETWEEN

The General Secretary:

1st Party/Petitioner Union

Indian Bank Employees Union

6, Moore Street, Mannady Corner

Chennai-600001

AND

The General Manager:

2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Bank, Zonal Office

10, Kamaraj Salai

Puducherry-605010

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2405

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

M/s Bright Sun Law

Associates, Advocates

For the 2nd Party/Management: M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-12011/83/2012-IR (B-II),

dated 11.03.2013 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

2. The ID has been referred to this Court with the

following schedule and has been numbered as ID 43/2013:

"Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Employees

Union in modifying the punishment of "Dismissal"

to "Compulsory Retirement" from service to Sri. V.

Kumar, Clerk/Shroff of Mazhavanthangal Branch,

Indian Bank is justified? What relief the workman

concerned is entitled?"

3. The First Party has entered appearance in the matter.

He has engaged a counsel for him also. However the First

Party as well as his counsel have been continuously absent.

Even though the case was repeatedly posted for filing Claim

Statement, there was no response from the side of the First

Party. He seems to be not interested in prosecuting the

case.

4. In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed.

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 3rd January, 2014)

K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner:

None

For the 2nd Party/Management:

None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

None

On the Management's side

None

ubZ fnYyh] 21 Qjojh] 2014

dkñvkñ 903.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 ¼1947 dk

14½ dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad

izca/k ra= ds lac) fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/k esa

fufnZ"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/kdj.k

tcyiqj ds iapkV ¼lanHkZ la[;k 46@2003½ dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 21-02-2014 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

[lañ ,y&12012@243@2002&vkbZ vkj ¼ch&I½]

lqefr ldykuh] vuqHkkx vf/kdkjh

New Delhi, the 21st February, 2014

S.O. 903.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

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

hereby published the Award (Ref. 46/2003) of the Cent.

Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as show

in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

management of State Bank of India, and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 21.02.2014

[No. L-12012/243/2002-IR (B-I)]

SUMATI SAKLANI, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/R/46/2003

Presiding Officer: SHRI R.B. PATLE

Shri Babulal Dixit,

S/o Mishrilal Dixit,

189, Bhim Nagar,

Birla Mandir Road,

Bhopal (MP)

..... Workman

Versus

The Asstt. Manager,

State Bank of India,

Region-I, Zonal Officer,

Hamidia Road,

Bhopal (MP)

......Management

AWARD

(Passed on this 21st day of January 2014)

1. As per letter dated 14.2.2003 by the Government of

India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, the Reference is

received. The reference is made to this Tribunal under

Section 10 of I.D. Act, 1947 as per Notification

No. L-12012/243/2002-IR(B-I). The dispute under reference

relates to:

"Whether the action of the management of Asstt.

General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional-I,

Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Babulal

Dixit S/o Mishrilal Dixit w.e.f 23.4.97 and not

regularizing him is justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled for?"

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to the

parties. Case of Ist party workman is that by oral order

2406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 23-4-97 by Shri Hemant Kumar Ojha, Branch Manager,

workman was prevented to attend his service from 24-4-97.

No dismissal or order of termination or retrenchement were

given. Workman was illegally prevented from attending

service. It is further submitted that workman was engaged

as messenger in Jehangirabad Branch, Bhopal. He worked

for 244 days from November 81 to 82, mere than 90 days in

November 82 to March 83, 193 days during April 83 to Jan-

84 & 1370 at Vindyanchal Branch, Bhopal from 20-7-93 to

23-4-97. He was orally discontinued from service. That IInd

party had admitted in its submissions dated 8-2-2002 that

workman had worked for 244 days during November 81 to

November 82, 193 days during April 83 to January, 84, 142

days from 17-7-93 to 31-12-93 and 840 days from 1-4-94 to

29-4-97. Workman further submits that he had completed

240 days continuous service in each calendar year. He is

entitled for absorption as permanent employee. Instead of

regularizing his services, he was terminated orally.

3. Workman submits that Respondent Bank had invited

applications for absorption of temporary employees is Bank.

