foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1202-—Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad vf/fu;e]

1981 (1981 dk 28) dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (M+)

ds mi&[k.M (i) ds vuqlj.k esa dsUæh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk]

Jh xqjn;ky ¯lg la/q] lfpo] foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx] foÙk ea=kky;]

ubZ fnYyh dks vxys vkns'kksa rd] Jh jktho Vd# ds LFkku ij

Hkkjrh; fu;kZr&vk;kr cSad (,fXte cSad) ds funs'kd e.My esa

funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gS A

[iQk- la- 9@16@2012&vkbZ ,iQ&I]

v'kksd vxzoky] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1202.—In pursuance of sub-clause (i) of clause

(e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Export Import

Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981), Central Government

hereby nominates Shri Gurdial Singh Sandhu Secretary,

Departmental of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance,

New Delhi as a Director on the Board of Directors of Export

Import Bank of India with immediate effect and until further

orders vice Shri Rajiv Takru.

[F. No. 9/16/2012-IF-I]

ASHOK AGGARWAL, Under Secy.

1560 GI/2014

(3135)

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- 16]

ubZ fnYyh, vizSy 13—vizSy 19] 2014] 'kfuokj@pS=k 23—pS=k 29] 1936

No. 16]

NEW DELHI, APRIL 13—APRIL 19, 2014, SATURDAY/CHAITRA 23—CHAITRA 29, 1936

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)

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

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

'kqf¼i=k

ubZ fnYyh] 3 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1203-—Ñi;k bl foHkkx dh vf/lwpuk la[;k

225@25@2009&,ohMh-II fnukad 15 tqykbZ] 2010 esa ¶vkjlh

47(,)@96&ih,Vh¸ ds i'pkr~ ¶vkjlh la- 68 (,)@96&ih,Vh¸

dks Hkh i<+k tk, A

[iQk- la- 225@25@2009&,ohMh&II]

jktho tSu] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi, the 3rd April, 2014

S.O. 1203.—In the Notification No. 225/25/2009-

AVD.II dated 15th July, 2010 of this Department "RC.No.

68(A)/96/PAT" be also read after "RC.47(A)/96-PAT".

[F. No. 225/25/2009-AVD-II]

RAJIV JAIN, Under Secy.

3136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

miHkksDrk ekeys [kk| ,oa lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

(Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks)

ubZ fnYyh] 8 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 1204-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e] 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph es fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gSa %—

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal/kjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq o"kZ

la-

frfFk o"kZ ekg

,oa irk

dk 'kh"kZd

la[;k

01-

2838976

02 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ Ikh-lh-dsc

1100 oksYV rd dh

694

1990

IykWV ua- 7]

dk;Z oksYVrk ds fy,

loZs ua- 257] vkdk'k

ih oh lh jksf/r dsoy

LVhy ds ikl] tSu

esU;qiQsDpjlZ ds ikl]

jktdksV xkasMy gkbZos]

rkyqdk dksVMk lkaxkuh

lkij] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360024

02-

2839170

03 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ osyty iEi

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

izkbZosV fy- 'ksM ua- 1]

fuEkTTk; iEilsV

losZ ua- 39] [kksMy

,LVsV] iz'kkar iQkmUMªh

ds ihNs] xksaMy jksM

gkbZos] okoMh] ftyk

jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360005

03-

2839271

03 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ ueZnk bUMLVªht

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

'ksM ua- 1&2] lgtkuan

fueTTk; iEilsV

bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

dh'kku xkS&'kkyk ds ikl]

eqjyh?kj osbZV czht ds ihNs]

,u - ,p - 8&B]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003

2839877

06 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ ekulh TosYklZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

MksDVj LVªhV] oklh

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ryko] egqok]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk Hkkouxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&364290

2840256

07 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ lksuh lat;dqekj

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

t;arhyky

feJ/krq,a]vkHkw"k.k@

eLthn jksM] o<oku]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&363030

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3137

06-

2840357

07 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ dnEc TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

0] lrty 'kksihax lsUVj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

nsuk csasd ds ikl]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

<klk taD'ku] Hkkouxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&364270

07-

2842159

13 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ Jh ?;s; ehujy

iSdstcan is; ty

14543

2004

jktdksV gkbZos] lh ,u th

(iSdstcan izkÑfrd

iEi ds ikl] ck; ikl

feujy ty ds

ldZy] [ksjkyh]

vykok)

rkyqdk o<oku]

ftyk lqjsUnzuxj]

xqtjkr&363001

08-

2842260

13 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ 'kqHky{eh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa LOk.kZ

1417

1999

'kksi ua- 1] xzkmUM ÝykWj]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

ijhey pksd] Mh ,UM 1

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

,DL;q] ok?kkokMh jksM]

eqgjkadu & fof'k"V

r[krs'oj] ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr

09-

2842664

15 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ gjhvkse ,xzks

lkiQ BUMs ikuh

1710

1989

bUMLVªht

ds fy, ÅèoZ VckZ

vVhdk] usg:uxj esbu

bu fefJr vkSj vJh;

jksM] <scj jksM (lkmFk)]

izokg iaiks dh fof'kf"V

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360002

10-

2844870

21 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ vksedkj TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kkL=kh jksM] lhVh

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

losZ ua- 65] 'kksi ua- 3]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

vatkj] ftyk dPN]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr 370110

11-

2845468

23 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ gnhn bLikr

lkekU; lajpuk

2830

2012

losZ ua- 148@1@1] lhgksj

bLikr gsrq iquosZYyu ds

?kka?kyh jksM] xkWo ?kka?kyh]

fy;s dkcZu <yok bLikr

rkyqd lhgksj ftyk

baxV] fcysV] Cywe

Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364240

vkSj LySc dh fof'kf"V

12-

2845771

23 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ osyty iEi

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

'ksM ua- 1] losZ ua- 39]

[kksMy ,LVsV] iz'kkar

iQkmUMªh ds ihNs]

xksaMy jksM gkbZos] okoMh]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360005

13-

2847169

27 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ gjhvkse TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kksi ua- 101]

feJ/krq,a]vkHkw"k.k@

tsuhyh 'kksihax lsaVj ds

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ikl] vack vkdsZM]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

,e-th- jksM]

ftyk tqukx<+]

xqtjkr&362001

3138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14-

2847270

27 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ jaxukFk TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

NkFkhckjh jhax jksM]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

uxjpdyk] Hkqt]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk dPN]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&370001

15-

2847977

30 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ gjhgj iEil

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

/ksdh;k eksVl ds ikl]

jsyos Økslhax ds ikl]

us'kuy gkbos 8 ch]

xksaMy gkbos]

dksFkkjh;k lksYosV]

dksFkkjh;k]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360004

16-

2848777

31 tuojh] 2014 eSllZ VksiysUM iEil

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

izkbZosV fyfeVsM

fueTt; iEilsV

iz'kkar iQkmUMjh ds ihNs]

mekdkar iafMr m/ksxuxj]

eoMh IykWV] jktdksV]

xqtjkr 360004

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx @13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ".kk] oSKkfud ^,IkQ* ,oa izeq[k

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2014

S.O. 1204.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

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

in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Part. Sec Year

No.

of the Party

01. 2838976

02/01/2014

M/s P.C.CAB

PVC Insulated cables

694

1990

Plot No. 7,

for working voltages

Survey No. 257,

upto and including

Near Aakash steel,

1100 V

Near Jain Manufactures,

Rajkot-Gondal Highway,

Taluk-Kotda sangani,

Shapar, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360024

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3139

02. 2839170

03/01/2014

M/s WELLJAL PUMP

Open well Submersible

14220

1994

PRIVATE LIMITED

Pumpsets -

Shed No. 1, Survey No.39,

Specification

Khodal Estate, Behind Prashant

Foundry, Gondal Road Highway,

Vavdi, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360005

03. 2839271

03/01/2014

M/s NARMADA INDUSTRIES

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

Shed No. 1-2, Sahjanand Industrial

Pumpsets-

Estate, Near Kishan Gau-Shala,

Specification

Behind Murlidhar Weight Bridge,

N.H. 8-B, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360003

04. 2839877

06/01/2014

M/s MANSI JEWELLERS

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Doctor Street, Vasi Talav,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Mahuva, District : Bhavnagar,

Fineness and Marking-

Gujarat-364290

Specification

05. 2840256

07/01/2014

M/s SONI SANJAY KUMAR

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

JAYANTILAL

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Masjid Road, Wadhwan,

Fineness and Marking -

District : Surendranagar,

Specification

Gujarat-363030

06. 2840357

07/01/2014

M/s KADAMB JEWELLERS

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

0, Satjal Shopping Centre,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Near Dena Bank,

Fineness and Marking -

Dhasa Junction, Bhavnagar,

Specification

Dhasa, District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364270

07. 2842159

13/01/2014

M/s SHREE DHYEY MINERAL

Packaged Drinking

14543

2004

Rajkot Highway, Near CNG pump,

Water (other than

by pass circle, Village:kherali,

Packaged Natural

Taluka : Wadhwan,

Mineral Water) -

District : Surendranagar,

Specification

Gujarat-363001

08. 2842260

13/01/2014

M/s Shubhlaxmi Jewellers

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Shop no-1, ground floor,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

parimal chowk, D & 1 Exceiu,

Fineness and Marking -

Waghawadi Road, Takhteshwar,

Specification

District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat

09. 2842664

15/01/2014

M/s HARIOM AGRO

Specification for Pumps 1710

1989

INDUSTRIES

-Verical Turbine

Atika, Neharunagar Main Raod,

Mixed and Axial Flow,

Dhebar Raod, (South),

for Clear Cold Water

Distt : Rajkot, Gujarat-360002

10. 2844870

21/01/2014

M/s OMKAR JEWELLERS

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Shashtri Road, City Survey No.65,

Jewellery/Artefacts-

Shop No. 3, Anjar,

Fineness and Marking -

Distt : Kachchh, Gujarat-370110

Specification

3140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11. 2845468

23/01/2014

M/s HADID ISPAT

Carbon steel cast billet

2830

2012

Survey No. 148/1/1,

ingots,billets,blooms

Sihor- Ghanghali Road,

and slabs for re-rolling

Village Ghanghali,

into steel for general

Taluka Sihor,

structural purposes

District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364240

12. 2845771

23/01/2014

M/s WELLJAL PUMP

Submersible Pumpsets

8034

2002

LIMITED

-Specification

Shed No. 1, Vavdi Survey No. 39,

Khodal Estate, Behind Prashant

Foundry, Gondal Road Highway,

Vavdi, District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360005

13. 2847169

27/01/2014

M/s HARI OM JEWELLERS

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Shop No-101,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Near Jenily Shopping Center,

Fineness and Marking -

Amba Aracade, M.G..Road,

Specification

District : Junagadh,

Gujarat-362001

14. 2847270

27/01/2014

M/s RANGNATH JEWELLERS

Gold and Gold Alloys,

1417

1999

Chhathibari Ring Road,

Jewellery/Artefacts -

Nagarchakla, Bhuj,

Fineness and Marking -

Distt : Kachchh,

Specification

Gujarat-370001

15. 2847977

30/01/2014

M/s HARIHAR PUMPS

Submersible Pumpsets

8034

2002

Near Dhokiya Motors,

-Specification

Near Railway Crossing,

National Highway 8-B,

Gondal Highway,

Kothariya Solvent, Kothariya,

District : Rajkot, Gujarat-360004

16. 2848777

31/01/2014

M/s TOPLAND PUMPS

Openwell Submersible

14220

1994

PVT. LTD.

Pumpsets -

Opp Parsana Foundary,

Specification

Umakant Pandit Udyognagar,

Mavdi Plot Rajkot, Rajkot

Gujarat-360004

[No.CMD/13:11]

M. RADHAKRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 8 iQjojh] 2014

dk-vk- 1205-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku fofu;u] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblasl jn~n fd, x, gSa %

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3141

vuqlwph

Ø- la-

Ykkblsal la[;k

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe

lekfIr dh frfFk

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

7731478

eSllZ lafni lhesUVl izkbZosV

53 xzsM lk/kj.k iksVZySaM

24 tuojh 2014

fyfeVsM

lhesaV &fof'kf"V

IykWV ua 1] 2 ,oa 5

th vkbZ Mh lh] egqok]

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364290

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx @13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ".kk] oSKkfud ^,IkQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 8th February, 2014

S.O. 1205.—In pursuance of sub-regulation(6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

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

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

SCHEDULE

SI. No.

Licences

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with

Date of

No.

relevant Indian

Cancellation

CM/L-

Standards coverd

by the licence

cancelled/suspension

7731478

M/s SANDIP CEMENTS PVT

Specification for 53

24/01/2014

LTD

grade ordinary

PLOT NO 1, 2 & 5, GIDC,

Portland cement

MAHUVA,

DISTRICT, : BHAVNAGAR

GUJARAT - 364290

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. RADHA KRISHNA, Scientist 'F' & Head

ubZ fnYyh] 4 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1206-—Hkkrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mifofu;e 5 vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS %&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh ykblsal/kjh dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq

o"kZ

la-

frfFk o"kZ ekg

,oa irk

dk 'kh"kZd

la[;k

01-

2849981

03@02@2014

eSllZ flYoj bUthU;jhax da-

Ñf"k vkSj tyiw£r ds

9079

2002

jktdksV xksaMy jktekxZ]

fy;s lkIkQ vkSj BaMs

fd'kku isVªksy IkEi ds ikl]

ikuh ds fctyh ds

esxksVh{k bUMfLVªht izk- fy- ds

eksukslV iEi & fof'kf"V

ihNs dkax'kh;kyh] jktdksV]

xqtjkr 360002

3142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

02-

2850259

03@02@2014

eSllZ t; fot; iwQM ,UM

iSdstCn is; ty

14543

2004

csojsthl IykWV Uka- 62] 63]

(iSdstCkUn izkÑfrd

70] & 71] ekdsZVhax ;kMZ ds

feujy ty ds vykok

lkeus] lqjHkh elkyk ds ikl]

nksyriqjk] tqukx<]

xqtjkr&362001

03-

2851160

04@02@2014

eSllZ tSu bZfjxs'ku flLVel

ty vkiw£r gsrq mPp

4984

1995

fy- losZ ua-&215] xkWo &

?kUkr~o ikWyhbFkkbyhu

iksLV ?kka?kyh] rkyqdk flgksj]

ikbi

ftyk Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364240

04-

2853164

04@02@2014

eSllZ yDdh xksYM fLeFk

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

'kksi ua-&1] jktsU}k pksd]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

vkMhiqj] ftyk dPN]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

xqtjkr

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

05-

2852970

12@02@2014

eSllZ osyLiqu dksiksZjs'ku fy-

lajpuk mi;ksx ds fy,

4923

1997

o"kkZesMh] vatkj HkpkmQ jksM]

bLikr ds [kks[kys lsD'ku

rkyqdk vatkj] ftyk dPN]

vatkj] xqtjkr 371110

06-

2853063

12@2@2014

eSllZ e/qje vkVZ TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

isysl jksM] 9 & iUUkk

feJ/krq,a]

ekusd psEcj] ftyk jktdksV]

vkHkw"k.k@f'kYidkjh

xqtjkr&360001

'kq¼rk ,oa eqgjkadu &

fof'kf"V

07-

2853669

13@02@2014

eSllZ lsUpqjh Iyk;cksMZ

leqæh mi;ksx ds fy,

710

2010

bfUM;k fyfeVsM

IykbZoqM

losZ Uka- 145@147] xkao eksVh

fpjk;] rkyqdk HkpkmQ]

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370140

08-

2853770

13@02@2014

eSllZ lsUpqjh Iyk;cksMZ

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds

303

1989

bfUM;k fyfeVsM

fy, IykbZoqM

losZ Uka- 145@147] xkao eksVh

fpjk;] rkyqdk HkpkmQ]

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370140

09-

2853871

13@02@2014

eSllZ lsUpqjh Iyk;cksMZ

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

bfUM;k fyfeVsM

losZ Uka- 145@147] xkao eksVh

fpjk;] rkyqdk HkpkmQ]

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370140

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3143

10-

2853972

13@02@2014

eSllZ lsUpqjh Iyk;cksMZ

ydM+h ds likV

2202

1999

bfUM;k fyfeVsM

njokts ds 'kVj

losZ Uka- 145@147] xkao eksVh

Bksl) dksj Vkbi

fpjk;] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

(Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds

ftyk dPN]

lrg ;qDr iYys

xqtjkr&370140

11-

2854267

13@02@2014

eSllZ Vh,lds Iyk; vkSj

leqæh mi;ksx ds

710

2010

ohuhj bUMLVªht

fy, IykbZoqM

losZ ua- 1184] rkyqdk Hkpkm]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

12-

2854267

13@02@2014

eSllZ Vh,lds Iyk; vkSj

ydM+h ds likV

2202

1999

ohuhj bUMLVªht losZ ua- 1184]

njokts ds 'kVj

rkyqdk Hkpkm] ftyk dPN]

Bksl)dksj Vkbi(

xqtjkr&370140

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds

lrg ;qDr iYys

13-

2854469

13@02@2014

eSllZ Vhl,ds Iyk; vkSj

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds

303

1989

ohuhj bUMLVªht losZ ua- 1184]

fy, IykbZoqM

rkyqdk Hkpkm]

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr&370140

14-

2854570

13@02@2014

eSllZ uodkj Iyk;oqM

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds

303

1989

13 dksey dksEiysDl]

fy, IykbZoqM

IykWV Uka- 305]

oksMZ ua- 12@ch] xka/h/ke]

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370201

15-

2854671

13@02@2014

eSllZ uodkj Iyk;oqM

leqæh mi;ksx ds fy,

710

2010

13 dksey dksEiysDl]

IykbZoqM

IykWV u-a 305] oksMZ ua-

12@ch] xka/h/ke]

ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370201

16-

2854974

14@02@2014

eSllZ yhok iEil izkbZosV

fuEkTTkuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

fyfeVsM] vkth olkgr

IykWV ua- 61@v]

jke uxj xyh ua- 3] j'khdyky

,oa dq- ds ihNs] 80 iQhV jksM]

jktdksV] xqtjkr&360003

17-

2855471

17@02@2014

eSllZ e/qje bUthuh;lZ

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

yks/hdk bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

IyksV ua- th & 911 ch]

esVksMk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360005

3144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18-

2855572

17@02@2014

eSllZ e/qje bUthuh;lZ

[kqys dq,a ds fy,

14220

1994

yks/hdk bUMLVªh;y ,LVsV]

fueTt; iEi lsV

IykWV ua- th&911 ch]

esVksMk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360005

19-

2856271

18@02@2014

eSllZ Hkkjr iEi bUMLVªht

fueTTuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

ftojkt bUMLVªh;y ,jh;k]

IykWV ua- 16] loZs ua- 47]

IkQkYdu iEi ds ikl]

xksaMy jksM] okoMh] ftyk

jktdkV] xqtjkr&360004

20-

2856776

18@02@2014

eSllZ /h LVkUMMZ ,xzks ,Uthfu;lZ fueTtuh; IkEi lsV

8034

2002

t;ukFk isVªksy iEi ds lkeus]

Hkkouxj jksM+ ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360003

21-

2857071

18@02@2014

eSllZ lR;e LVhy bUMLVªht

daØhV izcyu ds fy,

1786

2008

loZs ua- 240@ch] Hkkouxj

mPp lkeFkZ~; fodflr

jktdksV gkbZos] uokxke] ftyk

bLikr NM vkSj ikj

Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&364250

22-

2858477

25@02@2014

eSllZ Jh eatqy TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

22& fMxfot; IykWV] eSu

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

jksM] U;w Ldwy jksM]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk [ksMk] xqtjkr&361005

eqgjkadu & fof'k"V

23-

2859176

25@02@2014

eSllZ VksiysUM iEil izkbZosV

fuEkTtu iEilsVksa ds

9283

1995

fyfeVsm ijlkuk IkQkmUMªh ds

fy, eksVjsa fof'k"V

lkeus] mekdkUr iafMr m|ksx

uxj] eoMh IyksV] jktdkV]

xqtjkr&360004

24-

2859782

28@02@2014

eSllZ [ksMqar bjhxs'ku bUMh;k

ty vkiw£r gsrq mPPk

4984

1995

izkbZosV fyfeVsM IykWV ua- 13]

?kuRo ikWyhbFkkbyhu

14] 15] 16] & 19 vkj ,l

ikbi

ua- 53 gMerkyk] 'khoÑik

dsehdy ds ikl] jktdksV

xksaMy gkbZos jksM ,u ,p 8 ch]

Hkqukok rkyqdk xkasMy] gMerkyk]

ftyk jktdksV] xqtjkr&360311

25-

2859883

28@02@2014

eSllZ [ksMaqr bjhxs'ku bUMh;k

flapkbZ miLdkj flaizdyj 14151

1999

izkbZosV fyfeVsM IykWV ua- 13]

ikbi& fof'k"V

14] 15] 16 & 19 vkj ,l

ua- 53 gMerkyk] 'khoÑik dsehdy

ds ikl] jktdksV xksaMy gkbZos jksM

,u ,p 8 ch] Hkqukok rkyqdk

xkasMy] gMerkyk] ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360311

¹la- dsUæh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ".kk] oSKkfud ^,IkQ* ,oa izeq[k

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3145

New Delhi, the 4th March, 2014

S.O. 1206.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies grant of licences paticulars of which are givn below in

the following schedule.

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address of

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

the party

Standard

01.

2849981

03/02/2014

M/s. SILVER ENGINEERING Electric Monoset

9079

2002

COMPANY, Rajkot-Gondal Pumps for Clear,

Highway, Near Kishan

Cold Water for

Petrol Pump, B/H

Agricultural and

Magotteaux Industries

Water Supply

Pvt. Ltd. Kangasiyali,

Purposes-

District : Rajkot Gujarat-

360002

02.

2850259

03/02/2014

M/s. JAY VIJAY FOOD

Packaged Drinking

14543

2004

AND BEVERAGES

Water (other than

Plot No. 62, 63, 70 & 71,

Packaged Natural

Opp. Marketing yard, Near Mineral Water)-

Surbhi Masala, Dolatpara,

Specification

District : Junagagarh,

Gujarat-362001

03.

2851160

04/02/2014

M/s. JAIN IRRIGATION

Specification for

4984

1995

SYSTEMS LTD Survey

high density

no. 215, At & PO- Ghangali, polyethylene pipes

Taluka- Sihor, District :

for water supply

Bhavnagar, Gujrat-364240

04.

2853164

07/02/2014

M/s. Lucky Gold Smith

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

Shop No-1, Rajendra

Alloys, Jewellery/

Chowk, Adipur, District :

Artefacts - Fineness

Kachchh, Gujarat

and Marking -

Specification

05.

2852970

12/02/2014

M/s. WELSPUN CORP

Hollow steel

4923

1997

LIMITED Varsamedi,

sections for

Anjar-Bhachu Road,

structural use

Taluka-Anjar, district-

Kutch, Anjar, Gujarat-

371110

06.

2853063

12/02/2014

M/s. MADHURAM ART

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

JEWELLERS Palace Road,

Alloys, Jewellery/

9- Panna Manek

Artefacts- Fineness

Chembar, District :

and Marketing-

Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 Specification

07.

2853669

13/02/2014

M/s. CENTURY PLY

Specification for

710

2010

BOARDS (INDIA)

Marine Plywood

LIMITED Survey

No. 145/147, Village

Moti Chirai, Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

3146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

08.

2853770

13/02/2014

M/s. CENTURY PLY

Specification for

303

1989

BOARDS (INDIA)

Plywood for

LIMITED Survey

general purposes

No. 145/147, Village

Moti Chirai, Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

09.

2853871

13/02/2014

M/s. CENTURY PLY

Specification for

1659

2004

BOARDS (INDIA)

block boards

LIMITED Survey

No. 145/147, Village

Moti Chirai, Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

10.

2853972

13/02/2014

M/s. CENTURY PLY

Specification for

2202

1999

BOARDS (INDIA)

wooden flush

LIMITED Survey

door shutters (solid

No. 145/147, Village

core type) : Part 1

Moti Chirai, Bhachau,

Plywood face

District : Kachchh,

panels

Gujarat-370140

11.

2854267

13/02/2014

M/s. TSK PLY & VENEER

Specification for

710

2010

INDUSTRIES Survey

Marine Plywood

No. 1184, Taluka Bhachau,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

12.

2854267

13/02/2014

M/s. TSK PLY & VENEER

Specification for

2202

1999

INDUSTRIES Survey

wooden flush door

No. 1184, Taluka Bhachau,

shutters (solid core

District : Kachchh,

type) : Part 1 Plywood

Gujarat-370140

face panels

13.

2854469

13/02/2014

M/s. TSK PLY & VENEER

Specification for

303

1989

INDUSTRIES Survey

plywood for general

No. 1184, Taluka Bhachau,

purposes

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370140

14.

2854570

13/02/2014

M/s. NAVKAR PLYBOARD Specification for

303

1989

13 Komal comlex, Plot

Plywood for

No. 305, Ward 12/B,

general purposes

Gandhidham, Distt :

Kachchh, Gujarat-370201

15.

2854671

13/02/2014

M/s. NAVKAR PLYBOARD Specification for

710

2010

13 Komal comlex, Plot

Marine Plywood

No. 305, Ward 12/B,

Gandhidham, Distt :

Kachchh, Gujarat-370201

16.

2854974

14/02/2014

M/s. LIVA PUMPS

Submersible

8034

2002

PRIVATE LIMITED

Pumpsets -

Ajivasahat, Plot No. 61/A,

Specification

Ram Nagar, Street, No.3,

B/H Rasiklal & Co.,

80 Feet Road, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360003

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3147

17.

2855471

17/02/2014

M/s. MADHURAM

Submersible

8034

2002

ENGINEERS Lodhika Ind.

Pumpsets -

Estate, Plot No. G-911 B,

Specification

Metoda, District : Rajkot

Gujarat-360005

18.

2855572

17/02/2014

M/s. MADHURAM

Openwell

14220

1994

ENGINEERS Lodhika Ind.

Submersible

Estate, Plot No. G-911 B,

Pumpsets -

Metoda, District : Rajkot

Specification

Gujarat-360005

19.

2856271

18/02/2014

M/s. BHARAT ELECTRIC

Submersible

8034

2002

CO. Jivraj Industrial Area,

Pumpsets-

Plot No. 16, Survey No. 47, Specification

N/R Falcon Pump, Gondal

Road, Vavdi, District :

Rajkot, Gujarat-360004

20.

2856776

18/02/2014

M/s. THE STANDARD

Submersible

8034

2002

AGRO ENGINEERS

Pumpsets -

Opposite Jainath Petrol

Specification

Pump, Bhavnagar Road,

District : Rajkot, Gujarat-

360003

21.

2857071

19/02/2014

M/s. SATYAM STEEL

Specification for

1786

2008

INDUSTRIES Survey

high strength

No. 240/B, Bhavnagar

deformed steel

Rajkot Highway, Navagam, bars and wires

District : Bhavnagar,

for concrete

Gujrat-364250

reinforcement

22.

2858477

25/02/2014

M/s. SHREE MANJUL

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

JEWELLERS 22-Digvijay

Alloys, Jewellery/

Plot, Main Road, New

Artefacts- Fineness

School Road, District :

and Marking—

Kheda, Gujarat-361005

Specification

23.

2859176

25/02/2014

M/s. TOPLAND PUMPS

Motors for

9283

1995

PVT. LTD Opp Parsana

Submersible

Foundry, Umakant Pandit

Pumpsets -

Udhyognagar, Mavdi,

Specification

Plot Rajkot, Rajkot,

Gujarat-360004

24.

2859782

28/02/2014

M/s. Khedut Irrigation

Specification for

4984

1995

(India) Private Limited

high density

Plot No. 13,14,15,16,

polyethylene pipes

& 19, R.S No. 53 of

for water supply

Handamtala, Nr.

Shivakrupa Chemical,

Rojkot - Gondal Highway,

(N.H.8B) Bhunava,

Taluka : Gondal,

Hadamtala, District :

Rajkot, Gujarat-360311

3148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

25.

2859883

28/02/2014

M/s. Khedut Irrigation

Irrigation Equipment - 14151

1999

(India) Private Limited

Sprinkler Pipes -

Plot No. 13,14,15,16,

Specification - Part 1 :

& 19, R.S No. 53 of

Polythylene Pipes

Handamtala, Nr.

Shivakrupe Chemical,

Rojkot - Gondal Highway,

(N.H.8B) Bhunava,

Taluka : Gondal,

Hadamtala, District :

Rajkot, Gujarat-360311

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. RADHAKRISHANA, Scientist 'F' and Head

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1207-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofu;e 4 ds mi&fofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn, x, gSa dks ykblasl jn~n fd, x, gSa %

vuqlwph

Ø- la-

Ykkblsal la[;k

ykblsal/kjh dk uke ,oa irk

ykblsal ds varxZr oLrq@izØe

jn~nhdj.k frfFk

lEc¼ Hkkjrh; ekud dk 'kh"kZd

7760283

eSllZ vjksek gkbVsd fyfeVsM

is;ty vkiwfrZ ds fy,

05 ekpZ 2013

losZ ua 580] ,u ,p 15]

vi~ykfLVÑr ihohlh ikbi

'kke[kh;kyh jk/kuiqj gkbos]

rkyqdk Hkkpkm] ykdMh;k

ftyk dPN] xqtjkr

¹la- dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ".kk] oSKkfud ^,IkQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2014

S.O. 1207.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certificate)

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

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

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

Licences

Name & Address of the Licensee

Article/Process with

Date of

No.

relevant Indian

Cancellation

CM/L-

Standards covered

by the licence

cancelled/suspension

7760283

M/s. AROMA HIGHTECH LTD.

Unplasticized PVC Pipes

05/03/2014

Survey no. 580, N.H. 15,

for Potable Water

Samkhiyali-Radhanpur Highway,

Supplies - Specification

Tal : Bhachau

DISTRICT : Kachchh

GUJARAT

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. RADHA KRISHNA, Scientist 'F' and Head

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3149

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1208-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftl Hkkjrh; ekud dk fooj.k uhps vuqlwph esa fn;k x;k gS os jn~n dj fn, x, gSa vkSj okilh

ys fy, x, gSa %&

vuqlwph

Øe

jn~n fd;s x;s ekudksa dh la[;k vkSj o"kZ

Hkkjr ds jkti=k Hkkx II]

fVIi.kh

la-

[kaM 3] mi&[kaM (ii) esa

dk-vk- la[;k vkSj

frfFk izdkf'kr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 6600% 1975

0115] 11 tuojh 1975

¹lanHkZ bZVh 16@Vh&3º

vkj- lh- eSFk;w] oSKkfud ^,IkQ* ,oa izeq[k (fo|qr rduhdh)

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2014

S.O. 1208.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, it

is hereby notified that the Indian Standard, particular of which is mentioned in the schedule give hereafter, have been

cancelled and stands withdrawn.

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. & Year of the

S.O. No. & Date published in

Remarks

Indian Standards Cancelled

the Gazette of India. Part-II,

Section-3, Sub-section (ii)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 6600: 1975

0115, 11 January 1975

[Ref. ET 16/T-3]

R.C. MATHEW, Scientist 'F' & Head (Electrotechnical)

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1209-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks (izek.ku) fofu;e] 1988 ds fofue; 4 ds mifofu;e 5 ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd ftuds fooj.k uhps vuqlwph es fn, x, gSa dks ykblsal iznku fd, x, gS %@&

vuqlwph

Øe

ykblsal la-

LohÑr djus dh

ykblsal dk uke

Hkkjrh; ekud

Hkk ek

Hkkx

vuq o"kZ

la-

frfFk o"kZ ekg

,oa irk

dk 'kh"kZd

la[;k

01-

2860868

04 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ Jh gjh TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

3] lkuhè; dksEiysDl]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

Mkmu pksd]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk Hkkouxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&364001

3150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

02-

2860969

04 EkkpZ 2014 eSllZ ds ch bLikr

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

izkbosV fyfeVsM

esa iquosZ Yyu ds fy;s

IykWV ua 93@v]

dkcZu <yok

frjqirh gkml]

bLikr fcysV baxV fcysV Cywe

xhrk pksd ds ikl]

vkSj LySc dh fof'k"V

fd"ukuxj] Hkkouxj]

xqtjkr&364001

03-

2862973

07 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ xzhuIyk;

jsftu mipkfjr laihfMr

3513

1989

bUMLVªht fyfeVsM

ydM+h o ysfeusV

IykWV ua 910&913]

(dEizsx) Hkkx 3

th vkb Mh lh ,sLVsV]

lkekU; iz;kstu gsrq

ckeucsj] rkyqdk pksfVyk]

ftyk lqjsU}kuxj]

xqtjkr&365520

04-

2863268

10 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ ykHk bUthuh;¯jx

fueTtuh; iEi lsV

8034

2002

daq - IykWV ua 19&20]

lsM ua 9] ih;q"k bUthuh;¯jx

ds ihNs] Hkksyk bLVsV]

/kouh bUMLVªht ,sjh;k]

LVªhV ua 6]

dksBkfj;k lksYosV dklhax]

dksBkfj;k ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360003

05-

2863975

11 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ vtark izkbosV

Nr~ ds fctyh ds ia[ks

347

1979

fyehVsM

vkSj jsxqysVj

vksjisV bUMLVªh;y bLVsV]

jktdksV gkbZos] eksjch]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&363641

06-

2864270

12 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ , ,e bLikr

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

fyehVsM

esa iquosZYyu ds fy,

202] i`Foh dkseIysDl]

dkcZu <yoka

'kkardqekj jke pksd]

bLikr fcysV baxV fcysV

dkykuk.kk] ftyk Hkkouxj]

Cywe vkSj LySc dh&fof'k"V

xqtjkr&364002

07-

2864371

12 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ lksuh jrhyky

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

eqypUMHkkbZ ,.M lUl

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

eSu cktkj] [kjsMh]

f'kYidkjh 'kq¼rk ,oa

ftyk tkeuxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&360540

08-

2864472

12 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ 'kqHke LVhy

?kjsyq iz;kstuksa ds fy,

13983

1994

bUMLVªht

LVsuySl bLikr ds flad

166] jkiQkysJoj th vkbZ

&fof'kf"V

Mh lh] 8&v] us'kyu gkbZos]

rkyqdk eksjch] tkacqMh;k]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&363642

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3151

09-

2865070

12 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ f=kos.kh vk;ju

lkekU; lajpuk dk;ks±

2062

2011

,.M LVhy bUMLVªht

ds fy, bLikr

izkbosV fyfeVsM

,iQ &28] #okijh jksM]

Hkkouxj] xqtjkr&360002

10-

2865878

19 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ 'kksge TosylZ

Lo.kZ ,oa Lo.kZ

1417

1999

lrokjk okMk ds ikl]

feJ/krq,a] vkHkw"k.k@

tke [kaHkkMh;k]

f'kYidkjh 'k¼rk ,oa

ftyk tkeuxj]

eqgjkadu & fof'kf"V

xqtjkr&361305

11-

2866274

19 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ th ts Iyk;

ydM+h ds likV njokts

2202

1999

bEisDl izkbosV fyfeVsM

ds 'kVj (Bksl dksj Vkbi)

loZs ua 36@1] vatkj jksM]

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds lrg

xkao es?kij cksjhph]

;qDr iYys

rkyqdk vatkj]

vatkj] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370110

12-

2866375

19 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ th ts Iyk;

lkekU; iz;kstuksa ds

303

1989

bEisDl izkbosV fyfeVsM

fy, IykbZoqM

loZs ua 36@1] vatkj jksM]

xkao es?kij cksjhph] rkyqdk

vatkj] vatkj] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370110

13-

2866476

19 ekpZ 2014 eSllZ th ts Iyk; bEisDl

leqnzh mi;ksx ds fy,

710

2010

izkbosV fyfeVsM

IykbZoqM

xkao es?kij cksjhph] rkyqdk

vatkj] vatkj] ftyk dPN

xqtjkr&370110

14-

2866577

19 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ th ts Iyk;

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

bEisDl izkbosV fyfeVsM

loZs ua 36@1] vatkj jksM]

xkao es?kij cksjhph] rkyqdk

vatkj] vatkj] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370110

15-

2866880

19 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ ,e Mh bUMqLdks

daØhV izcyu ds

1786

2008

dkLV izkbosV fyfeVsM]

fy, mPp lkeF;Z

loZs ua- 144] iSdh 1 ,.M 2]

fodflr bLikr NM+

uslMk] rkyqdk flgksj

vkSj rkj

ftyk Hkkouxj] xqtjkr

16-

2867175

20 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ jk;eaM lhjkehDl

cSBdj 'kkSpkfn ds

2556

2004

jsyos LVs'ku ds ihNs]

fy, ik=k

xkao FkkuxB]

rkyqdk pksVhyk]

ftyk lqjsU}kuxj]

xqtjkr&363530

3152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

17-

2867276

20 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ Jh bysDVªksesYl

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

fyfeVsM]

esa iquosZYyu ds fy,

losZ ua- 95@1] ?kka?kyh]

dkcZu <yokZa bLikr

rkyqdk flgksj] ftyk Hkko uxj]

fcysV baxV fcysV Cywe

xqtjkr&364240

vkSj LySc dh &fof'k"V

18-

2867680

20 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ uodkj Iyk;cksMZ

ydM+h ds likV

2202

1999

13 dksey dksEIysDl]

njokts ds 'kVj

IykWV ua- 305] cksMZ 12@ch]

(Bksl dksj Vkbi)

xka/h/ke] ftyk dPN]

Hkkx 1 IykbZoqM ds lrg

xqtjkr&370201

;qDr iYys

19-

2867781

20 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ uodkj Iyk;cksMZ

CykWd cksMZ

1659

2004

13 dksey dksEIysDl]

IykWV ua- 305] cksMZ 12@ch]

xka/h/ke] ftyk dPN]

xqtjkr&370201

20-

2867882

20 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ dsihVy bLikr

lkekU; lajpuk bLikr

2830

2012

loZs ua- 196@197]

esa iquosZYyu ds fy,

xkao ?kka?kyh] rkyqdk flgksj]

dkcZu <yokZa bLikr

ftyk Hkkouxj

fcysV baxV fcysV Cywe

xqtjkr&364006

vkSj LySc dh &fof'k"V

21-

2870871

27 ekpZ 2014

eSllZ fjè/h iksyhelZ

ty vkiwfrZ gsrq mPp

4984

1995

loZs ua- 210] IykWV ua- ch 1]

?kuRo ikWyhbFkkbyhu

jktq bUthfu;¯jx jksM]

ikbi

osjkoy ('kkij)]

ftyk jktdksV]

xqtjkr&360035

¹laö dsUnzh; izek.ku foHkkx@13%11º

,e- jk/kÑ".kk] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k

New Delhi, the 7th April, 2014

S.O. 1209.—In pursuance of sub-regulation (5) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standard (Certificate)

Regulations, 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licences paticulars of which are givn below

in the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Licence

Grant Date

Name and address of

Title of the

IS No.

Part.

Sec.

Year

No.

the party

Standard

01.

2860868

04/03/2014

M/s. SHREE HARI

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

JEWELLERS

Alloys, Jewellery/

3, Sanidhya Complex,

Artefacts-Fineness

Dawn Chowk,

and Marking

District : Bhavnagar,

- Specification

Gujarat-364001

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3153

02.

2860969

04/03/2014

M/s. KB ISPAT PRIVATE

Carbon steel cast

2830

2012

LIMITED

billet ingots,billets,

Plot No. 93/A, "Tirupati,

blooms and slabs

House", Near Geeta Chowk,

for re-rolling into

Krishnanagar, Bhavnagar,

steel for general

District-Bhavnagar,

structural purposes

Gujarat-364001

03.

2862973

07/03/2014

M/s. GREENPLY

Specification for

3513

1989

INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Resin Treated

Plot No. 910-913,

Compressed

GIDC Estate, Bamanbor,

Wood Laminates

Taluka Chotila,

(Compregs)

District : Surendranagar,

- Part 3: For

Gujarat - 365520

General Purposes

04.

2863268

10/03/2014

M/s. LABH

Submersible

8034

2002

ENGINEERING CO.

Pumpsets -

Plot No. 19-20, Shed No.9,

Specification

Opposite Piyush Eng.,

Bhola Estate, Dhavni Ind

Area, Street No. 6,

Kothariya Solvent Crossing,

Kothariya, District : Rajkot

Gujarat-360003

05.

2863975

11/03/2014

M/s. AJANTA PRIVATE

Electric ceiling type

374

1979

LIMITED

fans and regulators

Orpat Industrial Estate,

Rajkot Highway, Morbi,

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-363641

06.

2864270

12/03/2014

M/s. AM ISPAT LTD

Carbon steel cast

2830

2012

202, Pruthvi Complex,

billet ingots, billets,

Santkumar Ram Chowk,

blooms and slabs

Kalanala,

for re-rolling into

District : Bhavnagar

steel for general

Gujarat-364002

structural purposes

07.

2864371

12/03/2014

M/s. SONI RATILAL

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

MULCHANDBHAI

Alloys, Jewellery/

AND SONS

Artefacts-Fineness

Main Bazar, At:-Kharedi

and Marking -

District : Jamnagar,

Specification

Gujarat-360540

08.

2864472

12/03/2014

M/s. SUBHAM STEEL

Specification for

13983

1994

INDUSTRIES

stainless steel sinks

166, Rafaleshwar G.I.D.C.,

for domestic purposes

8-A National Highway,

Taluka Morbi,

Jambudiya,

District : Rajkot

Gujarat-363642

3154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

09.

2865070

12/03/2014

M/s. TRIVENI IRON &

Steel for General

2062

2011

STEEL INDUSTRIES

Structural Purposes-

PVT. LTD.

Specification

F-28, Ruvapari Road,

Bhavnagar,

District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat : 364005

10.

2865878

19/03/2014

M/s. SOHAM JEWELERS

Gold and Gold

1417

1999

Near Satwara Wada,

Alloys, Jewellery/

Jam-Khambhaliya,

Artefacts-Fineness

District : Jamnagar,

and Marking -

Gujarat-361305

Specification

11.