He had submitted application on 18-5-91. His name was in

Waiting List, he was allowed to resume at Vindyanchal

Branch as protected employee. He was accordingly

working in said branch from 23-7-93 to 13-4-96. He further

submits that Bank is denying permanent appointment on

the ground that his date of birth was 1-12-65. After attaining

age of 18 years, he worked for only 38 days. He is not

entitled for absorption as permanent employees. Other

temporary persons who had worked even for 30 days were

absorbed but the workman after working for more than 30

days, he was denied absorption. Rather his services are

terminated illegally. On such grounds, workman prays that

respondent be directed to appointment him with full back

wages.

4. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 10/1 to 10/

11. IInd party submits that workman was engaged purely

on daily wage basis as Messenger, working days are shown

49 days during November, 91 to December 91, 195 days

during January 82 to November 82 & 193 days during April

83 to Jan. 84 at Jehangirabad branch. At Vindhyanchal

branch, working days are shown as 142 days during July

93 to Dec. 93 & 840 days from April 94 to Dec. 97. The

workman was engaged on contract basis on exigency of

work and as soon as the work is over, the employee was

not required to report from work. The dispute was raised

by workman. Working days are reiterated by the IInd party.

However it is pleaded that workman was not continuously

working for 240 days in any calendar year as provided

under Section 25-F of I.D. Act. The engagement of workman

was contractual depending on exigency of work. His

termination is covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act.

5. IInd party advertised in newspapers for furnishing

application on the prescribed formats for such a daily rated

employees/casual workers who have worked for the

stipulated period as provided under the settlement during

the period w.e.f. 31-7-88 to 14-8-91. Workman was also

considered. However he had worked only for 38 days after

attaining majority during the relevant period. Therefore he

cannot be empanelled for permanent employment in the

vacancy available. As per the settlement, the panel was

required to be kept alive till March 1997 so that opportunity

for permanent employment could be given to the permanent

candidates. The action of the management is legal. It is

further pleaded that the candidates were interviewed and

panel of selected candidates was prepared by Bank in

accordance with settlement of candidates working from

31-7-88 to 14-8-91. That after attaining majority, workman

has worked only for 38 days. Therefore he could not be

given permanent employment. It is reiterated that the

workman has not completed 240 days continuous service.

On such ground, IInd Party prays for rejection of claim of

workman.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:—

(i) Whether the action of the

In Negative

management of Asstt. General

Manager, State Bank of India,

Region-I, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Babulal Dixit

S/o Mishrilal Dixit w.e.f. 23-4-97 and

not regularizing him is justified?

(ii) If not, what relief the

As per final order.

workman is entitled?"

REASONS

7. Ist party is challenging oral discontinuation from

service. That he has filed affidavit of his evidence. He has

stated that he had worked 90 days as waterman in the year

1982, 193 days from April 83 to January 84 Employer

conducted his interview for permanent absorption. He had

applied for the post. He was called as per letter dated

28-10-92. On 12.2-97, he was informed by the employer that

he was interviewed earlier he did not appear for interview.

That his name was included in the waiting list, he was

directed to join at Vindhyanchal branch on his completing

majority. He was paid salary and DA through Banker

cheque. He was continued till 23-4-97. Suddenly he was

discontinued from next date. In his cross-examination,

workman says that he denied suggestion of management

about working days 49 days during November 81 to

December 81, 195 days during January 82 to November 82

and 193 days during April 83 to January 84 at Jehangirabad

branch, Bhopal. It is denied that he worked for 142 days

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % ekpZ 8] 2014@iQkYxqu 17] 1935

2407

during July 93 to December 93 and 840 days during April 94

to December 97 at Vindhyanchal branch, Bhopal. workman

has not produced any evidence about his working days

but as per admission in Written Statement filed by

management and suggestion in cross-examination of

workman, it is clear that workman was working for 840 days

from April 94 to Dec. 97. The said period is decided when

working days comes more than 240 days during each of

the calendar year. Workman in his cross-examination claims

ignorance about permanent appointment made in the Bank

as per settlement. He has stated that he was called for

interview for permanent post. He claims ignorance whether

he was not given permanent employment as his working

days were 38 days after attaining majority. Workman in his

statement of claim has pleaded that one Anil Kumar Narvria

working for 30 days was given permanent employment.