2866274

19/03/2014

M/s. JG PLY IMPEX

Specification for

2202

1999

PRIVATE LIMITED

wooden flush door

Survey No. 36/1,

shutters (solid core

Anjar Road,

type): Part 1 Plywood

Village Meghpar Borichi,

face panels

Taluka Anjar, Anjar,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

12.

2866375

19/03/2014

M/s. JG PLY IMPEX

Specification for

303

1989

PRIVATE LIMITED

Plywood for

Survey No. 63/1,

general purposes

Anjar Road,

Village Meghpar Borichi,

Taluka Anjar,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

13.

2866476

19/03/2014

M/s. JG PLY IMPEX

Specification for

710

2010

PRIVATE LIMITED

Marine Plywood

Survey No. 36/1,

Anjar Road, Village

Meghpar Borichi,

Taluka Anjar,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

14.

2866577

19/03/2014

M/s. JG PLY IMPEX

Specification for

1659

2004

PRIVATE LIMITED

block boards

Survey No. 63/1,

Anjar Road, Village

Meghpar Borichi,

Taluka Anjar,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370110

15.

2866880

19/03/2014

M/s. M D INDUCTO

Specification for

1786

2008

CAST PRIVATE LIMITED

high strength

Survey No. 144, Paiki 1& 2

deformed steel

At Nesada, Taluka Sihor,

bars and wires

District : Bhavnagar

for concrete

Gujarat

reinforcement

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3155

16.

2867175

20/03/2014

M/s RAYMOND

Vitreous Sanitary

2556

2004

CERAMICS

Appliances

Opposite Railway Station,

(Vitreous China)

At Village Thangadh,

- Specification -

Taluka Chotila,

Part 3 : Specific

District : Surendranagar,

Requirements of

Gujarat-363530

Squatting Pans

17.

2867276

20/03/2014

M/s SHREE

Carbon steel cast

2830

2012

ELECTROMELTS

billet ingots, billlets,

LIMITED

blooms and slabs

Survey No.95/1,

for re-rolling into

At Ghanghali,

steel for general

Taluka Sihor,

structural purposes

District : Bhavnagar,

Gujarat-364240

18.

2867680

20/03/2014

M/s NAVKAR PLYBOARD

Specification for

2202

1999

13 Komal Complex,

wooden flush door

Plot No. 305, Ward 12/B,

shutters (solid core

Gandhidham,

type): Part 1 Plywood

District : Kachchh,

face panels

Gujarat-370201

19.

2867781

20/03/2014

M/s NAVKAR PLYBOARD

Specification for

1659

2004

13 Komal Complex,

block boards

Plot No. 305, Ward 12/B,

Gandhidham,

District : Kachchh,

Gujarat-370201

20.

2867882

20/03/2014

M/s CAPITAL ISPAT

Carbon steel cast

2830

2012

Survey No. 196/197,

billet ingots, billets,

Village Ghanghali,

blooms and slabs

Taluka Sihor,

for re-rolling into

District : Bhavanagar,

steel for general

Gujarat-364006

structural purposes

21.

2870871

27/03/2014

M/s RIDDHI POLYMERS

Specification for

4984

1995

Survey No. 210,

high density

Plot No. B-1,

polyethylene

Raju Eng Road,

pipes for

Veraval (Shapar),

water supply

District : Rajkot,

Gujarat-360035

[No. CMD/13:11]

M. RADHAKRISHANA, Scientist 'F' and Head

3156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1210-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fMfLVªDV esustj] ch ,l ,u ,y] dqYyw ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 210@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@228@2003&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1210.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 210/

2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of the Telecom District Manager, BSNL,

Kulu and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/228/2003-IR(DU)]

P. K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURENDRA PRAKASH SINGH,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case No. ID 210 of 2004

Reference No. L-40012/228/2003-IR (DU)

dated 07.06.2004

Sh. Sandeep Kumar, S/o Sh. Parmod Kumar,

VPO Sohari-III, Tehsil Barsar,

Distt. Hamirpur (Distt)

...Workman

Versus

1.The Telecom District Manager BSNL,

Kullu (HP)-175101

...Respondent

Appearances :

For the Workman

Workman in Person.

For the Management

Sh. Sanjay Goyal

(Advocate).

AWARD

(Passed on : 6.3.2014)

Government of India Ministry of Labour vide

notification No. L-40012/228/2003-IR(DU) dated 07.06.2004

has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

Term of Reference:

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom,

now known as (BSNL) in terminating the services of

Sh. Sandeep Kumar Ex-Temporary Labour, w.e.f.

31.12.1996 without complying with the provisions of

the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If not, what relief

the concerned workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

2. The workman in his claim statement pleaded that

he joined as daily wages with the management on 1.12.1995

and worked continuously up to 31.12.1996 without any

break and his work and conduct was satisfactory and as

per the Govt. policy he become entitled to regularization.

His services were terminated on 31.12.1996 without

assigning any reason and without complying the provisions

of Section 25F, 25B, 25N and 25H of the I.D.Act 1947. He

was not given any notice or pay in lieu of notice and

retrenchment compensation at the time of his termination.

The management also did not maintain the seniority and

principle of “first come last go” was not followed. Juniors

Jia Lal, Harish Chand, Ramesh Kumar, Tek Bahadur were

retained and his (workman’s)services were terminated. It is

prayed by the workman that the management may be

directed to reinstate him in the services with full back

wages and other consequential benefits.

3. The management filed written statement in which

it is pleaded by the management that the workman never

worked with the management. Therefore question of one

month notice or payment of wages in lieu of notice and

payment of any retrenchment compensation does not arise.

The management has not violated any provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no such record

available with the office of the management in which the

workman was shown to have worked with the office of

Telecom District Kullu. It is pleaded by the management

that there is no violation of any provisions of the I.D. Act,

1947 on behalf of the management, therefore, the workman

is not entitled for reinstatement in service and any other

benefit of service.

4. In evidence, workman filed his affidavit and also

placed on record documents. The management in evidence

examined Lalit Sharma working as STE, HR legal in the

office of District Manager,Telecom Kullu. Both the

witnesses were examined and cross examined by the rival

parties. The workman in cross examination stated that

experience certificate was issued by SDO, telecom, Kullu,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3157

on 03.08.1996, in which the workman was shown to be

working as temporary labour in the telecom department,

Kullu, from December 1995, till date of issue of the

experience certificate on the wages @ Rs. 45.75 paise per

day. It is also admitted by the workman that he was not

given any appointment at the time of recruitment. No

application was invited, nor any interview was held. It is

further admitted by him that he was informed by Madan

Lal, who belongs to his village that department need labour.

He also stated that he worked with the then SDO Jagdish

Singh. He used to pay the wages and would take signature.

It is admitted by him that he used to be paid @ Rs.45.75

paise per day. He also stated that he does not know whether

anybody was recruited after his termination.

5. The management witness Sh. Lalit Sharma stated

in cross examination that it is not known to him that workman

worked under SDO Sh. Jagdish Singh Thakur. He further

stated that certificate does not bear any number, by which

office it has been issued. He also stated that his office is

having the record for the period 01.12.1995 of 31.12.1996. It

is further stated by him that Jagdish Singh, the than SDO

has signed and issued the certificate. He has been retired

and presently living at Sarka Ghat.

6. I have heard the arguments and also gone through

the evidence and record of the case.

7. The case of the workman is that he worked with

the management for considerable period for more than one

year and completed 240 days of service and his services

were terminated without following the procedure as

prescribed under Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, therefore, the management may be

directed to reinstate him with full back wages. He rely on

the certificate issued by Jagdish Singh the then SDO

working with the Telecom Department Kullu who issued

him the certificate of experience.

8. On the other hand the case of the management is

that they have the record w.e.f. 1.12.1995 to 31.12.1996, but

as the workman never worked with the management and

there is no such record available about his service with the

management. Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any

relief and question of violating the mandatory provisions

of Section 25F does not arise.

9. In so far as the engagement of the workman with

the management is concerned, the workman in his statement

admitted that no application was moved by him for any

post. No interview was held for any post. He was working

as labourer with the management. He was given the

certificate of experience by Jagdish Singh SDO working at

the relevant time. The witness of the management also

admitted in cross-examination that the experience certificate

was signed and issued by Shri Jagdish Singh who has

been retired and presently living in Sarka Ghat. In view of

the above, the engagement and working of the workman

with the management cannot be denied by the management.

The management also did not produce the concerned SDO

Shri Jagdish Singh who issued the certificate of experience

to the workman.

10. As the workman was not engaged by the

management with due procedure, the workman cannot be

ordered to be reinstated in service. There may be position

quite different where a service of a regular/permanent

workman is terminated illegally or mala fide or by way of

victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However in this

case of termination of daily wage worker, instead of

reinstatement the workman should be given monetary

compensation which will meet the ends of justice.

11. The workman in the case in hand worked with the

department for about one year. Taking into consideration

the fact and circumstances of this case, the workman is

awarded Rs. 8000 (eight thousands only) as one time

compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The management is

directed to pay Rs. 8000 (eight thousands only) to the

workman within one month from the date of publication of

the award.

12.The reference is answered accordingly. Central

Govt. be informed. Soft as well hard copy be sent to the

Central govt. for publication.

Chandigarh.

6.3.2014

S. P. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1211-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

VsfydkWe] c¯BMk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 269@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@433@99&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1211.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 269/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

No.2, Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the General Manager, Telecom Bathinda

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/433/99-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

3158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 269/2005

Registered on 12.8.2005

Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar

C/o Sh. N.K. Jeet, President,

Telecom Labour Union,

Mohalla Hari Nagar,

Lal Singh Basti Road,

Bathinda

...Petitioner

Versus

The General Manager, Telecom,

Bathinda (Punjab)

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Charanjeet Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 4.3.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-

40012/433/99/IR(DU) Dated 16.2.2000, by exercising its

powers under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and

Sub-section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of General

Manager, Telecom, Ferozepur in terminating the

services of Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Sh. Raj Kumar is

legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled and from which date?”

In response to the notice, workman submitted

statement of claim pleading that he served the respondent

management from 1.1.1996 to 5.3.1999 and used to draw

Rs. 2138 as monthly wage. That his services were terminated

against the principles of natural justice which is void. That

the persons junior to him were retained in service and even

persons were recruited without calling him. That he is liable

to be reinstated in service with all the benefits.

Respondent management filed reply denying the

relationship and pleaded that workman never worked with

the respondent. That the management used to give

temporary work to the contractor and the contractor may

have employed the workman. That the workman is not an

employee of the respondent management.

In support of its case, parties led their evidence.

Workman appeared in the witness box and filed his

affidavit reiterating the case as set out in the claim petition.

He also placed on record photocopy of the Jumper Slip

Exhibit W2 to W7 and Duty Chart mark ‘B’ and C1 to C2.

He also examined Harphool Singh who has deposed in his

affidavit that the workman was employed as a casual worker

with the respondent management.

The workman has also summoned record from the

Department and Thakur Das appeared in the witness box

and did not produce the record by stating that the

summoned record was not traceable in the office.

On the other hand the management has examined

Pritpal Singh who filed his affidavit reiterating the case of

the respondent management.

I have heard Sh. Charanjeet, counsel for the workman

and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the management.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the duty chart record Mark A1 to A6 and submitted that

the management has given an evasive reply regarding the

salary of the workman and since it was the duty of the

management to maintain proper record relating to its

employees which it did not produce and even did not

examine the alleged contractor and therefore, in the

circumstances, it is to be presumed that the workman was

an employee of the respondent management whose

services have been illegally terminated.

I have considered the contention of the learned

counsel.

It is the definite case of the workman that he served

with the JTO Malout on a permanent post from 1.1.1996 to

5.3.1999. The respondent management is a statutory body

having its rules and regulations for employing the person

in its office. It is nowhere pleaded or proved that the

workman was appointed against a permanent job by

following any procedure and even no appointment letter

has come on the file. The duty chart mark A1 to A6 which

are not proved on the file do not establish that workman

was actually an employee of the respondent management.

If the record summoned by the workman is not produced

as deposed by Thakur Das; or is not maintained as stated

by Pritpal Singh, examined by the respondent do not ipso

facto prove that the workman was ever employed by the

respondent management.

According to him, he was getting the salary of

Rs.2138/- per month, but no record has been summoned

from the management to prove that any salary was actually

paid to him by the Department. In the circumstances, it

cannot be said that he was an employee of the respondent

management.

The statement made by Harphool Singh, examined

by the workman do not serve any purpose and seems to

have appeared in the witness box just to help the workman.

In result it is held that workman has failed to prove

that he was employed by the respondent management and

his services were terminated and he is not entitled to any

relief. Reference is accordingly answered against the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3159

workman. Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to

the Central Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1212-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

esustj VsfydkWe ch ,l ,u ,y vEckyk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2]

paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@19@2004&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1212.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 30/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

No. 2, Chandigarh, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Chief General Manager, Telecom BSNL

Ambala and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/19/2004-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : Sri Kewal Krishan, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 30/2004

Registered on 30.11.2004

Sh. Bhola Singh, S/o Sh. Sudarshan Singh,

Arjan Nagar, Anil Soap Factory,

Near Puja Petrol Pump,

Jagadhari Road, Ambala

...Petitioner

Versus

The Chief General Manager, Telecom,

BSNL, Haryana Telecom Circle,

107, Mali, Ambala

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Sh. Tarun Gupta Adv.

For the Management

Sh. Anish Babbar Adv.

AWARD

Passed on- 3.3.2014

Central Government vide Notification No. L-40012/

19/2004 IR(DU)) Dated 9.7.2004, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

now known as BSNL in terminating the services of

Sh. Bhola Singh, Ex-Part time Safaiwala w.e.f. 1/3/99

without any notice and without complying with the

provisions of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal? If

not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled

to and from which date?”

In response to the notice, the workman filed statement

of claim pleading that he was engaged as a daily wage part

time safaiwala by the respondent management from

21.12.1989 at the rate of Rs. 25 per day. He worked there up

to 28.2.1999. That the Head Office issued letter dated

10.2.1995, 22.7.1995 and 16.9.1999 for converting the part-

time casual labourer to full time casual labourer. But the

said letter was not implemented qua the workman and his

name was struck off from the rolls w.e.f. 1.3.1999 which is

illegal and void and he is entitled to reinstatement with full

benefits.

Respondent management filed written statement

controverting the averments and pleaded that there was

no relationship of employer and employee between the

parties. That there is no post of Safaiwala in the department

and the workman who alleged himself to be a daily wager

cannot be appointed. It is further pleaded that the workman

was a petty contractor who used to work for an hour or two

on a negotiated amount and after the work, he used to do

his own work of selling vegetables. Since he was not

employed by the respondent management, his services

were not terminated.

Parties led their evidence.

In support of its case, workman appeared in the

witness box and filed his affidavit reiterating the case as

set out in the claim petition. He also examined Nanak Chand

who filed his affidavit deposing therein that he worked as

store-keeper at Ambala and at that time the workman was

engaged as Safai Karamchari.

On the other hand, the management examined

Sh. S. K. Bhardwaj who filed his affidavit reiterating the

case of the management as set out in the written statement.

I have heard Sh. Tarun Gupta, counsel for the

workman and Sh. Anish Babbar, counsel for the

management.

Learned counsel for the workman carried me through

the letter Exhibit W1 and submitted that the same was issued

by the Assistant Engineer mentioning therein that workman

was continuously working in the department since 21^st

December, 1989 and further carried me through the vouchers

3160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

relating to the year 1994 to submit that the workman was

paid at the rate or Rs.25/- per day and also carried me

through the muster-roll for the year 1992-93 and submitted

that the name of the workman is specifically mentioned

therein; and thus taking the documents into account along

with the statement of workman and Nanak Chand, it stands

proved that the workman was in the employment of the

respondent management and his services has been illegally

terminated and he is entitled to reinstatement in service

with all the benefits.

I have considered the contentions of the learned

counsel.

In the Certificate Exhibit P1, it is mentioned that

workman has been in service since 21.12.1989 and it has

been issued by the Assistant Engineer who has not been

examined by the workman to establish that the recitals in

the said certificates are correct. However the photocopy

of the vouchers placed on the file for the year 1994 shows

that he was paid wages as Safaiwala at the rate of Rs.25 per

day and sometimes he used to receive Rs.100/- for the

work of four days. The muster-rolls have been placed on

the file by the workman but no record has been summoned

from the Department concerned to prove its authenticity.

However fact remains that the workman was employed to

do safai as is clear from the vouchers and as well from the

written statement wherein it is pleaded that the workman

was engaged to do safai but as a contractor which fact is

not proved. Thus, relying the vouchers, it is held that

workman worked as a daily wager getting payment at the

rate of Rs.25 per day.

From the letters dated 10.2.1995 and 16.9.1999 wherein

a proposal has been made to grant temporary status to

casual labourers but workman has not proved that he was

actually covered under the said letters nor he sought any

relief under the said letter at any point of time except now

pleading that he was covered under the said letter. Since

the workman himself claims to be a daily wager which

otherwise is clear from the copies of the vouchers placed

on the file, he cannot claim the protection of the provisions

of the Act for regularization of his services and in this

respect reliance may be placed on Secretary, State of

Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others and it was

observed as follows:-

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.

Thus, the workman worked only as a daily wager

and is not entitled to any relief and the reference is

accordingly answered against the workman. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1213-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

iksLV vkWfiQl fMikVZesaV vkWiQ iksLV~l ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;&2] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@86@2009&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1213.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 07/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jaipur, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Superintendent Post Office, Department

of Posts & Others and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/86/2009-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

BHARAT PANDEY, Presiding Officer

I.D. 7/2010

Reference No.L-40012/86/2009-IR(DU) dated: 8.2.2010

Shri Prabhu Singh

S/o Shri Uday Singh Rawat

R/o Village Bar, Tehsil Bheem,

Rajsamand.

V/s

The Superintendent

Post Office, D/o Posts,

Bhilwara Mandal, Bhilwara.

The Post Master General

D/o Posts, Head Post Office,

Ajmer.

I.P.O.

D/o Posts, Gulabpura,

Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

AWARD

2.1.2014

1. In exercise of the powers conferred under clause

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3161

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government

vide order dated 8.2.2010 referred the following Industrial

Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication. The referred

dispute is as mentioned below:

“Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent (Post Offices), Indian Postal

Department, Bhilwara Division, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Prabhu Singh w.e.f.

2.8.2007 is legal & justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to?”

2. After receipt of the reference by tribunal,

registered notices were sent to workman & opposite parties.

Representation on behalf of workman was made on 19.4.2010

by Shri V.K.Mathur, Advocate. On 19.4.2010 representative

on behalf of claimant workman sought time for filing of

claim which was granted by my learned predecessor &

25.5.10 was fixed for filing the claim. No claim was filed on

25.5.10 & further time was sought which was granted &

19.7.10 was fixed for filing the claim. On 19.7.10 further time

was sought for filing the claim hence case was adjourned

& last opportunity was given to workman for filing the

statement of claim on 6.9.10 but on 6.9.10 workman & his

representative remained absent & no claim was filed. From

perusal of ordersheet dated 6.9.10, it appears that tribunal

was informed that advocates are on indefinite strike hence,

next date 9.11.10 was fixed for filing the claim by workman

but on that date also none appeared for workman & on its

own motion tribunal adjourned the proceeding & fixed

25.11.10 for filing the claim. On 25.11.10 also none appeared

on behalf of both the parties & in above circumstances,

the case was reserved for award by my learned predecessor

& on 26.11.10 “No Claim Award” was passed which was

notified by the Central Government on 10.12.10.

3. From perusal of file it further appears that on 4.2.11

application with affidavit by Shri Prabhu Singh, workman

was filed through learned counsel for setting aside the

“No Dispute Award”dated 26.11.2010. Notices were issued

to opposite parties fixing 12.4.11 for filing objection. On

12.4.11 representatives on behalf of opposite parties were

present & copy of the application dated 4.2.11 was received

for filing objection & 5.7.11 was fixed for objection &

disposal of workman’s application. Objection against

application of the workman for setting aside ex-parte award

was submitted by opposite parties vide registered post

which was received by tribunal on 2.8.11 & copy of the

objection was furnished to learned counsel for the workman

on 7.12.11 & 9.2.12 was fixed for arguments of both the

parties.

4.On 9.2.12 both the parties were present but

argument was not heard & time was sought hence, 23.4.12

was fixed for arguments. On 23.4.12 order of proceedings

ex-parte was passed against opposite parties due to

absence & case was fixed on 29.5.12 for ex-parte arguments

on behalf of applicant workman. On 29.5.12 order of

proceedings ex-parte was recalled on application of

opposite parties. On 29.5.12 itself argument was heard for

final disposal of workman’s application & 2.7.12 was fixed

for order.

5. On 2.7.12 time was sought by representative of

the applicant workman for filing rulings & time for the same

was granted by my learned predecessor fixing 4.9.12 for

order. On 4.9.12 rulings were filed & argument was heard

fixing 11.10.12 for order. On 11.10.12 applicant workman

was absent & opposite party was present but no order was

passed due to engagement of Presiding Officer in other

matters connected with award & 21.11.12 was fixed for

passing order. On 21.11.12 none was present for applicant

but opposite party was in presence & case was fixed for

19.12.12 for order. On 19.12.12 none was present for

applicant, opposite party was present but my learned

predecessor was on leave hence, 28.1.13 was fixed for order.

On 28.1.13 none was present for applicant workman &

representative of the opposite party was present but no

order was passed due to Presiding Officer being on leave

& 27.2.13 was fixed for order. On 27.2.13 none was present

for applicant & representative of opposite party was

present. On 27.2.13 order was passed by my learned

predecessor setting aside the “ No Dispute Award” dated

26.11.10 & CGIT 7/10 was restored.

6. On 27.2.13 after restoration of CGIT case no.7/10,

opportunity was provided to claimant workman to file the

statement of claim by 15.4.13. On 15.4.13 applicant was

absent. Sh. B.S. Kulshrestha, Advocate appeared on behalf

of learned counsel for the applicant on 15.4.13 with oral

request that father of the learned counsel for the applicant

workman has been hospitalized hence, further opportunity

for filing statement of claim be given. Oral request was

accepted by my learned Predecessor & last opportunity

was given for filing statement of claim till 24.6.13. On 15.4.13

representative of opposite party was present. On 24.6.13

no statement of claim was filed & further time was sought

by representative of the workman with statement that due

to death of the father of the learned counsel, he could not

contact the workman hence, further one opportunity be

provided for filing statement of claim. My learned

predecessor granted further time till 29.7.13 for filing the

statement of claim looking into the reason shown by the

learned counsel for the applicant. On 29.7.13 tribunal did

not have Presiding Officer due to retirement of my learned

predecessor. On 29.7.13 again applicant remained absent

& opposite party was present. Next date 30.9.13 was fixed

for filing statement of claim in accordance with order passed

earlier. On 30.9.13 also court was vacant due to none

appointment of Presiding Officer & next date 16.12.13 was

fixed. Statement of claim was not filed on 30.9.13 also.

7. On 16.12.13 none was present for applicant

workman. Opposite party was present. Statement of claim

was not filed on 16.12.13 also & next date 1.1.14 was fixed

by tribunal on its own motion for filing statement of claim.

3162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. On 1.1.14 none was present on behalf of applicant.

Sh. Ashwini Kumar Tomar, Postal Inspector, was present

for opposite party. No statement of claim was filed on 1.1.14

by applicant & in above circumstances, case was reserved

for award.

9. It is clear from the above fact that workman has

not filed statement of claim till date. Circumstances

mentioned above reveal by themselves that it cannot be

safely said that applicant workman has not been provided

opportunity to file statement of claim. Except the sickness

& death of the father of the learned counsel no other

circumstance is available on record to justify none

production of statement of claim on record.

10. It is important to note that it has been submitted

by learned counsel for the applicant that due to sickness,

hospitalization & demise of his father he could not contact

the workman for preparation of statement of claim which

indicates a neglect on the part of the workman to contact

the counsel for preparation of statement of claim. Consistent

& continuous absence of workman on all the dates after

restoration of file & even on prior dates further strengthens

his neglecting attitude & lack of interest & active

participation in taking the reference ahead towards

adjudication. In absence of statement of claim & evidence

in relation to claim it is not possible to adjudicate the

reference & pass an award on merit.

11. From above mentioned facts & circumstances, it

appears that workman is not willing to file the statement of

claim & contest the case further for adjudication. Under

the circumstances, “No Claim Award” is passed in the

alleged reference & the reference under adjudication is

answered accordingly.

12. Award as above.

BHARAT PANDAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1214-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

vuqla/ku vfHkdYi vkSj ekud laxBu ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] y[kuÅ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 116@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1214.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 116/

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 Maha Nideshak, Anusandhan

Abhikalpaur Manak Sangathan & Others and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-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. 116/2011

BETWEEN

Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Surajbali 68/269,

Shyam Babu ka Hata, Lalkuwan, Lucknow

AND

Maha Nideshak

Anusandhan Abhikalp aur Manak Sangathan

RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow – 11

Apar Maha Nideshak

Anusandhan Abhikalp aur Manak Sangathan

RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow – 11

Nideshak (Civil)

RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow – 11

AWARD

1. The present industrial dispute has been filed by

the workman, Shri Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Surajbali, 68/269,

Shyam Babu ka Hata, Lalkuwan, Lucknow under provisions

contained in the Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (14 of 1947) against alleged termination of his services

by the management of Anusandhan Abhikalp aur Manak

Sangathan, RDSO, Manak Nagar, Lucknow for adjudication

before this CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.

2. The workman, Sanjay Kumar, filed the statement

of claim alleging therein that the management of the opposite

party terminated his services by impugned order dated

27.09.2006 without affording him an opportunity to defend

himself, which is in violation of the principles of natural

justice. He has also alleged that the management did not

heed his representations to set aside the punishment

imposed upon him. Accordingly, the workman has prayed

that the impugned order dated 27.09.2006 be set aside and

he be reinstated with consequential benefits including back

wages.

3. The management of the Research Designs &

Standards Organization (hereinafter referred to as RDSO)

has denied the claim of the workman by filing its statement

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3163

of claim wherein it has submitted that the workman is

habitual absentee, which resulted into issuance of major

charge sheet against him. The Inquiry Officer sent four

letters asking him to appear in the inquiry proceedings;

but he failed to attend the same due to which the inquiry

was conducted ex-parte against the workman. Having

charges proved the Disciplinary passed order for removal

from services vide order dated 27.09.2006, which is just

and reasonable. It has also submitted that no

representation of the workman as ever received by the

management. Moreover it is also submitted that the

opposite party is a research institute; hence, is not an

‘industry’ under Section 2 ‘s’ of the I.D. Act. Accordingly,

it has been prayed that the claim of the workman be rejected

without any relief to him.

4. The workman has filed its rejoined wherein apart

from reiterating the averments already made by him has

not introduced any new fact.

5. The parties have filed documentary evidence in

support of their respective claim. The workman filed its

evidence on affidavit 25.07.2013 and next date was fixed

12.09.2013 for cross-examination of the workman. The

workman did not turned on the next date for cross-

examination; rather he remained absent on successive dates

also i.e. on 31.10.2013, 31.10.2013, 02.12.2013 and 21.01.2014.

When the workman did not turn up for cross-examination

the management was asked to enter the witness box but

the authorized representative of the management stated

that it does not require to file any evidence; and accordingly,

the case was reserved for award after hearing the parties.

6. Heard the authorized representative of the parties

and perused the record.

7. The workman has come up with the case that his

services have been terminated by the management of RDSO

after holding an ex-parte inquiry, without affording him an

opportunity to defend himself; which has been denied by

the management. Hence, in view of the denial of the

management it was incumbent upon the workman to enter

the witness box and substantiate his pleadings that alleged

unjust was committed to him by the management of the

RDSO in violation to the principles of natural justice. But

the workman has utterly failed in discharging the burden

that lied upon him as he did not turn up to get himself

cross-examined by the management.

8. 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 by 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 impugned order. It was the

case of the workman that his services have been terminated

without affording him any opportunity to defend himself.

This claim has been denied by the management; therefore,

it was for the workman to lead evidence to show that the

alleged injustice was being done to the workman.

9. In M/s. Uptron Powertronics Employees’ Union,

Ghaziabad through its Secretary vs. Presiding Officer,

Labour Court (II), Ghaziabad & others 2008 (118) FLR 1164,

Hon’ble High Court relied upon the law settled by the Apex

Court in Sanker Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd.

1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), V.K. Raj Industries v. Labour Court

and others 1979 (39) FLR 70 (SC), Airtech Private Limited v.

State of U.P. and others 1984 (49) FLR 38 and (Alld.)

Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others 1996 (74)

FLR 2004; wherein it was observed by the Apex Court:

“that in absence of any evidence led by or on behalf

of the workman the reference is bound to be answered

by the Court against the workman. In such a situation

it is not necessary for the employers to lead any

evidence at all. The obligation to lead evidence to

establish an allegation made by a party is on the

party making the allegation. The test would be, who

would fail if no evidence is led.”

10. In the present case the workman has not turned

up to substantiate its case by way of oral evidence. Mere

pleadings are no substitute for proof. It was obligatory on

the part of workman to come forward with the case that his

services have been terminated in contravention to the

principles of natural justice; but the workman failed to

forward any substantive evidence in support of his claim,

as he did not turn up for cross-examination before this

Tribunal. There is no reliable material for recording findings

that the alleged injustice was done to the workman or the

action of the management of the RDSO in terminating the

services of the workman vide impugned order dated

27.09.2006 was illegal and unjustified.

11. In view of the case law cited and the discussions

made hereinabove, I come to the conclusion that the

workman, Sanjay Kumar is not entitled to any of the relief

claimed by him.

12. Award as above.

LUCKNOW.

17^th February, 2013.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1215-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

tujy esustj VsfydkWe ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,uthih 43@2011) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@37@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

3164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1215.—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/43/2013) 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 Principal General

Manager, Telecom & Others and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/37/2013-IR(DU)]

P.K.VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/43/2013

Date: 13.02.2014

Party No.1(a)

: The Principal General Manager, Telecom,

Nagpur Telecom District, Telecom

Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001

(b)

The Additional General Manager,

(CAFA,Central & West), BSNL,

CTO Compound, 5^th Floor, Civil Lines,

Nagpur-440001.

(c)

The Chief Superintendent,

Central Telegraph Office, BSNL,

CTO Building, Civil Lines,

Nagpur-440001

Versus

Party No. 2 :

Shri Satish Shrawan Dangoriya

C/o Shri Deepak Waman

(Sweeper Mohalla),

Behind Gurudwara, Lakadganj,

Bhandara Road,

Nagpur-440001

AWARD

(Dated: 13th February, 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 Telecom, Nagpur Telecom District and their

workman, Shri Satish Shrawan Dongoriya for adjudication,

as per letter No.L-40012/37/2013-IR (DU) dated 18.07.2013,

with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Nagpur in refusal of the

employment to Shri Satish Shrawan Dongoriya,

Pt.Time Casual Labour from 17.05.2012 without

assigning any reason or without any order is just,

fair and legal ? To what relief the applicant is entitled

to?”

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

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement, by registered post with acknowledge due.

After receipt of the notice, the workman appeared

through his advocates on 18.09.2014 and took adjourn-

ment for filing of statement of claim. The party No.1 also

appeared through their advocates on the same date. How-

ever, both the parties remained absent from 18.12.2013.

Inspite of adjourning the case thrice for filing of state-

ment of claim by the workman, the workman neither ap-

peared nor filed any statement of claim since 18.12.2013.

So, on 13.02.2014, the reference was closed, holding that

the workman was not interested to proceed with the refer-

ence and the reference was fixed for award.

3. It is well settled that whenever a party challenges

the legality of an order, the burden lies upon him to prove

the illegality of the order and it is imperative for him to file

written statement before the Industrial Court setting out

grounds on which the order is challenged and he must also

produce evidence to prove his case. If the party fails to

appear or file written statement or produce evidence, the

dispute referred by the Government cannot be answered in

favour of the said party and the party would not be entitled

to any relief.

Judging the present case with the touch stone of the

settled principles as mentioned above, it is found that the

workman has neither appeared nor filed any statement of

claim and as such, he is not entitled to any relief. Hence, it

is ordered:-

ORDER

The reference is answered in the negative and against

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

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1216-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fMfLVªDV esustj lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] HkaMkjk ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@ukxiqj@59@2011) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@146@2001&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3165

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1216.—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/59/2001) 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 Telecom District

Manager, Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhandara and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/146/2001-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/59/2001

Date: 11.02.2014

Party No.1

The Telecom District Manager,

Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Sanchar Bhavan,

Bhandara- 441904 (MS)

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Mohanlal Tulsiram Tawade,

R/o At . Post- Khamari,

Tah. & Distt. Gondia,

Maharashtra-441601

AWARD

(Dated: 11^th February 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 The Telecom District Manager, Bhandara

and their workman, Shri Mohanlal Tulsiram Tawade for

adjudication, as per letter No. L-40012/146/2001-IR (DU)

dated 30.08.2001, with the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Telecom

District Manager, Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhandara

(Mah) in terminating the services of Shri Mohanlal

Tulsiram Tawade w.e.f. 30.08.2000 is legal, proper &

justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is

entitled?”

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

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Mohanlal

Tulsiram Tawade, (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of The Telecom

Dist. Manager, Bhandara, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed its

written statement.

The case of the workman as projected in the

statement of claim is that he was a permanent workman of

party No.1 and he was appointed on daily wages on the

post of Labour and he was doing the departmental work of

maintenance and repair of old cables under the S.D.E.

Cable, Gondia and the party No.1 is an “industry” and he

is a “workman” within the meaning as provided in the Act

and the work performed by him was of permanent nature

and he was doing the work under the immediate

supervision of the cable jointers, who were permanent

employees of party No.1 and over all supervision of the

S.D.E., Gondia and he was maintaining daily work diary,

which was regularly being signed by the cable jointers and

his salary was being paid on ACG-17 form, after verification

of the same by the cable jointer and SDE, Gondia.

The further case of the workman is that he was

continuously performing his duties since 01.09.1996 and

he had acquired the status of permanent workman on

completion of 240 days of service and he had requested

the party No.1 to regularize his services, as he was legally

entitled for the same and he had also approached the higher

authorities of party No.1 in this regard, but party No.1,

terminated his services high handedly on 30.08.2000,

without any notice, in utter disregard to the principles of

natural justice and violation of the provisions of section

25-F of the Act and as such, termination of his services

was illegal and he raised the industrial dispute before the

ALC (Central) II, Nagpur and the party No.1 in its written

comments filed before the ALC, falsely alleged that he was

not appointed by it and he was appointed by the contractor,

who was doing the contract work of laying new cables at

Gondia and during the conciliation proceeding, the

statement of Shri M.N. Meshram, Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telecom, on behalf of the party No.1 was recorded by the

ALC and in his statement, Shri Meshram admitted that he

(workman) was engaged in his office and the work

mentioned by him (workman) in the “daily work diary” was

carried out by the department and payment of wages to the

labour was being made on ACG-17 form, whenever the

work was done by the labour, which clearly show that he

was engaged by party No.1 on daily wages and not by the

contractor and during the conciliation, the ALC directed

the party No.1 to produce the ACG 17 forms, but party

No.1 failed to produce the same so adverse inference has

to be drawn against the party No.1 for non production of

documents and as the conciliation proceedings failed,

failure report was submitted to the Central Government by

the ALC and the Government has referred the industrial

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The further case of the workman is that the

termination of his services was by way of victimization and

the work, which he was doing is of permanent nature and

on the application submitted by him on 25.11.2000 to the

Chief General Manager, Shri S.M. Elankar and Shri D.G.

Nikhade, both permanent cable jointers of party No.1 had

3166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certified about his working in the office of S.D.E., Gondia

and payment was being made to him on ACG-17 Form and

he had worked for 1372 days, from September, 1996 to

August, 2000 at the rate of Rs. 50 per day.

The workman has prayed to reinstate him in service

with continuity and full back wages.

3. The party no.1 in its written statement, by denying

the allegations made in the statement of claim has pleaded

inter alia that the workman was never in its employment

and as such, question of his termination does not arise and

in view of its expansion in maintenance work i.e.

underground cable laying and other maintenance work, as

per its policy, it had called for tenders from private

contractors and tender contracts were issued to respective

private contractors and one such contract of underground

cable laying was given to the contractor, “Atul

Engineering” and the said contractor had engaged casual

labours from time to time, as per his requirement and the

workman was one such casual labour engaged by Atul

Engineering for executing the contract work awarded to

them and as a matter of fact, the workman and four other

labours were engaged by Atul Engineering and after

completion of work, it seems, Atul Engineering did not

engage the workman and the other labours and there was

no nexus of master and servant relationship between it and

the workman and Atul Engineering admitted the said fact

before the A.L.C. and he had been paid his wages as per

law till the date of his disengagement. The further case of

the party No.1 is that it did not maintain any record with

respect to the employment of the workman, since he was

never in its employment and it had a policy decision not to

engage any casual labour and it had been duly registered

with the Assistant Labour Commissioner as a principle

employer and had obtained a license to that effect on

13.11.1990 and subsequently on 25.05.1999 and annual

returns in form XXV, in respect to the contractors engaged

by it is regularly submitted to the ALC (Central) II, Nagpur

and the ALC during his visit on 17.03.1990 and on

15.04.1999, under the provisions of contract Labour (R &

A) Act, found that no casual labour was engaged by it and

the work diary produced by the workman was prepared by

him and the same was neither certified nor signed by any

competent authority and the signatures on the said work

diary were not by competent authority vested with

managerial and administrative power.

The further case of the party No.1 is that the workman

was never appointed by it on daily wages on the post of

labour and he is not a workman within the meaning of the

Act and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that the

alleged certificate issued by Atul Engineering is a false

document and Atul Engineering issued the false certificate

in collusion with party No.1.

5. In support of his claim, the workman has examined

himself as a witness, besides placing reliance of

documentary evidence. The examination-in-chief of the

workman is on affidavit. The workman in his evidence has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

The workman has proved the daily work diary maintained

by him as Ext. W-II.

In his cross-examination, the workman has stated

that no appointment letter was issued by the management

in his favour and he had not registered his name in the

Employment Exchange and he had not received any letter

from BSNL to appear in any interview and the daily work

diary, Ext. W-II has been signed by cable jointer

Shri G.B. Yadav. He has denied the suggestion that he was

engaged by the contractor, Atul Engineering for laying

cable. He has also admitted that he did not receive any

termination order.

6. One Shri Mahadeo Urkuda Gadpaly, A.G.M.

(Administration) has been examined as a witness on behalf

of the party No.1. In his examination-in-chief, which is also

on affidavit, the witness for party No.1 has reiterated the

facts mentioned in the written statement.

In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that

he has no personal knowledge about the place of

engagement of the workman from September, 1996 to

August,2000 and in the application dated 25.11.2000, the

workman had claimed to have worked for 1372 days from

September,1996 to August,2000 and the same was certified

to be true by the S.D.E. Cables, Gondia.

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

learned advocate for the workman that the workman was

appointed on daily wages on 01.09.1996 by party No.1 as a

labourer for doing the departmental work of maintenance

and repair of old cables under SDE, cables, Gondia and the

workman worked under the immediate supervision of the

cable jointers and over all supervision of the SDE, Gondia

and he was maintaining the daily work dairy, which was

counter signed by the cable jointers and wages was being

paid to the workman under ACG-17 form and on 30.08.2000,

the services of the workman was terminated, in violation of

the provisions of section 25-F of the Act and as such, the

order of termination is illegal and the workman was never

engaged by any contractor and from the evidence on record,

it is clear that to avoid its responsibility, party No.1 took a

false plea of engagement of the workman by the contractor

and party No.1 failed to produce the ACG-17 forms, inspite

of the direction of the ALC during conciliation and the

documents produced by the management have been

manufactured with collusion with M/s. Atul Engineering

and the workman had worked for 120 days, 351 days, 332

days, 332 days and 244 days in the years, 1996, 1997, 1998,

1999 and 2000 respectively and as the order of termination

of the services of the workman is illegal, he is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3167

In support of the contentions, the learned advocate

for the workman placed reliance on the decisions reported

in 2011 III CLR-748 (HNL, Casual & contract vs. Union of

India), 2011 (128) FLR-723 (MP) and 2014 (1) Mh. L. J.-

151(Chief Administrator, Housing Board Haryana vs. Dewan

Chand).

8. Per contra, it was argued by the learned advocate

for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed

on daily wages basis on the post of labour by party no.1

and as the workman was never in the employment of party

no.1, the question of his termination does not arise at all

and party no.1 had issued contract to Atul Engineering for

laying underground cable and the said contractor had

engaged the present workman and four other workers for

executing the contract work awarded to them and after

completion of the work, the workman was not engaged by

the said contractor any more and there was no master and

servant relationship between party no.1 and the workman

and from the evidence on record including the documents

filed by the party no.1, it is clear that the workman was

engaged by Atul Engineering and he was never appointed

by party no.1 and as such, the workman is not entitled to

any relief.

9. In view of the stands taken by the parties, the first

point for consideration is as to whether the workman was

engaged as a labour on daily wages by the party no.1 or he

was a contract labour as claimed by party no.1.

Perused the record including the pleadings of the

parties and evidence produced by them, both oral and

documentary. Admittedly, all the documents filed by the

party no.1 regarding giving of contracts to Atul Engineering

relate to the year 1999. The workman has claimed that he

was maintaining the daily work diary and the same was

being counter singed by the cable jointers, who were the

permanent employee of the party no.1. Party no.1 in the

written statement in para 15 has stated that the work diary

produced by the workman was prepared by him and the

same was not certified or signed by any competent

authority. The said pleading shows that party no.1 has not

denied about the maintenance of the daily work diary by

the workman and about counter signature of the same by

the cable jointers. It is clear from the daily work diary (Ext.

W-II), The statement of Shri M. N. Meshram, the S.D.O.,

Telecom before the A.L.C. (Ext. M-I), Exts M-III to XXVI,

the A.C.G. forms under which wages was being paid to the

workman) and other evidence on record including the

admission of the witness of the party no.1 that the workman

was engaged by the Telecom department prior to the giving

of work to M/s. Atul Engineering as a labour on daily wages

and he was not engaged by the contractor.