However any evidence is not produced. Management filed

affidavit of witness Shri Kulkarni. He has given working

days of Ist party workman in parat 2 of his affidavit that

during the period from July 93 to Dec. 93, he worked for 142

days and from 1-4-94 to 20-4-97, he worked for 840 days.

Though in further paras, he denied workman working from

240 days during any of the calendar year. The calculation

of working days during April. 94 to April 94 comes more

than 240 days during each calendar year. In his cross-

examination, management's witness says that only after

looking report, he could say whether the workman had

worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year. With

respect to Shri Anil Kumar Narvria, witness claims ignorance.

He also claims ignorance whether name of workman was

recommended by the Selection Committee but the workman

was not given appointment for permanent post.

8. The documents Exhibit W-I shows working days of

workman as 244 days from November 81 to November 82.

Exhibit W-2 shows 90 working days since 1982. Exhibit

W-3 shows payment of wages for 193 days from April 83 to

Jan-84. Exhibit W-4 is letter given by Asstt. General

Manager. That workman had worked for only 38 days

during 1-7-75 to 31-12-93. He could not be given

appointment on permanent post. Copy of Supreme Court

Judgement is produced at Exhibit W-5. The claim fo workman

cannot be decided on such judgement. Copies of

settlements are produced at Exhibit W-7. The settlement

Exhibit M-1 deals with the temporary employees in

subordinate cadre will be given chance for being considered

for permanent apppointment in the Bank's service against

vacancies likely to arise in 1987 to 1991. (i) Category A

employees those who have completed 240 days temporary

service in 12 months or less after 1-7-75, (ii) Category B-

those who have completed 270 days aggregate temporary

service in any continuous block of 36 calendar months

after 1-7-75. The documents produced Exhibit W-1 shows

244 working days of workman during November 81 to

November 82. Workman in his cross-examination has stated

that his date of birth is 1-12-1965. Thus he would completed

18 years of age on 30-11-1983. The working days of workman

were not considered till the date of attaining majority. The

management found that the workman had worked only for

38 days after attaining majority.

9. From statement of claim of management, working days

of workman is 193 days during April 83 to Jan. 84 and 142

days during July 93 to Dec. 93 & 840 days from April 94 to

Dec. 97 the working days clearly shows that the workman

is entitled to permanent post and he had worked more than

30 days after 1975. The denial of permanent post to the

workman cannot be said legal. Besides above, the workman

had completed 240 days regular service during 1994 to

1997. The workman was not given notice for termination of

service. His services were orally terminated. He was not

paid retrenchment compensation.

10. Learned counsel for IInd Party Mr. Tripathi on the

point relates on ratio held in plenty of cases.

"In case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others

versus Abhishek Shukla and another reported in

2009(5) Supreme Court Cases 368. Their Lordship

held validity of selection list is ordinarily one year. In

the case where respondents had made

representations for appointment within one year of

such approval of select list, the said requirement

stood fulfilled."

The facts of present case are not comparable. The

Bipartite settlement provided for absorption of temporary

employees working till initially 1993 and onwards 97. The

ratio held in the case cannot be applied beneficially in the

present case at hand.

"In case of State of MP and others versus Raghuveer

Singh Yadav and others reported in 1994 (6) Supreme

Court Cases 151. Their Lordship dealing with

appointments, selection, fresh selection after

changing qualifications for eligibility, legality

notification inviting applications from eligible

candidates. Held withdrawal of the said notification

at this stage and issuance of fresh notification

inviting applications from candidates eligible under

the new rules held not illegal."

The facts of the present case are not comparable. The

services of workman is covered by Bipartite Settlement.

The Bipartite settlement provided for abosrption of

temporary employee working for certain number of days

during July 1975 till extended period 1993. Workman was

continuously working from 1993 till his discontinuance in

1997. The ratio cannot be applied to the present case at

hand.