It is clear from the evidence on record including the

daily work diary that the workman had completed 240 days

of work in the preceding 12 calendar months of the date of

his termination i.e. 30.08.2000 and the termination of the

services of the workman was done, without compliance of

mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. So, the

termination of the services of the workman on 30.08.2000 is

illegal.

10. The next question for consideration is as to what

relief or reliefs the workman is entitled to. Admittedly the

engagement of the workman was on daily wages basis.

Such engagement was not done in accordance with the

Recruitment Rules of party no.1. It is clear from the materials

on record that the workman was engaged for the period

from 01.09.1996 till 30.08.2000 on daily wages basis and

such engagement was made about 13 years back.

At this juncture, I think it apropos to mention about

the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard, as

reported in 2010 (8) SCALE-583 (Incharge Officer another

Vs. Shankar Shetty), (2013) 5 SCC-136 (Asstt. Engineer,

Rajasthan Development Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh) and

2014 (1) Mh. L. J.-151 (Supra), on which reliance has been

placed by the learned advocate for the workman.

In the decision reported in 2010(8) SCALE-583

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“It is true that the earlier view of this court articulated

in many decisions reflected the legal position that if

the termination of an employee was found to be

illegal, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages

would ordinarily follow. However, in recent past there

has been a shift in the legal position and in a long

line of cases, this court has consistently taken the

view that relief by way 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 Hon’ble Apex Court have further held that:-

“Industrial Disputes Act 1947/Section 25F/Daily

wager / Termination of service in violation of Section

25(F)/ Award of monetary compensation in lieu of

reinstatement /Respondent was initially engaged as

daily wager by appellants in 1978/His engagement

continued for about 7 years intermittently up to

06.09.85/ Respondent raised industrial dispute

relating to his retrenchment alleging violation of

procedure prescribed in Sec. 25(F) of the Act/Labour

Court rejected respondents claim: holding that

Section 25(F) of the Act was not attracted since the

workman failed to prove that he had worked

continuously for 240 days in the calendar year

preceding his termination 06.09.85. On appeal, High

Court directed reinstatement of Respondent into

service holding that termination of respondent was

illegal—Whether an order of reinstatement will

automatically follow in a case where engagement of

3168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

a daily wager has been brought to an end in violation

of Section 25(F) of the Act—Allowing the appeal-

held :

A. The High Court erred in granting relief of

reinstatement to the respondent. The respondent

was engaged as daily wager in 1978 and his

engagement continued for about 7 year intermittently

up to September 6, 1985 i.e. about 25 years back. In

a case such as the present one it appears to us that

relief of reinstatement cannot be justified and instead

monetary compensation would meet the ends of

justice. In our considered opinion the compensation

of rupees one lakh (Rs. 1,00,000) in lieu of

reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and

equitable.”

11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported

in (2013) 5 SCC-136 (Supra) 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, on which reliance has been placed by the workman),

(2010) 3 SCC-192 (Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation) and (2010) 9 SCC-126 (Incharge

Officer Vs. Shankar Setty.)

The Hon’ble Apex Court 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 follow.

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 dialy 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 termination order

has been set aside and the delay in raising the dispute

before grant of relief in an industrial dispute.

12. In the decision reported in 2014 (1) Mh.L J-151

(Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that:-

“Industrial Disputes Act (14 of 1947), S. 25-F-

Respondent workman had put in more than 240 days

service in a year when his services came to be

terminated- Non- compliance of Section 25-F. Labour

Court awarded reinstatement with continuity of

service without backwages- Respondent workman

was out of service for a long period- Order passed

by Labour Court substituted by an award of

compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh.”

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 from

01.06.1996 to 30.11.2000. 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. 60,000 (Rupees sixty thousand only)

in lieu of reinstatement shall be appropriate, just and

equitable. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Telecom District

Manager, Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhandara (Mah) in

terminating the services of Shri Mohanlal Tulsiram Tawade

w.e.f. 30.08.2000 is illegal, improper & unjustified. The

workman is entitled for monetary compensation of

Rs. 60,000 (Rupees sixty 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. 60,000 ( Rupees sixty thousand only) to the workman,

Shri Mohanlal Tulsiram Tawade 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

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1217-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

uoksn; fo|ky;] iq.ks ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@ukxiqj@41@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@45@2008&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1217.—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/41/2009) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3169

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Dy.Director, Navodaya

Bidyalaya, Pune & Others and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/45/2008-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL,Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P.CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/41/2009

Date: 26.02.2014.

Party No. 1

The Dy. Director,

Navodaya Vidhyalaya Samittee,

Regional Office, 270,

Senapati Bapat Road,

MSFC Ltd., 2^nd Floor,

B-Wing Bhamburda

Pune-16.

The Principal, Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhyalaya, Navegaon Khari,

Tq. Parseoni, Nagpur.

Versus

Party No.2

Shri Satish S. Shende,

C/o. Sharda Dhore Lumbini Nagar,

Near Manchalwar House,

Mankapur, Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 26^th February, 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 Jawahar Navodays Vidhyalaya and their

workman, Shri Satish Shende, for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-42012/45/2008-IR (DU) dated 21.01.2010, with the

following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Jawahar

Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Nagpur in terminating the

services of their workman, Shri Satish Suryabhan

Shende w.e.f. 14.02.2006 is legal and justified? If not,

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

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

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Satish

Shende, (‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhyalaya, (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written

statement.

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that on the basis of the names

sponsored by the Employment Exchange and the

recommendations of the selection committee, he was

appointed as an electrician-cum-plumber by party no.1, in

the Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Khairi, Nagpur, by the

memorandum dated 07.02.1998 and he was in continuous

service of party no.1 from the date of his appointment till

10.10.2005 and on 10.10.2005, the Principal of the school in

most illegal and arbitrary manner and by keeping all the

provisions of law at bay did not allow him to come on duty

and threatened him of dire consequences, in case of his

entering the premises of the school and the Principal, Shri

Ramdeo joined the said post on 05.09.2005 and for the first

time in his entire service period, he was served with a

warning letter on the allegation that due to his negligence,

seventy fans of the hostel were not working, for which the

students were suffering from viral fever and malaria and

water was being wasted and he gave an oral explanation to

the same and by a memorandum dated 04.10.2005, the

Principal gave him a final warning, in which it was stated

that he (workman) was not doing his duties properly and

on 10.10.2005, he gave a detailed reply to the said warning

letter, denying all the allegations made against him and on

11.10.2005, when he went for duty, the principal did not

allow him to sign the muster roll without assigning any

reason and he was also restrained from attending his duty

without any valid reason, even though, he was neither

suspended nor terminated from services and virtually he

was driven out from the room allotted to him by the party

no.1 and all his belongings and property were locked inside

the said room and he was restrained from fetching his

belongings and the same are still locked inside the said

room.

The further case of the workman is that the party

no.1 deliberately used to give him written information to

join duty, but whenever, he went to join duty, the Principal

did not allow him to join, but on the contrary, he was being

threatened by the Principal of dire consequences and left

with no other alternative, he served a notice on party no.1

through his advocate to allow him to resume duty and to

sign the muster roll and to withdraw the warnings issued

against him unconditionally and even after service of the

notice, the party no.1 failed to take any action and the

height of illegality and arbitrariness on the party of party

no.1 can clearly be demonstrated from the fact that after all

the developments as mentioned above,the party no.1

terminated his services on 13.02.206 and he repeatedly

approached the authorities requesting them to take him on

the job, but all his efforts went futile and left with no

alternative, he approached the Labour Commissioner and

as his services were wrongfully terminated, he is entitled

for reinstatement in service with full back wages and to get

back his belongings.

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

pleaded inter-alia that the present reference as made by the

Government is untenable as there was no industrial dispute

3170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in existence and the workman was engaged on contractual

basis, by order dated 15.02.2005 and the contract agreement

was reduced into writing between the parties on 16.02.2005

and as per the contractual agreement, the workman was

engaged for a period of one year i.e. up to 15.02.2006 and

after the said contractual period coming to an end, the

same was not renewed and the dispute was raised before

the Asstt. Labour Commissioner and even though a failure

report was submitted by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner,

the Central Government rightly turned down to refer the

dispute vide their communication dated 09.07.2008 and the

reference was made by the Government in view of the order

passed by the Hon’ble High Court, in Writ Petition no.

4527/2008 on 13.11.2009 and there was no consideration of

the merit of the case by the Hon’ble High Court and as

existence of an industrial dispute was not there, the

reference is to be answered in negative.

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

was engaged on contractual basis as per the agreement

dated 16.02.2005 for a period of one year and he very well

knew that his contractual engagement would come to an

end on 15.02.2006 and as such, it cannot be said that there

was any termination of the service of the workman and the

conduct of the workman was not befitting to the contractual

engagement and he committed breach of contract agreement

and after Diwali vacation, i.e. 06.11.2005, the workman did

not discharge his contractual obligation under the

agreement dated 16.02.2005, however, he was permitted to

discharge his contractual obligation till the expiry of

contractual period on 15.02.2006, inspite of enough lapses

on his part and the contractual period having expired, there

is no course for the workman to seek any relief and the

reference has to be answered in the negative.

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 as per the document, Ext. W-II, he was

appointed on the post of Electrician-cum-Plumber on

contract basis for two years and in Ext. W-II, it was

mentioned that in case the conditions imposed in the said

appointment letter were acceptable to him, then only to

join the said post and accepting the conditions imposed in

Ext, W-II, he joined in service and submitted his joining

report on 16.02.1998 as per Ext. W-III and his contractual

appointment was extended for one year from 16.02.2000 to

15.02.2001 as per letter dated 14.03.2000, Ext. W-IV and his

contractual appointment was again extended for two years

from 16.02.2001 to 15.02.2003 as per the letter dated

04.03.2002, Ext. W-V. The workman has denied the

suggestion that his contractual appointment was not

extended after 15.02.2003, but he has admitted that he was

not filed any document to show that his contractual

appointment was extended from 15.02.2003.

The workman in his cross-examination has further

admitted that by order dated 15.02.2005, he was appointed

purely on contractual basis as electrician-cum-plumber from

16.02.2005 to 14.06.2006 and he accepted the appointment

order and executed a contract agreement with the school

and Exts. M-I and M-II are his appointment order dated

15.02.2005 and the contract agreement executed by him

respectively. The workman has also admitted that he has

not filed any document to show that from 16.02.2003, he

worked continuously till 10.10.2005. The workman has also

admitted that he did not lodge any complaint in writing to

the higher authority of the Principal regarding the threat

given by the Principal on 10.10.2005 or regarding

harassment meted out towards him and he has not filed the

warning letter dated 23.09.2005, the copy of his explanation,

the memorandum dated 04.10.2005 or his explanation dated

10.10.2005. The workman contradicting his own evidence

given in his affidavit has stated that he was driven out by

the Principal on 07.10.2005 and as per his affidavit, his

services were terminated on 13.02.2006 and he cannot assign

any reason as to why he submitted the application dated

29.11.2005, Ext. W-VIII to the Principal for payment of Salary

from 08.10.2005 till 29.11.2005, though according to him, he

was driven out from the school on 07.10.2005.

5. The witness for the party no.1 has also reiterated

the facts mentioned in the written statement, in his evidence

on affidavit. In his cross-examination, the witness for party

no.1 has admitted the suggestion that on 23.09.2005, a

warning was given to the workman by the Principal on

23.09.2005, as 70 fans of the hostel were not working. It

has been brought in the cross-examination of this witness

that 11.10.2005 was a day of vacation. This witness has

denied the suggestion that on 10.10.2005, the services of

the workman were terminated.

6. During the course of the argument, it was submitted

by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman

was in continuous service as an electrician-cum-plumber

in Jawahar Navodaya Vidhyalaya, Khairi, Nagpur form

07.02.1998 till 10.10.2005 and on 10.10.2005, the then Principal

of the school in a most illegal and arbitrary manner and

without following the mandatory provisions of the Act,

did not allow the workman to come on duty and threatened

him of dire consequences in case of his entering into the

premises of the school and Shri Ram Deo, who joined as

the Principal of the said school on 05.09.2005 started

harassing most of the staff and in particular the workman,

right from the date of joining and on 23.09.2005, the Principal

gave a warning to the workman alleging that due to the

negligence of the workman 70 fans of the hostel were not

in working condition, the girls were not getting proper water

supply and in some portions of the hostel water was being

wasted and on 04.10.2005, the Principal gave a final warning

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3171

to the workman by the memorandum dated 04.10.2005 on

the allegation that the workman was not following his

duties properly and on 10.10.2005, the workman gave a

detailed reply to the warning and on 11.10.2005, when the

workman came on duty, the principal did not allow him to

sign the muster roll and restrained him from doing his duties,

without assigning any reason and even though, there was

no termination order and the Principal of the school

deliberately used to give written intimation to the workman

to join duty, but whenever the workman went to join duty,

he was not allowed to join and instead, he was threatened

of dire consequences by the Principal and finding no

alternative, the workman sent a legal notice to party no.1 to

allow him to join duty and to withdraw the warnings

unconditionally, but party no.1 did not take any action in

the matter and on 13.02.2006, the party no.1 terminated the

services of the workman and such termination is absolutely

illegal and arbitrary and against the provisions laid down

by law and therefore, the workman is entitled for

reinstatement in service with full back wages.

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned

advocate for the party no.1 that the workman was engaged

on contractual basis vide order dated 15.02.2005 and the

contract agreement was reduced into writing on 16.02.2005

and the workman was engaged for a period of one year i.e.

up to 15.02.2006 and the contract was not renewed further

and the workman alongwith his family vacated the room

allotted to him and left the school premises with his

belongings after the end of the contractual period and it

cannot be said that there was any termination of the

services of the workman and it is clear from the evidence

on record and the admission of the workman in his cross-

examination that he had accepted the conditions imposed

in his appointment letter and thereafter joined the service

and the workman was appointed purely on contract basis,

for a period of one year only and since the contractual

agreement between the parties was only for a period of one

year, the workman was not permitted to work after

15.02.2006, since the contract came to an end and as such,

the workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention

that it is settled beyond doubt 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 on industrial disputes is limited to the points

specifically referred for its adjudication and matters

incidental thereto. So, except the question of the legality

of termination of the services of the workman, the other

issues raised by the workman cannot be considered.

9. On perusal of the materials on record including the

pleadings of the parties and the evidence, both oral and

documentary adduced by both the parties and taking into

consideration the submissions made by the Learned

Advocates for the parties, it is found that the appointment

of the workman by party no.1 was contractual appointment

for a specific period. From the document, Ext. W-II, it is

found that the workman was first appointed on 07.02.1998

as an Electrician-cum-Plumber on contract basis for two

years and his contractual appointment was extended from

16.02.2000 to 15.02.2001, vide Ext. W-IV and then from

16.02.2001 to 15.02.2003 as per office order, Ext. W-V. There

is no legal evidence on record to show that the contractual

appointment of the workman was extended after 15.02.2003

till 15.02.2005 and that the workman worked for the said

period with party no.1. It is also found from the evidence

on record that as per office order, Ext. M-I the workman

was again appointed on contract basis for the period from

16.02.2005 to 14.02.2006 and the workman entered into an

agreement as per Ext. M-II and joined duty on 16.02.2005.

The workman in his evidence has also admitted that his

appointment was on contract basis and he has not filed

any document in support of the allegation that he was

threatened by the Principal and that he was given warning

letter by the Principal on 23.09.2005 and he submitted his

explanation to the same.

10. The definition of “retrenchment” has been given

in section 2 (oo) of the Act. According to the said definition,

“retrenchment” means the termination by the employer of

the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever,

otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action but does not include.

(a)…….

(b)…….

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman

concerned on its expiry or of such contract being

terminated under a stipulation on that behalf

contained therein; or

(c)…….

In this case, the appointment of the workman was

purely on contract basis for the period from 16.02.2005 to

14.02.2006. Such appointment was not renewed by the

party no.1 further, so the appointment came to an end

automatically on the expiry of the contractual period of

appointment. So, the termination of the services of the

workman w.e.f. 14.02.2006 by party no.1 after the expiry of

the contract does not amount to retrenchment and these

was nothing wrong in the action of party no.1. Hence, it is

ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the management of Jawahar Navodaya

Vidhyalaya, Nagpur in terminating the services of their

workman, Shri Satish Suryabhan Shende w.e.f. 14.02.2006

is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

3172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 24 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1218-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lqi¯jVsa¯Mx

v£dvksykWftLV vk£d;ksykWftdy losZ vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds

lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V

vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je

U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@ukxiqj@10@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&03&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@09@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 24th March, 2014

S.O. 1218.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the In-

dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Gov-

ernment hereby publishes the award (I.D No. CGIT/NGP/

10/2011) 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 Superintending Archeologist, Ar-

chaeological Survey of India and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 24/03/2014.

[No. L-42012/09/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL,Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/10/2011

Date: 28.02.2014

Party No. 1

The Superintending Archeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India,

Prehistory Branch, Old High Court

Building, Civil Lines, Nagpur-440001.

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri Manohar, S/o Shri Mahadeorao

Wagh, R/o Satranjipura,

Behind Patidar Bhawan,

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated: 28th February, 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 Archaeological Survey of India and their

workman, Shri Manohar M. Wagh, for adjudication, as per

letter No. L-42012/09/2011-IR (DU) dated 09.05.2011, with

the following schedule:-

“Whether the action of the Superintendent

Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India,

Nagpur, in terminating the services of Shri Manohar

S/o Shri Mahadeorao Wagh w.e.f. 31.12.2009 is legal

and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

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

to file their respective statement of claim and written

statement and accordingly, the workman, Shri Manohar M.

Wagh , (‘the workman” in short), filed the statement of

claim and the management of Archaeological Survey of

India (“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

The case of the workman as mentioned in the

statement of claim is that he was appointed as a labourer

with the party no.1 on 05.12.2005 and he completed more

than 240 days continuous service with party no.1 and

therefore, acquired the status of a permanent employee,

but his services were illegally terminated w.e.f. 31.12.2009

orally, without compliance of the provisions of section 25-F

and 25-G of the Act and the party no.1 is an industry

carrying out systematic activities and even though he was

designated as a labourer, he was doing the work of a driver

and he was driving the commando jeep and the said post is

still vacant and he sent an approach notice on 06.01.2010

to the party no.1 requesting to reinstate him in service, but

without any effect and he also made request to make

payment of the difference of wages of the post of driver

and the labourer, for which he was entitled and he is

unemployed and he has no other source of income.

The workman has prayer for his reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

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

pleaded inter-alia that it is not a commercial organization

and the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it and all

the functions it performs require huge amount, which is

funded by the Union of India through Budget Allocation

of Central Government and all its activities require only

expenditure of huge amount for development and

maintenance of the historical monuments and entry fees

are charged only on the selected sites to regularize visitors

and to meet some part of the expenditure and the purpose

of entry fee is not to earn profit, but only to recover some

part of the expenditure incurred for maintenance of

monuments and it is performing some of the sovereign

functions of Government of India and in no way it can be

termed as a profit oriented organization and the eligible

employees are paid the non-productivity linked bonus

contrary to payment of productivity linked bonus by other

industries like the Railways etc and as it is not an industry,

on that ground itself, the reference is liable to be dismissed.

It is further, pleaded by the party no.1 that the

workman was engaged as a casual labourer and such

engagement was on the basis of the official requirements

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3173

and according to its need for some days and after work

was being over, he was being given rest/break and he was

again being called upon, when there was need for his

engagement for casual labour work and there is no

sanctioned post of worker in the Archeological Survey of

India, Pre-history branch, Nagpur and the workman was

not appointed as stated by him and as the workman was

not recruited through employment exchange and by

observing procedure of recruitment, his claim of having

worked for 240 days is of no substance and the appointment

order as mentioned by the workman is actually an official

sanction order and such order has been misconceived by

the workman as the appointment order and as there was no

appointment, the question of termination of the services of

the workman does not arise and on 31.12.2009, the workman

was given break, as there was no work available and the

vacant posts in Archaeological Survey of India are filled in

through a proper set of guidelines, which are strictly

adhered to by observing all the procedure of selection and

there was/is no question of reinstatement of the workman,

as his services were not terminated and he was given break,

as no work was available for him at that particular time and

as and when work will be available, the workman can be

called and given work and the workman was communicated

to collect his dues (Labour payment) till 31.12.2009 on many

occasions telephonically and by a registered A.D. letter

and the post of driver and mechanic in the Prehistory branch

are Group-C posts and since, there is complete ban on

engagement of casual worker for performing of duties of

Group-C post, vide OM dated 26.02.1990, the said workman

cannot be assigned the said work and any person, who

has been appointed without following due procedure of

selection and who is engaged as a casual labourer cannot

claim any relief, whatsoever, in view of the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of (Secretary, State of

Karnatak Vs. Uma Devi) reported in 2006 SCC (L&S)-753

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

4. In support of 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 claim. In his examination-in-chief, which is

on affidavit, the workman has reiterated the facts mentioned

in the statement of claim. In his cross-examination, the

workman has admitted that he was working as a driver in

Archaeological Survey of India and no appointment order

in writing was issued to him by party no.1 and his name

was not sponsored by the employment exchange for

appointment and there was no interview or examination for

his appointment.

5. One Nandini Bhattacharya Sahu, the

Superintending Archaeological, ASI, Nagpur has been

examined as the only witness on behalf of the party no.1.

The witness for the party no.1 in her evidence on

affidavit, has also reiterated the facts mentioned in the

written statement. In her cross-examination, this witness

has stated that the workman was not appointed, but he

was engaged on daily wages and he was engaged on

05.12.2005 for the first time and he was last engaged on

31.12.2009 and she cannot say if the workman worked for

more than 240 days from January, 2009 to December, 2009

and she cannot say if the workman was engaged

continuously from December, 2005 to December, 2009.

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

learned Advocate for the workman that the workman was

appointed on 05.12.2005 as a labourer, but he was doing

the work of a driver and his services were terminated on

31.12.2009 orally, without following the mandatory

provisions of section 25-F and 25-G of the Act and the

workman had worked for more than 240 days in each

calendar year including in the preceding 12 calendar months

of the date of termination of his services and the evidence

on records produced by the workman amply proves the

same and the party no.1 is an industry and as the

termination of the workman is illegal, he is entitled for

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

In support of such contentions, the Learned

Advocate for the workman placed reliance on the decisions

reported in (2000) 9 SCC-501 (State of U.P. Vs. Rajendra

Singh Butola), 1999 II LLJ-30 (Administrator, Municipal

Committee, Amloh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court

Patiala), 2011 III LLJ-1 (SC) (Devindar Singh Vs. Municipal

Council, Sanaur) 2009 III CLR-262 (Maharashtra S R T C

Vs. Casteribe Rajya P. Karmachari Sanghathan), 2010 (5)

Mh. L.J.-244 (Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer) and

2008 II CLR-301 (Maharashtra S.S.& H.S Education Vs.

Sanjay Krishnarao Shrungare).

7. Per contra, it was submitted by the Learned

Advocate for the party no.1 that the party no.1 is not an

industry and it is performing some of the sovereign

functions of Government of India and in any way, it can be

termed as a profit oriented organization and as such, the

provisions of the Act are not applicable to party no.1 and

therefore, the reference is not maintainable.

It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate

for the party no.1 that the workman was never appointed

as per the Rules of recruitment and he was engaged as a

casual worker as and when required and after the services

of the workman were utilized for casual work, he was given

break on 31.12.2009 and as there was no termination, there

was no question of compliance of the provisions of section

25-F of the Act or giving notice or payment of retrenchment

compensation and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs.

Uma Devi reported in 2006 SCC (L&S)-753, the workman is

not entitled to any relief.

3174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. The first issue raised by theLearned Advocate

for the party no.1 is that the party no.1 is not an industry

as defined under section 2(j) of the Act and consequently

the workman is not a workman as per the definition of

section 2(s) of the Act and therefore, the reference is not

maintainable and the workman was a daily paid casual

labour and he does not have any right to claim service in

Government department and as such, none of the

provisions, much less, section 25-F and section 25-G of the

Act are applicable and as the workman was a daily paid

casual labourer, there was no question of termination or

retrenchment of the workman and the workman is not

entitled to any relief.

8A. Perused the record including the evidence

adduced by the parties. So far the first contention raised

by the Learned Advocate for the party no.1 that party no.1

is not an industry is concerned, by taking into consideration

the pleadings of the parties and applying the principles

enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Bangalore Water Supply Vs. Rajappa, reported in 1978 LAB

IC-467, to the present case in hand, it is found that the

party no.1 is an industry and there is no force in the

contention raised by the Learned Advocate for the party

no.1 in that regard.

9. The next point raised by the learned advocate for

the party no.1 is that the workman was a casual worker and

he was engaged as and when required and in view of the

judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2006 SCC

(L&S)-753 (Supra), the workman is not entitled to any relief.

10. From the materials on record including the oral

evidence and documentary evidence, it is clear that the

workman was engaged on daily wages basis as a casual

worker and he worked as a driver with party no.1

continuously from 05.12.2005 to 31.12.2009 and he had

completed 240 days of work in the preceding 12 calendar

months of the date of his termination i.e. 31.12.2009.

It is clear from the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Courts in the decisions cited by the Learned

Advocate for the workman that a person engaged for doing

casual work is also governed by the provisions of the Act.

It is also settled beyond doubt that the source of

employment, the method of requirement, the terms and

conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum

of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all

relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman

within the meaning of section 2 (S) of the Act. It is also well

settled that the provisions contained in section 25-F of the

Act are mandatory and the termination of the service of the

workman, amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of

section 2 (oo) of the Act and the termination without giving

one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment

compensation is null and void and illegal.

So far the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported

in (2006) SCC (L&S)- 753 (Supra) is concerned, with respect,

I am view that the same is distinguishable as the question

of violation of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of

the Act was not at all under consideration before the

Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Umadevi. Hence, with

respect, I am of the view that the said decision has no

application to the present case at hand.

11. Now, the question remains for consideration is

as to what relief or reliefs, the workman is entitled. Placing

reliance on the decision reported in 2010 (5) Mh. L.J.-244

(Supra), it was submitted by the Learned Advocate for the

workman that the workman is entitled for reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages.

However, at this juncture, I think it necessary to

mentioned about the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in this regard in the decision reported in (2013)5

SCC-136 (Asstt. Engineer, Rajsthan Development

Corporation Vs. Gitam Singh).

12.The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported

in (2013) 5 SCC-136 (supra) after taking in to 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,

(2010) 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 follow.

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 dialy 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 05.12.2005. It is also found that he

continued as such till 31.12.2009, 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3175

justice. Taking into consideration the facts and

circumstance of the case, in my considered opinion,

the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement shall be

appropriate, just and equitable. Hence, it is ordered:-

ORDER

The action of the Superintendent Archaeologist,

Archaeological Survey of India, Nagpur, in terminating the

services of Shri Manohar S/o Shri Mahadeorao Wagh w.e.f.

31.12.2009 is illegal and unjustified. The workman is entitled

for monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty

thousand only) in lieu of reinstatement. He is not entitled

for any other relief. The party no.1 is directed to pay the

monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the workman

Shri Manohar S/o Shri Mahadeorao Wagh 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 percent

per annum.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1219-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSustj eækl VsyhiQksUl ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 480] 481] 483] 484@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&03&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@167@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@166@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@164@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

la- ,y&40012@163@96&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O. 1219.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D No. 480,

481, 483, 484/2001) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of the Chief General Manager,

Madras Telephones and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 28/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/167/96-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/166/96-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/164/96-IR(DU),

No. L-40012/163/96-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 10^th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

I.D. Nos. 480, 481, 483 and 484 of 2001

[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 Madras Telephones, Madras and their

workman]

BETWEEN

1. Sri G. Ganesh

1^st Party/1^st Petitioner

2. Sri D. Daniel

1^st Party/2^nd Petitioner

3. Sri R. Seethapathy

1^st Party/3^rd Petitioner

4. Sri R. Munirathinam

1^st Party/4^th Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager :

2^nd Party/Respondent

Madras Telephones

Madras-600010

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioners :

Sri J. Muthukumaran,

Advocate

For the 2^nd Party/Respondent : Sri R.T.S. Kannan,

Advocate

S.No.

I.D.No.

Reference

Name of the

Appearance

No.& Date

I Party S/Sri

II Party

for Workman for Respondent

480/2001

L-40012/167/96-

G. Ganesh

The Chief General

Sri J. Muthukumaran,

Sri RTS

IR(DU) dated

Manager, Madras

Advocate

Kannan,

04.02.1998

Telephones Madras-

Advocate

600010

481/2001

L-40012/166/96-

D. Danial

The Chief General

Sri J. Muthukumaran,

Sri RTS Kannan,

IR(DU) dated

Manager, Madras

Advocate

04.02.1998

Telephones

Madras-600010

483/2001

L-40012/164/96-

R.Seethapathy

The Chief General

Sri J. Muthukumaran,

Sri RTS Kannan,

IR (DU) dated

Manager, Madras

Advocate

04.02.1998

Telephones

Chennai-600010

484/2001

L-40012/163/96-

R. Munirathinam

The Chief General

Sri J. Muthukumaran,

Sri RTS

IR(DU) dated

Manager, Madras

Advocate

Kannan,

04.02.1998

Telephones

Advocate

Chennai-600010

3176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour & Em-

ployment vide the above order of references referred the

IDs mentioned above to the Industrial Tribunal, Madras

for adjudication. The IDs were numbered as ID 26/98, 27/

98, 29/98 and 30/98 respectively After this Tribunal was

established these IDs were transferred to this Court for

adjudication. On taking them on file ID 26/1998 was renum-

bered as ID 480/2001, ID 27/98 was renumbered as ID 481/

2001, ID 29/98 was renumbered as ID 483/2001 and ID 30/98

was renumbered as ID 484/2001 respectively.

2. The schedule mentioned in the orders of reference

in the above IDs are as under:

ID 480/2001

“Whether the action of the management of Madras

Telephones, Madras-10 in terminating the services

of Sri G. Ganesan, Casual Labour w.e.f. 14.04.1995 is

justified or not? If not justified to what relief he is

entitled?”

ID 481/2001

“Whether the action of the management of Madras

Telephones, Madras-10 in terminating the services

of Sri D. Danial, Casual Labour w.e.f. 14.04.1995 is

justified or not? If not justified to what relief he is

entitled?”

ID 483/2001

“Whether the action of the management of Madras

Telephones, Madras-10 in terminating the services

of Sri R. Seethapathy, Casual Labour w.e.f. 14.04.1995

is justified or not? If not justified to what relief he is

entitled?”

ID 484/2001

“Whether the action of the management of Madras

Telephones, Madras-10 in terminating the services

of Sri R. Munirathinam, Casual Labour w.e.f.

14.04.1995 is justified or not? If not justified to what

relief he is entitled?”

3. The averments in the Claim Statement in ID 480/

2001 in brief are these:

The petitioner was employed as a Wash Boy in the

departmental canteen of the Respondent at Flower Bazar,

NSC Bose Road, Chennai in 1988. The Canteen is run

round the clock in three shifts and caters to the needs of

nearly 1500 employees in the Office of the Respondent.

There are 21 permanent employees and eight casual

labourers including the petitioner in the Canteen. Pursuant

to a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Respondent issued

an Office Memorandum dated 29.01.1992 stating that

employees of the non-statutory departmental / cooperative

canteen / tiffin rooms located in Central Government office

should be treated as Government Servants with effect from

01.10.1991. Casual labourers recruited prior to 30.03.1985

were regularized in terms of Casual Labourers (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989.

However, the Respondent issued a notice dated 15.03.1995

to the petitioner under Section-25(F) of the ID Act stating

that it is proposing to disengage the petitioner w.e.f.

14.04.1995 as there was no work in the Canteen.

Compensation equivalent to 15 days wages for every

completed year of continuous service or part thereof

was paid to the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged

this retrenchment notice before the Administrative Tribunal.

This was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner is to

approach the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Thereafter the petitioner has raised the dispute before the

Regional Labour Commissioner, Madras. Consequent to

the failure of the conciliation, the dispute has been referred

to this Tribunal. The reasons given in the retrenchment

notice for retrenchment of the petitioner are incorrect. It is

incorrect to state that there is no work in the Canteen. The

Respondent has been engaging workers on contract basis

for its day-to-day work. Persons from other Canteen units

have been transferred to the unit in which the petitioner

had worked also. Since the petitioner has been

continuously working since 1988, he is entitled to be treated

as permanent on completion of 480 days of continuous

work. An award may be passed holding that termination of

the petitioner from service is illegal and invalid and that he

is entitled to continuity of service with full back wages.

4.The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

It is incorrect to state that the Canteen was catering

to the needs of 1500 employees. Due to change in

technology, now there are only around 700 employees in

the concerned station. The work load of the Canteen has

reduced consequently. Only when there was exigency like

heavy absenteeism or specific extra works to be undertaken,

persons were engaged for short duration on payment from

Canteen proceeds on contract basis. The petitioner was

paid only from Canteen proceeds. Since he was not engaged

by the Respondent or was on its muster roll or was paid

from department funds, the petitioner could not be

considered as casual labourer of the department. It is denied

that the petitioner has completed 480 days of continuous

service. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

5. The Claim Statements in ID 481/2001, 483/2001

and 484/2001 are verbatim reproduction of the Claim

Statement filed in ID 480/2001. The only difference is that

the petitioners are different. All the petitioners were working

in the Canteen said to be run by the Respondent at the

premises of the Telephone Exchange at Flower Bazar, NSC

Bose Road, Chennai. The case of all the petitioners is that

8 persons including them were employed as Casual

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3177

Labourers and that they were working in the Canteen as

Wash Boys from 1988. All of them were disengaged by the

Respondent by retrenchment notice dated 15.03.1995. They

were all given compensation equivalent to 15 days wages

for every completed year of continuous service.

6. The case that is advanced by the Respondent in

all the IDs is that the petitioners are not casual labourers of

the Respondent since they were not paid by the department.

According to the Respondent, they were paid from the

Canteen funds and therefore there was no question of their

being treated as casual labourers of Respondent itself.

7. The four Claim Petitions have a chequered career.

Originally, IDs 483/2001 and 484/2001 were disposed by

this Tribunal directing to reinstate the petitioners with back

wages and other consequential benefits. In ID 480/2001

and ID 481/2001 the Tribunal had declined any relief to

the workmen on the ground that they have no legal right to

claim employment with the Respondent as they have never

been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence

to Article-14 and 16 of the constitution. The petitioners in

ID 480/2001 and ID 481/2001 had filed Writ Petitions

challenging the order of this Court declining to grant relief

to them. The Hon’ble High Court considered all these Writ

Petitions together and disposed them by a common order

dated 01.08.2012 restoring the IDs and directing this

Tribunal to dispose the four disputes in the light of the

settled legal principles.

8. The four IDs were tried separately. In ID 480/2001

the petitioner was examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 was

marked on his side. In ID 481/2001, the petitioner was

examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 was marked. In ID 483/2001,

the petitioner was examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 to

Ext.W16 were marked on his side. In ID 484/2001, the

petitioner was examined as WW1 and Ext.W1 to Ext.W10

were marked on his side. In none of the IDs the Respondent

has adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

9. The points for consideration in all these IDs are:

(i)

Whether the Respondent is justified in

terminating the service of the respective

petitioners?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the petitioners are

entitled?

10. Though trial of the four cases were conducted

separately, a common award is passed in the four cases

since the issue to be decided in all the cases are one and

the same. All the petitioners have claimed to have been

working in the Canteen run by the Respondent as casual

labourers for a long period. They have claimed that because

of such continuous service and their having completed

480 days of continuous work, they are entitled to have

permanent status as workman under the Respondent. So a

common order will suffice for all the IDs.

The Points

11. The petitioners in all the Claim Petitions have

contended that their termination from the service of the

Respondent is illegal and they are entitled to reinstatement

in service with continuity of service, back wages and other

benefits. All these petitioners had been working as Wash

Boys in the Canteen run at the premises of the Office of the

Respondent at Flower Bazar, NSC Bose Road, Chennai. As

seen from the Claim Statements all have started work in the

Canteen in the year 1988 as Casual Labourers. According

to them, the Casual Labourers recruited prior to 13.03.1985

were regularized in terms of Casual Labourers (Grant of

Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989.

However, the petitioners were given notice under Section-

25F of the Industrial Disputes Act on 15.03.1995 stating

that they are being disengaged from service from 14.04.1995.

According to them, the decision to retrench them, while

those persons who were working prior to 13.03.1985 were

regularized is not justified.

12. The Respondent has not disputed the claims of

the petitioners that they were working as casual labourers

in the Canteen. However, according to the Respondent,

the case of the petitioners that they were working under

the Respondent is not correct. According to the

Respondent, the petitioners were being paid from the

proceeds of the Canteen. They are not in the muster roll of

the Respondent and were not paid from departmental funds.

They could not be treated as casual labourers of the

Respondent also, for this reason.

13. All the petitioners have impliedly or directly

admitted in their cross-examination that they could not

have been working directly under the Respondent. Though,

the petitioner in ID 480/2001 has claimed that the

Respondent has been paying wages to him directly, he has

not produced any documents to show this. The petitioner

in ID 481/2001 also has not produced any document to

show payment of wages by the Respondent directly.

According to the petitioner in ID 483/2001, he was not

given any pay slip though he was made to sign the voucher.

He admitted that he was not given any appointment order.

This is the evidence given by the petitioner in ID 484/2001

also. Thus there is no evidence at all to show that the

petitioners were working under the Respondent directly, in

spite of the fact that they are working in the Canteen run

for the benefit of the employees of the Respondent in the

Office situated at Flower Bazar, NSC Bose Road.

14. In fact the High Court of Madras has decided the

status of the Canteen in which the petitioners were working,

in a case of similar nature and this finding has become final

also. A Casual Labourer employed in the Canteen had

approached the State Industrial Tribunal, Madras and had

obtained an order for reinstatement. This order was

challenged before the Hon’ble High Court and the Single

Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed

3178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the Respondent challenging the order. Against this, the

Respondent had filed Writ Appeal and this has been

considered by the Division Bench alongwith two other

similar Writ Appeals. On behalf of the petitioners the copy

of the order in the Writ Appeal as well as in the Writ Petition

are produced. The Division Bench has considered the

status of the Canteen in which the petitioners were working.

Referring to the precedents the High Court has observed

that the Canteen in question is not a statutory Canteen

and that the workers should produce materials to show

that there was obligation on the employer to provide a

Canteen and the Canteen service was part of the service

conditions of the employees and as such the Canteen

becomes part of the establishment consequent to which

the workers would become employees of the Management.

The High Court then observed that the workers have no

case that the Management was obliged to run a Canteen or

that providing a Canteen was part of the service conditions

of the employee. The Canteen was run in the premises of

the Office of the Respondent. Referring to this, the High

Court has observed that the fact that the Canteen was

located in the premises of the department would not convert

non-statutory Canteen into a statutory one. The High Court

has referred to the fact that the Management has taken the

contention that wages were paid only out of the proceeds

of the Canteen and that the workers have no case that

materials were provided only by the department, subsidy

was given to provide food at subsidized rate or that the

management exercised administrative, supervisory and

financial powers in the matter of conducting the Canteen.

The High Court further held that so long as it is not the

case of the workers that the Management was bound to

provide a Canteen either on account of statutory

compulsion or as part of service regulation, it cannot be

concluded that the employees have become part of the

establishment and should be treated as employees of

Madras Telephones i.e. the Respondent. On the basis of

the above finding, the award of the Tribunal confirmed in

the Writ Petition was set aside in the Writ Appeal.

15.It is clear from the order in the Writ Petition and

Appeal that the disputes were raised by other casual

workers engaged in the Canteen in question. The finding

in the Writ Appeal that the Canteen is not a statutory

Canteen, that there is no evidence to show that the

Respondent was under an obligation to run a Canteen and

that for this very reason the workers concerned are not

entitled to reinstatement ties the hands of the petitioners

in these disputes as well. The petitioners are not entitled to

the relief of reinstatement for this reason itself.

16.The counsel for the Respondent has referred to

the decision of the Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA

VS. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS reported in 2006 (2) MLJ

326 also in support of their case. The subject matter of the

above case was the claim of regularization of persons on

temporary employment. The Apex Court has held that the

persons who accept an engagement either temporary or

casual in nature is aware of the nature of the employment

and he accepts the employment with his eyes open. It was

further held that those who have been employed on daily

wages or temporarily or on contract basis have no

fundamental right to claim to be absorbed in service. They

cannot be said to be holders of a service, since a regular

appointment could be made only by making appointments

consistent with the requirements of Artcle-14 and 16 of the

Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other

employees employed on daily wages cannot be extended

to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly

employed. Since that would be treating un-equals as equals,

it was held. The Respondent has also referred to the

decision UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER VS.

ARULMOZHI INIARASU AND OTHERS reported in 2011

(7) SCC 397 in this respect. In this decision, the Apex Court

has reiterated the dictum laid down in UMA DEVI case

referred to above. The Apex Court has observed that in the

letter of appointment the concerned workers were told in

unambiguous terms that their appointments were temporary

and would not confer any right to claim any permanent

post in the department.

17.In the present case, none of the petitioners are

employees of the Respondent. They are only Casual

workers in the Canteen run for the benefit of employees of

the department. There is no evidence to show that they

were paid by the department. So the case that they were

paid out of the proceeds of the Canteen is to be accepted.

According to their own case, they are only casual labourers.

There is no case for them that a promise or an offer was

ever made to them that they would be regularized. The fact

that they were working in the Canteen for some years does

not entitle them to claim the status of permanent workers.

They are not entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service,

for the above reasons.

18.Though the relief claimed in the Claim Petitions is

continuity of service on setting aside the termination,

probably because of the awareness of the effect of the

decision in the Writ Appeal, the petitioners are asking for

a lesser relief only, in the written arguments submitted by

them. It is stated in their written argument that as directed

by the High Court in the Writ Petition filed against order

of State Tribunal, back wages were deposited by the

Respondent and the concerned workers was permitted to

withdraw 50% of the back wages immediately and that on

disposal of the Writ Appeal they were permitted to withdraw

balance 50% also and for this reason the petitioners who

are similarly placed employees are also entitled to the same

relief. This Tribunal is not in a position to grant even this

relief to the petitioners. The workers involved in the Writ

Appeal had the fortune to have the back wages deposited

before the Tribunal. The workers were allowed to withdraw

the balance 50% amount on their undertaking that they

would withdraw their claim for regularization. In the present

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3179

petitions, there was no direction for deposit. When there is

a finding that the petitioners are not entitled to reinstatement

or regularization there is no question of a direction to the

Respondent to pay back wages to them.