2408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MARCH 8, 2014/PHALGUNA 17, 1935

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

"Ratio in case of Shankarsan Dash versus Union of

India reported in 1991(3) Supreme Court Cases 47.

That candidate included in merit list has no

indefeasible right to appointment even if vacancy

exists."

It cannot be applied to present case. The claim of the

applicant is based on the settlement to absorb temporary

employee for certain days as per the settlement. There was

no execution for selection of the candidates as per the

settlement.

In Case of Range Forest Officer versus S.T. Hadimani

reported in 2002(3) Supreme Court Cases 25. Their

Lordship held retrenchment compensation-completion of

requisite length of continuous service where the workman

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

year preceding his termination was denied by the employer

held it was for the claimant to lead evidence to that effect

held workman's affidavit was not sufficient evidence for

the purpose."

In present case, IInd party has admitted in Written

Statement and evidence of management's witness that

during April 94 to 97 workman had worked for 840 days. If

it is decided by 3, working days comes to 280 days during

each calendar year. The burden is already dioscharged.

Therefore the ratio in above cited case cannot be applied

to present case at hand.

11. Learned counsel for workman Mr. Pranay Choubey

relief on ratio held in

"Case of Medical versus Dashrathsingh. In para-19 of

the judgment their Lordship observed the judgment of the

constitution bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus

Uma Devi and other decisions in which this Court

considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and

ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in service

or paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have

unduly influenced the High court's approach in dealing

with the appellant's challenge to the award of the Labour

Court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing

on the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Act and

employer's obligation to comply with the conditions

enumerated in that section."

Ratio held in above cited case is clear that workman

cannot be denied benefit for violation of Section 25-F of

I.D. Act as per ratio held in case of State of Karnataka

versus Uma Devi.

12. In present case, the applicant's claim is based on

Bipartite Settlement providing absorption of temporary

employees. Workman was called for interview, thereafter

he was working continuously from April 94 to April 97. His

services are terminated without notice, retrenchment

compensation is not paid. Therefore discontinuation of

workman is in violation of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. For

above reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in

Negative.

13. Point No. 2—In view of my finding in Point No. 1

that discontinuation of services of workman is in violation

of Section 25-F of I.D. Act and as such illegal, question

arises whether the workman is entitled for regularization.

Considering the working days of workman from 1983-84 as

193 days, workman has fulfilled conditions for absorption

as permanent employee. He was then working from April

94 to 97 for 840 days. Workman was tntitled for protection

of Section 25-F of I.D. Act. His services were terminated

without notice. Workman was not absorbed as per

settlement Exhibit W-7. Exhibit M-1 working days of

workman are considered for the period 87 to 91. Workman

has completed more than 30 days, 70 days provided in

clause III "C" Category. Workman should have been

absorbed as permanent employee. Management has not

produced documents about vacancy of messenger during

the relevant period. Workman is discontinued in 1997. His

evidence is silent what work he was doing after

discontinuation from service. Management has also not

adduced that the workman was in gainful employment.

Considering facts of the case, workman deserves to be

reinstated. On the pint of back wages, learned counsel for

workman Shri Pranay Choubey produced copy of judgment

in R/4/2007 decided by the undersigned. In said case, 50%

back wages were allowed considering length of service of

workman in said case during 79 to 99 almost 22 years.

Workman was called for interview on 22-9-89 and allowed

to work in branch from 1992 to 1997. Considering the facts,

reinstatement of workman with 30% 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 Asstt. General Manager,

State Bank of India, Region-I, Bhopal in terminating

the services of Shri Babulal Dixit S/o Mishrilal Dixit

w.e.f. 23-4-97 and not regularizing him is illegal for

violation of section 25-F of I.D. Act.

(2) IInd Party is directed to reinstate workman with

continuity of service with 30% back wages.

Amount as per above order shall be paid to workman

within 30 days. In case of default, amount shall carry 9%

interest per annum from the date of award till its realization.

R.B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.