19. It is seen from the Claim Statement itself that

notice under Section-25F of the Act was issued to all the

petitioners before they were disengaged from work. All of

them were paid compensation equivalent to 15 days wages

for every completed year of continuous year, even as

admitted by the petitioners in their respective Claim

Statements. So they are not entitled to any amount towards

compensation also, they having already received the same.

None of the petitioners are entitled to any relief in the

circumstances. The points are found against the petitioners.

In view of my discussion above, all the references

are answered against the petitioners. Awards are 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 10^th March, 2014)

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witness Examined in ID 480/2001

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri G. Ganesh

For the 2^nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the side of the petitioner in ID 480/2001

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Certificate issued by the

Madras Telephones

Witness Examined in ID 481/2001

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri D. Daniel

For the 2^nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the side of the petitioner in ID 481/2001

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Certificate issued by the Madras

Telephones

Witness Examined in ID 483/2001

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri R.

Seethapathy

For the 2^nd Party/

None

Management

Documents Marked :

On the side of the petitioner in ID 483/2001

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Certificate issued by the Madras

Telephones

Ex.W2

Particular issued by the management

regarding the number of days the

petitioner had worked during the

years 1988

to 1993

Ex.W3

Letter from the petitioner to the

Regional Labour Commissioner

Ex.W4

18.01.1993

Sanction Memo issued by the

Madras Telephones

Ex.W5

23.02.1993

Internal Correspondence

Ex.W6

13.01.1994

Letter from the petitioner to the

management

Ex.W7

10.02.1994

Letter from the petitioner to the

Management

Ex.W8

15.03.1995

Order under Section-25F of the ID

Act 1941

Ex.W9

31.03.1995

Voucher issued by the Department

Canteen

Ex.W10

26.08.1996

Minutes of Joint Discussion and

Conciliation Proceedings

Ex.W11

25.04.1995

Order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal

Ex.W12

5/1996

Letter from the petitioner to the

Assistant Labour Commissioner ©

Ex.W13

24.06.1996

Letter from the Chairman TMX

Canteen to the Assistant Labour

Commissioner (C) II

Ex.W14

23.08.1996

Letter to the Registrar (Through)

RLC Central

Ex.W15

22.05.2000

Award in No. 69/99 Hon’ble

Tribunal held that his termination is

illegal and not justified and that he

is entitled to be reinstated in service

with back wages and continuity of

service

Ex.W16

23.02.2006

Order in WP No. 858/2002 set aside

the ex-parte orders in the ID No. 484/

2001

Witness Examined in ID 484/2001

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri R.

Munirathinam

For the 2^nd Party/

None

Management

3180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Documents Marked :

On the side of the petitioner in ID 484/2001

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

Certificate issued by the Madras

Telephones

Ex.W2

Letter from the petitioner to the

Regional Commissioner of Labour

Ex.W3

13.01.1994

Letter from the petitioner to the

management

Ex.W4

15.03.1995

Order proposing the disengagement

of the petitioner

Ex.W5

25.04.1995

Order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal

Ex.W6

28.06.1996

Minutes of joint discussion

between the management and the

workmen

Ex.W7.

23.08.1996

Letter from the management to the

Registrar through the Regional

Commissioner of Labour

Ex.W8

26.08.1996

Minutes of joint discussion

Ex.W9

22.05.2000

Award in No. 69/99 Hon’ble

Tribunal held that his termination is

illegal and not justified and that he

is entitled to be reinstated in service

with back wages and continuity in

service

Ex.W10 23.02.2006

Order in WP No. 858/2002 set aside

the ex-parte orders in the ID No. 483/

2001.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 ekpZ] 2014

dk-vk- 1220-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

lqi¯jVsaMsUV vkWiQ iksLV vkWfiQfll] fMikVZeSaV vkWiQ iksLV] ¯MMhxqy

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

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

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2011)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&03&2014 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@89@2010&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st March, 2014

S.O. 1220.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 29/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Department of Post, Dindigul and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 28/03/2014.

[No. L-40012/89/2010-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 20^th March, 2014

Present : K.P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 29/2011

(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 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices and

their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri M. Muruganandam

: 1^st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Senior Superintendent

: 2^nd Party/Respondent

of Post Offices Department

of Post Dindigul Division

Dindigul-624001

Appearance:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

M/s R. Malaichamy and

C. Premkumar, Advocates

For the 2^nd Party/

Sri B. Sekar, Advocate

Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-40012/89/2010-IR (DU)

dated 28.03.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the Management of Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul in

terminating the service of their workman Sri M.

Muruganandam vide Office Memo dated 19.07.2006

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 29/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and have filed their claim and counter statement

respectively.

3. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner is

seen to have filed Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3181

as early as in November 2012. However, the petitioner has

not been making himself available for cross-examination.

He was repeatedly absent from Court in spite of direction.

No material is available before this Court to substantiate

the case of the petitioner. So the petitioner 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, cor-

rected and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 20th March, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner

None

For the 2^nd 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.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1221-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

37@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&04&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@105@2012&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1221.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL,

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/4/2014.

[F. No. L-20012/105/2012-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)( d) of the I.D.Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 37 OF 2013

PARTIES

The Gen.Secretary,

Koyla Ispat Mazdoor Panchayat,

Chatabad, Katras, Dhanbad

Vs.

The General Manager,

Govindpur Area of

M/s. BCCL Sonardih, Dhanbad

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the

Mr. B. B. Pandey,

workman /Union

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Management

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th Feb., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/

105/2012-IR(CM-I) dt. 11.2.2013

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of East

Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Shri Singeshwar Bhuiya from the services of the

Company from 11/12.6.2001 is fair and justified? To

what relief is the concened workman entitled to?

2. Workman Singeshwar Bhuiya, General Secretary,

Arjun Singh of the sponsoring Union KIMP, and his

Learned Advocate Mr. B. B. Pandey for the Union

Representative as well as Mr. D.K. Verma, the Learned

Advocate for the O.P./Management present with his

authority in this case. By filing the settlement petition in

four copies under the signatures of Messrs. P. R. Sengupta

and R. Mallick, Sr.Manager (Personnel), Govindpur Area

dt. 22.2.2014 and of workman Singheshwar Bhuiya, Sri Arjun

Singh, the General Secretary of the Union as well as duly

singed by Mr. D.K.Verma,and Mr. B.B. Pandey, the Ld.

Advocates for the respective parties today, it has been

submitted that both the parties have amicably settled the

Industrial dispute related to an issue about the dismissal

3182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the workman under adjudication as per the terms and

conditions of the said petition before the Lok Adalat.

Let an Award be passed in the terms and conditions

of the compromise petition filed on behalf of both the parties,

forming it an integral part of it which shall be binding upon

both the parties. Thus the case is accordingly disposed of.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Settlement Petition

Before

The Presiding Officer, CGIT No.II, Dhanbad.

Ref. Case No. 37/2013

Employer in relation to the Management of Govindpur

Area III of M/s BCCL and their workmen

The humble petition for compromise through Lok Adalat .

Most respectfully shewth:-

The both the parties are agreed to settle the dispute

through Lok Adalat as per term settlement arrived between

both parties in Form H.

The workman concerned Sri Singeshwar Bhuia, was

dismissed from services for commission of misconduct

under clause 26.11.1. of C.S.O. w.e.f. 11/12.06.2001.The

Union raised I..D.The Ministry referred the dispute to CGIT

NO. 2, Dhanbad with following terms of reference “Whether

the action of the Management of East Katras Colliery of

M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Singheshwar Bhuia from the

service from 11/12.06.2001 is fair and justify? To what relief

is concerned workman entitled.

On the view to above the management of BCCL has

decided that Sri Singeshwar Bhuia,Ex-Minor Loader,

P. No. 02938397 of New Akashkinaree Colliery is hereby

accepted in fresh appointment as UG Baldi worker with

designation as Mazdoor Cat.1 (Initial Basic),.subject to

fulfillment of following terms and conditions:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. The workman shall abide the Coal Mines Pension

Scheme 1998 and contribution thereof as applicable.

2. For the purpose of payment of Gratuity, the date

of joining duty after the approval shall be treated as the

date of appointment.

3. The confirmation as permanent employees shall

be subject to their performance and completion of 190 days

attendance in Underground.

It is therefore prayed that your honor may kindly

pass settlement Award.

On behalf of the

Management

workman

Sd/-

Sengupta, Chief Manager (P)/ Sri Singeshwar Bhuia,

APM Govindpur Area

Ex.Minor Loader, New

Akashinaree Colliery

Sd/-

Sri R. Mallick, Sr. Manager

Sri Arjun Singh,

(Pers), Govindpur Area

General Secretary, KIMP

Countersigned by

Sd/-

Mr. D. K. Verma and B.B.Pandey, Respective Ld. Advocates

dt. 24.2.2014

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1222-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

71@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&04&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@35@2006&vkbZvkj (lh,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1222.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/4/2014.

[No. L-20012/35/2006-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. 71 of 2006

Employers in relation to the management of Barora Area

of M/s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their workmen.

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding officer

Appearances:

For the Employers

: None

For the workman

: Sri S.C. Gour, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated 18-2-2014

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3183

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/35/2006-IR(CM-I), dated

10/28.07.2006, 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

“ Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Colliery

Mazdoor Congress from the management of BCCL ,

Barora Area-I that Sh. Rajendra Beldar be promoted

to grade ‘B” w.e.f. 01.01.95 and to Gr. “A” w.e.f.

01.01.98 justified? If so to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 25.08.2006. After notice both parties appeared, the

Sponsoring Union files their written statement on

28.03.2008. Thereafter the management files their written

statement-cum-rejoinder on 01.09.2010 short point to be

decided. In the case as to whether promotion as claimed by

the workman is proper or not.

3. The workman concerned promoted in excavation

category “C” on 01.04.1989 and to Cat. B on 10.10.2000,

whereas junior of the workmen Sahadeo Paswan and

Kishore Saw were promoted to Cat. B on 29.10.1997. so

also consequently, the promotion of workman was delayed

from Category B to A category. No reason what so ever

shown except flat denial in their written statement.

Subsequently the management representative did not

contest the case and the same was unattended, though the

date of posting of the case was known to the management.

4. Hence Considering the unchallenged evidence

and documents. It is ordered the management to give

promotion to the workman concerned to category B from

29.10.1997 and to category A on 08.10.2000 , and prepare

seniority keeping the workman Sri Rejendra Beldar above

his juniors without giving any monetary benefits. The claim

of the workman is allowed in part.

This is my Award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1223-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ-ch-ih- da-

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

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

92@1998) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&04&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@34@1997&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1223.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 92/1998)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. I.B.P.

Co. Ltd., and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 2/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/34/1997-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, ROOM NO. 33,

BLOCK- A, GROUND FLOOR, KARKARDOOMA

COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI-110 032

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 92/1998

Sh. Chatter Pal

Versus

I.B.P. Company Limited.

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No L-30012/34/97-IR (C-I) dated 2/3/98

referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for

the adjudication:-

“Whether the termination of the management of I.B.P.

Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh. Chatter

Pal, Sweeper, w.e.f. 7.12.95 is justified, legal and fair?”

If not, to what relief the workman entitled?

On 02.04.98 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 92/98 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. Wherein he stated as follows:-

l. That the workman was employed by the

management as Sweeper on 9.5.87 on temporary basis and

last drawn salary is Rs. 1983 Rs. One thousand nine hundred

eighty three only) excluding the other benefits applicable

to the workman as per law and practice of the management.

2. That the workman had been discharging his duty

with full sincerity and efficiency and had not been charge

sheeted , issued any show cause notice by the management

on its subordinate during course of this employment.

3184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. That even after the repeated requests and demands

from the workman, the management had not confirmed the

service of the workman after completion of statutory period

as permanent employee whereupon the workman sent

written request letters through registered acknowledgement

bearing receipt No. 1795 of 10.9.1990, 0522 and 891, to

various authority of the management with regard to the

confirmation of his service but in vain.

4. That the management had illegally and arbitrarily

terminated the workman from his service on 7.12.1995 and

has also withheld the salary from, Oct. 1995 to 7th 1995 .

5. That the workman had constrained to sent a legal/

demand notice bearing reference No.I-188/95 on 13.12.1995

by registered acknowledgment and UPC which was duly

received and false and fabricated reply dated January,

10,1996 was sent by the management. Whereupon the

workman had filed his claim before 15, Raj Pur Road, Delhi

the case was filed before’ Sh. B.S. Aneja, Asst. Labour

Commissioner, Karam Pura, New Delhi in the month of Jan.,

and the same was withdrawn on 9.5.1996 to file in the proper

court. Hence his claim.

6. That the workman who held worked with the

management about 10 years has now became unemployed

and totally dependent on his relative and friends for his

survival and survival of his family. This unfortunate has

not fallen on the family of the workman due to the natural

calamity but, it has fallen by the negligence, arbitrary,

irresponsible, malafide and illegal act of the authority of

the management which is within the perview of the unfair

labour practices which is punishable under section 45 of

Industrial dispute Act, 1947.

It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Court/tribunal may be pleased to pass an award

directing the opposite party/management to reinstate the

workman on his post with confirmation and full back wages,

other allowance etc with continuity of his service from the

date of illegal termination with cost or pass any other

suitable order against the management and in favour of the

workman.

Against claim statement management filed following

written statement:-

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION

That there has never been any employer-employee

relationship between the Management and the Application.

The services of the Applicant were engaged by Mr. Hari

Singh, whose services were engaged by the Company on

contract from time to time to .perform sweeping and cleaning

jobs at the residence/transit flat of the Company.

Accordingly, the Applicant was never employed by the

company. Hence no employer-employee relationship exists

and as such, the present dispute is not maintainable.

Without prejudice to the above, the management’s

parawise reply to statement of claim is as under:

l. Contents of paragraph one of the statement of claim

are false and hence specifically denied. The applicant was

not employed by the management on any date much less

on 9^th May, 1987 as alleged. His services were engaged by

Mr. Hari Singh, Contractor who was responsible for

sweeping and cleaning at the residence of the transit flat of

the company. It is, however, admitted that Mr. Hari Singh

used to pay the Applicant an amount of Rs. 1,983 per month

during the currency of the contract, which was more than

the minimum wage stipulated by the Delhi Government for

such services.

2. Contents of paragraph two of the statement of

Claim are misconceived and hence specifically denied. As

there was no employer-employee relationship between the

management and the Applicant, there was no question of

issuing any charge-sheet or show-cause Notice or for the

management to take any action in the matter.

3. Contents of paragraph three of the statement of

Claim are misconceived and hence specifically denied. It is

reiterated that as there was no employer-employee

relationship, the question of confirming the services of the

Applicant in the employment of the Company could not

and did not arise. It is reiterated that his services were

Engaged by Mr. Hari Singh, Contractor, who was

responsible for the sweeping and cleaning at the residence

of the transit flat of the company. Hence the averments and

assertions as set out in the corresponding paragraph are

vehemently denied.

4. Contents of paragraph four of the statement of

Claim are misconceived and hence specifically denied. As

there was no employer -employee relationship, the question

of the services of the Application could not and did not

arise. His dispute, if any, is only maintainable against Mr.

Hari Singh, who had employed him and paid him his wage

from time to time. It may be mentioned that the procedure

for employing a person in the service of the company is

well settled and it is only after complying with the same

that it is possible to recruit a person. In the absence of any

relationship with the Company, the claim is not maintainable.

5. Contents of paragraph five of the statement of

claim are admitted that the Applicant got issued a legal/

demand notice dated 13th December, 1995. On receipt of

the same, the management duly replied to the same vide

their letter dated 10th January, 1996. Subsequently, the

Applicant raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant

Labour Commissioner, Karampura, New Delhi who was

pleased to dismiss the same for the reason that he did not

have the jurisdiction in the matter.

6. Contents of paragraph Six of the statement of Claim

are misconceived and hence specifically denied. It is

reiterated that as there was no employer-employee

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3185

relationship between the Company and the Applicant, there

was no question that the company could terminate the

services of the Applicant. What has been set out in the

corresponding paragraph six of the Statement of Claim is

specifically denied for want of knowledge. The Applicant

is put to strict proof of the same.

7. lt is, therefore, most respectfully submitted that

this Hon’ble Court/Tribunal be pleased to pass an Award

holding therein that the alleged claim filed by the applicant

is wholly misconceived and untenable.

Particularly as there was no employer-employee

relationship ever by and between the parties. Furthermore,

the nature of duties of a sweeper are not of a full time,

particularly in the case of the Transit flat, it is of a limited

duration.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid facts and

circumstances no relief can be claimed by the Applicant

against the management. In the event he has any grievance,

it could be directed only against his employer Mr. Hari

Singh who unfortunately has not been made a party in this

proceeding. Accordingly, an Award be passed and the

Reference answered.

Workman filed rejoinder wherein he stated as follows:-

Preliminary Objections:-

l. That the contents of the para and sub para begins

before para No. 1 of preliminary submission of reply of the

management are not admitted to be correct and hence are

denied vehemently. It is emphatically denied that the

applicant /workman has no employer and employee relation

with the management or he has been employed Mr. Hari

Singh the contractor of the company as alleged but not

admitted. As per the knowledge based on the information

verbally collected by the workman from the official staff of

the management Mr. Hari Singh appointed as contractor

by the management in the year 1990-91, whereas the

workman was employed by the management as sweeper

on 9.5.87 and has been drawing salary at about Rs. 1983/-

excluding the other benefits, no question of employment

of the workman within Hari Singh contractor as alleged has

been arisen and he contents of the claim are reinstated as

true and correct and the management be put to give strict

proof thereof.

l. That the contents of para No. 1 of the reply is

wrong and denied vehemently as the applicant was

employed by the management on 9.5.1987 . It is emphatically

denied that the workman was working with Hari Singh the

contractor as alleged but not admitted. The reply of the

above para may be read as the part of this para and is not

be repeated here for the sake of brevity. The management

deliberately failed to mention the dated of employment of

the workman to mislead the court. The only the rat of salary

is admitted.

2. That the contents of para 2 are emphatically denied

as the workman has the employee and employer relationship

with the management and the contents of para 2 of the

statement of claim be re-instated re-affirmed as correct.

And the management be put to give strict proof thereof.

The workman has already filed sufficient documentary

proofs.

3.That the contents of para 3 of the reply are wrong

and denied emphatically as the workman was employee of

the management from the date of appointment and he never

worked under Hari Singh and the contents of para 3 of the

claim is re-instated and re-affirmed as true and correct.

4.That the contents of para 4 of the reply are

emphatically denied as wrong and the reply of the above

paras may be read as a part of this para and he contents of

para 4 of statement of claim re-instated and re- affirmed as

correct.

5.That the contents of para 5 is admitted but it is

emphatically denied that the reply of the management is of

the demand notice of the workman is based on true facts of

the case. Hence the reply of the notice are false and denied.

6.That the contents of para 6 of the reply are wrong

and denied in the light of the reply of the above para and

the contents of the para 6 of the statement of claim re-

instated and re-affirmed as trued & correct.

Prayer clause of the reply are wrong and denied

emphatically and the prayer clause of the statement of claim

may be re-instated and re-affirmed as true and correct.

My Ld. predecessors has not framed any issue but proceed

to adjudicate the present reference on the basis of schedule

wherein questions of determination were as follows:-

“Whether the termination of the management of I.B.P.

Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh. Chatter

Pal, sweeper, w.e.f 7.12.95 is justified, legal and fair?”

If not, to what relief the workman entitled?

Workman in support of his case filled affidavit in his evi-

dence wherein he stated as follows:-

l.That I the above named deponent swear this affidavit

in name of the God and I say only truth and nothing but the

truth.

2.That I was employed by the management as

Sweeper on 09t5.1987 on temporary basis and my last drawn

salary is Rs. 1983/- (Rupees One Thousand Nine Hundred

Eighty Three only) excluding the other benefits applicable

to my post as per law and practice of the management.

3.That I had been discharging my duty with full

sincerity and efficiency and had not been chargesheeted,

issued any show cause notice by the management or its

subordinate during the course of my employment.

4.That even after the repeated requests and demands

from my side the management had not confirmed my service

after completion of statutory period as permanent

3186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employee whereon. I had sent written request letters

through registered acknowledgement bearing receipt No.

1795 of 10.9.1990, to the personal manager of the opposite

party with regard to the confirmation of my service but in

vain. The true photocopy of the representation dated

10.9.1990 is exhibited as W/W/1/1 and postal receipt of

registry to personal Manager with acknowledgement are

exhibited as W/W/1/2 and W/W/l/3 . I had also sent a letter

dated 1^st November, 1989 to the Regional Manager of

opposite party through registered post on 03.11.1989. The

true photocopy of the letter is exhibited as W/W/1/4 and

registry postal receipt as W /W /1/6.

5. That I had sent a representation dated 14.6.1994 to

the General Manager of Opposite party by hand and the

same was also sent through registered acknowledgement

on dated : 2.11.1994, to the officer concern of the opposite

party but no action was taken by the opposite party. The

true copy of the letter dated 14.6.1994 is exhibited as W/W/

1/7, and the postal receipt as W/W/1/8 and acknowledgment

as W/W/1/9.

6. That when the opposite party failed to consider

my several requests I was constrained to sent a

representation dated: 31.10.1995 to General Secretary of

S.C.S.T. I.B.P. Company Ltd. by hand which was duly

served. The same is exhibited as W/W/1/10 , and also a

representation to president of the same organization by

post on dated: 19.12.1995. The representation is exhibited

as W/W/1/12 and acknowledgment as W/W/l/13.

7. That on receipt of my representation the Under

Secretary Mr. V. K. Gauba , Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati

Bhawan, New Delhi had written two letters to Chairman

and General Manager of the opposite party on dated:

18.10.1995 and 17.11.1995 respectively. The true copy of

the letters are exhibited as W /W /1/14 and W /W /1/15. But

since the opposite party failed to consider my request letter

from Rashtrapati Bhawan , hence I had sent a legal/demand

notice through my representative on dated 13.12.1995. The

true Carbon copy of demand notice is exhibited as

W/W/1/16, and postal receipt as W/W/l/17.

8. That the opposite party’s reply to the demand

notice dated 10.01.1996 is false and vimsical. The said reply

is marked as x. The opposite party and alleged in its reply

that I was employed by Mr. Hari Singh , the contractor. It is

pertinent to mention here that Hari Singh was employed by

the opposite party as workman in year 1991 whereas you

have been doing my job with the management since

09.5.1987. The photocopy of the payment register

substantiate my averment which are marked A-l & A-6 and

I have worked till the date of illegal and arbitrary terminated.

Apart from the other documents already on record the

photocopy of salary registers are enclosed here as mark

A-7 to A-9.

9. That I further state that Smt. Punam Chopra who

was guest house Incharge and permanently working in

administration department of the opposite party had also

allowed allowance for my overtime period and signed on

the payment recommendation receipt on 12.9.1988 and

10.5.1988 the same are mark as A-10 and A-11.

That the opposite party had even sanctioned money

for purchasing an Umbrella and also a gas connection on

my request. The true copy of sanction letter of Umbrella is

exhibited as W/W/1/18, and true carbon copy of Gas

connection is exhibited as W /W /1/19.

10. That I was victimized by the opposite party by

confirming some of the employees namely Laxmi Prasad

Notiyal, Vijay Bahadur Yadav , Kulvir Bahadur , Narender

Singh Negi , Kishore Prasad Notiyal, Ashok Kumar, Vijay

who were working with me while my service was terminated

without a show cause notice by the management /opposite

party.

11. That the management has illegally and arbitrarily

terminated my service on 7.12.1995, and had also withheld

the salary from October, 1995 to 7th December, 1995.

12.That I had filed a claim before Conciliation officer

where the opposite party failed to settle the matter amicably

hence he said officer requested the appropriate authority

for reference of the matter before this Hon’ble Tribunal for

adjudication.

That my claim and relief is correct. I am not deposing

falsely.

Management in support of his case filled affidavit in his

evidence. Wherein She stated as follows:-

1. I am the Senior Manager (P&IR) with the Manage-

ment Company. I am conversant with the facts and circum-

stances of the case as also I have full knowledge of the

case and am therefore competent to affirm and swear this

Affidavit.

2. I say that there has never been any employer-

employee relationship between the Management and the

claimant. The services of the claimant were engaged by

Mr. Hari Singh, Contractor, whose services were engaged

by the Company on Contract from time to time to perform

sweeping and cleaning jobs at the Transit flat/residence of

the Company. Accordingly, the Claimant was never

employed by the Company and there was no employer-

employee relationship whatsoever by and between the

parties.

3. I state that the Contractor Mr. Hari Singh used to

pay the claimant an amount of Rs. 1983/- per month during

the currency of the contract which was more than the

minimum wage stipulated by the Delhi Government for such

services. I the absence of any employer-employee

relationship the question of either employing the services

of the Claimant and/or terminate his services cannot and

does not arise. His dispute, if any is only maintainable

against Mr. Hari Singh, who had employed him and had

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3187

paid him his wages from time to time. I state that the

procedure for employing a person in the service of the

company is well settled and it is only after complying with

the same that it is possible to recruit a person in our services.

4. I state that in the present facts and circumstances

the services of Mr. Chattar Pal were never ever engaged

and/or employed by the management of M/s IBP Company

Ltd. The mere production of some papers to show alleged

employment relationship are wholly inadequate under the

law. Furthermore, being a Public Sector undertaking it is

impossible for the Company to indulge in any unfair labour

practice and/or to violate labour laws in any manner

possible. Hence, it is not possible for the Company to

employ the claimant Mr. Chattar Pal and thereafter state on

oath before this Hon’ble Court that there has not been any

employer employee relationship.

5. I state that a person who is employed in the

services of our Company necessary is issued the following

statutory documents:-

(i)

Appointment Letter

(ii)

Company Identity Card

(iii)

Contribution to Employees Provident Fund

(iv)

Contribution to Employee’s State Insurance Scheme

(v)

Payment of Wages as per salary register

(vi)

Eligibility for payment of bonus.

The aforesaid are some basic Statutory requirements

whereby an employer employee relationship is established

by an individual with our Company viz IBP Co. Ltd. In the

absence of the aforesaid documents the assertion of the

claimant that he is an employee of the company is of no

avail.

6. I state that a Claimant had got issued a demand

notice dated December 13,1995. On receipt of the same, the

management duly replied to the same vide their letter dated

January 10,1996.

Subsequently, the Claimant raised an industrial

dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner,

Karampura, New Delhi who was pleased to dismiss the

same for the reason that he did not have the jurisdiction to

entertain the same.

7. I state that the workman had filed an Application

dated January 4, 2002 demanding production of documents

by the Management. In this regard I have already stated

that as regards Exhibit-WW1/l it is a fabrication of an alleged

representation dated September 10, 1990. He said letter

was never ever received by the Management. It appears to

be manufactured by the Claimant to make a plausible case

in his favour before this Hon’ble Court. In this regard, it is

necessary to place on record that there was no cause of

action for the Claimant to have sent the said letter for the

reason that there was no vacancy available for the post of

Safaikaramchari. The registry receipt and A.D. card in

support of the same that have been marked as Exhibits

WW-l/2 and WW-l/3 have been manipulated, since no such

letter was ever received by the management. In fact, at the

relevant time there was no designation of Personnel

Manager, IBP Company Ltd. at the Regional Office situated

at 18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. The alleged

Exhibits WW1/l -WW-l/2 and WW-l/3 are false, fabricated

and specifically repudiated.

8. I state that Exhibit WW-l/4 is the letter dated

November 1, 1989 allegedly issued to the Regional Manager

by the claimant. This letter too was not received by the

Management and is a fabrication. A perusal of the contents

of the letter would show that the claimant is trying to make

out a case that he was a full time sweeper, employed by the

company whereas he was not employed by the Company.

His services were availed off by the Caretaker who was

responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the Transit

Flat of the Company. Initially, Mr Surender Singh Negi was

the Caretaker and thereafter Mr. Kunwar Singh was so

responsible.

9. I state that the procedure for recruitment in the

services of the company is well laid down; all appointments

in the services of the Company are based on a valid letter

of appointment, most particularly as the company is a

Government of India Enterprise and that strict norms and

procedures are adhered to while employing any person in

the services of the company.

10. I state that the alleged letter and November 1,

1989, was not received by the company. It appears to be a

manipulation on the part of the Claimant to support his

fabrication. He has therefore manipulated the alleged

Registry Receipt and A.D Card. The A.D. Card has an alleged

signature on behalf of the Company which is clearly

unauthorized. At the relevant time in November 1989 Mr.

K.L. Ghildiyal was posted in the Dispatch section and that

his signature/initial do not tally with those on the said

document.

11. I state that Exhibit WW-l/7 is another fabricated

document. It was not received by the Company. It is

noteworthy that the management has a strong Trade Union

in existence in the Company and that all workmen are

members of the said Trade Union. Assuming, if the Claimant

was a workman of the Company, he would have

automatically been a member of the said Trade Union. The

said Trade Union fully safeguards the interests of all workers

employed in the company. In the present facts and

circumstances, had the workman concerned ever been an

employee of the company, he would necessarily have been

a member of the Trade Union, who would then espouse his

cause both before the Management as also before the

statutory authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 including this Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal.

3188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12. I that the alleged Registry Receipt and AD card

Exhibits WW-1/8 and WW-1/9 respectively are fabrications

and manipulations on the part of the Claimant, so as to

make out a plausible case before this Hon’ble Tribunal in

his favour. Further, Exhibit WW-1/10 is another fabrication.

It is specifically repudiated that the Company received the

said letter dated October 31,1995. The said letter appears

to have been manipulated with ulterior motives. I state that

no such letter was received by the management. Further,

the alleged rubber stamp on the letter appears to be a

manipulation most particularly as the claimant had access

to the establishment andthat Company’s such rubber stamp

is not kept under lock and key and/or retained by any

responsible Officer of the Company. In such circumstances,

it is always possible that he may have so manipulated the

alleged receipt of the said letter. On a careful perusal of the

record of the company, no such letter dated October 31,1995

was received from the claimant as alleged.

13. I state that Exhibit WW-1/11 is a letter addressed

to the All India SC/ST President I.B.P. Company Limited

Gillanders House, 8, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta . This

letter has not been endorsed or addressed to the company

but to the president of the All India SC/St Association.

Further, the Company has not received any enquiry

whatsoever from the said Association. This letter too

appears to have been deliberately drafted and filed before

the Hon’ble Court to facilitate the workman to make out a

plausible case in his favour. The existence of such letter

with the management is specifically denied and repudiated.

14. I state the Exhibit WW-l/15 is the letter dated

November 17, 1995 issued by Mr. V.K. Gauba, Under

Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Rashtrapati Bhavan, New

Delhi. The letter is addressed to Mr. S.K. Khosla, General

Manager, IBP Company Limited. This letter status that

Mr. V.K. Gauba had a telephonic conversation about

regularization of the services of Mr. Chattar Pal, Sweeper,

in IBP Co. Ltd. He has further stated that “from the enclosed

documents, it is self evident that Mr. Chattar Pal was and is

an employee of your company and, therefore, his services

are required to be regularized since the services of his

colleagues appointed even much later have been made

permanent.”

14. I state that the claimant has dishonestly,

deliberately and mischievously not filed a copy of the said

appointment letter dated October 7, 1988 . The Management

has filed the same before this Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal

which is Exhibit MW1/1. The letter dated October 7,1988

when received by the company was found to be a blatant

forgery and a criminal act of misconduct on the part of Mr.

Chattar Pal. The company then confronted the claimant

with a copy of the said letter and he admitted his guilt. The

criminal conduct of the Claimant is prima facie available, on

the record of this Hon’ble Tribunal. To facilitate this

Hon’ble Court eight other similar documents are being filed

being Exhibits MW1/2, MW1/3, MW 1/4, MW 1/5,

MW 1/6, MW 1/7, MW1/8 and MW 1/9 whereby this

Hon’ble Court would clearly appreciate that the claimant is

indulging in criminal misconduct.

16. I state that Exhibit WW-l/18 is allegedly written

by or on behalf of the Claimant wherein he has requested

being provided with an umbrella. This documents clearly

states that the said Rs. 130/- in cash be paid to Mr. Kunwar

Singh who was the then Caretaker.

17. I further state that Exhibit WW-1/19 is a letter

issued by the Company. It is addressed to M/s. Priya

Services wherein it is conveyed that Mr. Chattar Pal has

been allotted a gas connection against company’s quota.

It also mentions the address of Mr. Chattar Pal but is does

not state that he is an employee of the company. I state

that such letters are issued in routine by the company to

friends and well-wishers of the Company and is not a

documents that would establish an employer-employee

relationship in the eyes of law.

18. I state that the documents marked as A-1 to A-11

submitted by the claimant are not records of the company.

However, the said documents reflect the payment made by

the Contractor to the Claimant who rendered services to

the contractor.

19. I state that Mr. Chattar Pal the claimant in the

present proceedings was not an employee of the Company

rather was an employee of the Contractor who provided

the company services at the Transit flats/residence of the

Company. He is not eligible and for entitled to any relief

whatsoever against our company viz IBP Company Limited.

He was Partly cross-examined by Smt. Anita Saroha,

A/R for workman on 18.10.06.

His cross-examination is as follows:-

I have filed my affidavit alongwith the copies of

documents which are annexure to my affidavit. The fact

mentioned in my affidavit are true and correct as per record

pertaining to this case. Nothing has been concealed therein.

I have personal knowledge of this case and as such I am

conversant with the facts of this case. My affidavit Ex.

WW1/ A and copies of documents Ext. MW1/1 to MW1/9

be read in my evidence as part of my statement on behalf of

the management.

So far as I recollect the workman services were

engaged as sweeper through contractor Hari Singh in the

year 1987. The claimant Chattar Pal worked as sweeper in

the Guest House of the respondent company since 1987 till

1995 continuously. Vol. that the workman Chattar Pal was

not employee of the respondent company but he was

engaged to work as sweeper through contractor Hari Singh

and he has been working on contract basis as sweeper

during the year 1987 till 1995 continuously. Mr. Hari Singh

is looking after the guesthouse of the respondent company

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3189

on contract basis. He is not regular employee of the

respondent company. It is wrong to suggest that he is

regular employee of the respondent company. I do not

actually remember since when Mr. Hari Singh has been

looking after the guest houses on contractual basis. I have

not brought the relevant file pertaining to Hari Singh. Vol.

that he stated working as contractor for the management

during the year 1990 onward. Earlier Mr. Chattar Pal services

were engaged as contractor through Mr. Surinder Singh

Negi witness states so after going through her personal

file. It is incorrect to suggest that the management has

stated in its reply/written statement that Chattar Pal’s

services were engaged on contractual basis through Hari

Singh only, since 1987.

The wages/salary of the workman Chattar Pal was

being paid by the contractor previously his wages were

paid by Surinder Singh Negi during the period when he

acted as contractor and thereafter his wages were paid by

Hari Singh when contract was given to him to look after the

guest house. Record to the effect that wages were paid

through the said contractor is available with the

management and can be produced as and when required.

The respondent has not placed on record any document to

show that contractor look after the affairs of guest houses

of respondent company was given to the said persons

Mr. Negi and Hari Singh at the relevant record. The record

can be produced as and when directed. It is incorrect to

suggest that Surinder Singh Negi was the Supervisor of

the respondent company. It is incorrect to suggest that

Shri Surinder Singh is still employed with respondent

company and functioning as supervisor. Vol. He is working

as Drive way sales man at company’s Petrol Pump. It is

incorrect to suggest that wags were paid to the workman

Chattar Pal by the company. Vol. the same were paid by the

contractor. It is correct that Chattar Pal was allotted/given

a Gas Connection by the respondent company. It is also

correct that some small concessions in the form of providing

of Umbrella was given to the workman on humanitarian

grounds. It is incorrect to suggest that notice dated 13.12.95

was sent by the workman Chattar Pal through his counsel

and was duly received by respondent company. It is

incorrect that the reply to notice is dated 10.1.96 to the

notice Ex. WW1/16. It is incorrect to suggest that some of

the persons namely Laxmi Prasad Notiyal, Vijay Bahadur

Yadav who were engaged as sweeper or to perform other

petty job like Chattar Pal were regularized in the job. It is

incorrect to suggest that S/Shri Kulbir Bahadur, Narinder

Singh Negi and Kishori Prasad who were engaged as

sweeper have been regularized in service. (Court Q: all the

aforesaid persons have been regularized in the job of Helper

and are working at different places. Vol. they were never

employed as sweeper. It is wrong to suggest that initially

they were engaged in the quest house to perform the duties

and later on their services were regularized. It is correct

that Chattar Pal representations were not received. The

letter Ex. WW1/15 was received by the respondent

company. The reply is not available on record. The same

will be traced and placed on record if traced and required.

No order terminating the services of the workman was

required by the respondent company as he was not

employee of the respondent company. I do not know when

the services of the workman were dispensed with by the

contractor. Ex. Annexure A-1 to A-8 are not the documents

issue by an on behalf of the respondent company. The

said are photo copies of the documents received by the

contract.

Further cross-examination deferred.

He was further cross-examined by Smt. Anita Saroha,

A/R for the workman.

His further cross-examination is as follows:-

No Identity Card is issued to Chattar Pal. Vol. that

Identity Card is issued to permanent employees only as

per rules. Ex. WW1/1 was issued by the respondent. Vol.

this I.Card was issued to ascertain the identity of the

claimant for the safety and security of the senior officials

of the company. The gas connection has been

recommended to be issued to Chattar Pal as a matter of

welfare measure Vol. It is not issued on account of his

being employees. Wages were paid by attendance of

Chhatar Pal cannot be produced as the same was not

maintained by the company. The record pertaining to the

period w.e.f 9.5.87 till 7.12.95 is not available with the

respondent at present as the same has been weeded as

being old record for more than five to seven years. It is

wrong to suggest that the respondent management used

to supply shoes, umbrella and uniform to the claimant Vol.

that the said articles were supplied to the claimant by the

contract. There is no record in existence available with the

contractor or in existence or providing the said articles to

the claimant as the said articles were not supplied. The

question of maintaining such record does not arise. Services

of claimant were dispensed /terminated as he forged letter

purportedly issued by S.Monga, Regional P& A Manager

Ex. MW1/1.

Court Q. Did you issued any charge sheet to him.

Ans. Charge Sheet was not issued to claimant nor any

enquiry was conducted. Vol. it was not required as the

claimant was not employee of the respondent.

It is wrong to suggest that S/Shri Raja Ram Brij

Mohan Khushi Ram, Shamim were employed with

respondent alongwith the claimant. It is wrong to suggest

that all the above said employees except Chhatar Pal have

been regularized by the respondent. It is correct that Kul

Bahadur, Vijay Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Kishori Pd. Notyal,

Lakshmi Pd. Notyal, Kulbir Singh, Narender Singh have

been regularized. Because they were helpers in the catering

department and their nature of job was different from the

claimant. Here was not permanent vacancy of sweepers

3190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

with the respondent. Services of persons on sweeping were

obtained through contractors. It is correct that Prem Singh

was initially appointed as Sweeper has been regularized in

the year 1987. The Company is not supposed to clear the

dues of the claimant as he was not its employee. It is the

responsibility of the contractor. As per information of the

respondents all the dues of the claimant were cleared/paid

by the contractor. It is incorrect to suggest that I am

deposing falsely or that the claimant is not entitled to the

relief claimed.

Written submission on behalf of the management.

Wherein it stated as follows:-

1.That the present Industrial Dispute is pending

adjudication proceedings before this Hon’ble Tribunal am

dos at the stage of passing of final Award in the matter.

2.That the present Industrial Dispute was referred

by the Central Government to this Hon’ble Tribunal vide

Reference Order bearing No. L-30012/34/97(C-I) dated

March 24, 1998. The Terms of Reference of the said

Reference Order are as under:

“Whether the termination of the management of I.B.P. co.

Ltd. in terminating the services of She Chatter pal,

sweeper, w.e.f 7.12.95 is justified, legal and fair?” If not,

to what relief the workman entitled?

Subsequently to the Reference, the parties to the alleged

industrial dispute filed their respective pleadings before

this Hon’ble Tribunal. The case of the Claimant is that he

was employed by the answering Management as Sweeper

on May 9, 1987, on temporary basis and his last drawn

salary was Rs. 1, 983/- He further contended that despite

various requests from his end, the Management did not

confirm him in their services. He alleges that the

Management illegally and arbitrarily terminated his services

with effect from December 7, 1995 and also withheld his

salary for two months viz. October 1995 to December 7,

1995. The relief prayed for is reinstatement in service with

continuity and payment of full back-wages and other

allowances.

The Management, vide their Written Statement,

specifically repudiated that there ever exited any employer-

employee relationship between the parties and that the

claimant was employed by one Mr. Hari Singh, Contractor,

engaged to independently maintain the operations of the

Transit Guest house. Hence was a contractor with the

management and the Claimant was actually an employee of

the said Contractor and not in the employment of the

answering Management. Further, the Management also

contended that in the event the Claimant had any grievance,

the same could be directed only against his employer i.e.

Mr. Hari Singh, Contractor, who, unfortunately, was not

made a party by the Claimant in the present adjudication

proceedings. Accordingly, an Award be passed in favour

of the Management and that the Reference by answered.

3. That based upon the pleadings of the parties, this

Hon’ble Tribunal was pleased to frame Issues vide order

dated August 24, 1993, the same are as below:

(1) Whether the Claimant is a workman of the

Management viz. M/s. IBP Company Ltd.

(2) As per terms of reference.

4. That based upon the said Issues, the Claimant

produced himself as the sole witness in order to

substantiate his claim and filed his evidence by way of

Affidavit dated February 23, 1999. His cross-examination

was conducted on January 4, 2002. The claimant, in support

of his alleged employment, has relied upon an Identity

Card issued to him by the answering Management in

support of his contention that he was an employee of the

Management Company. He had also filed an alleged

Appointment Letter dated November 7, 1988, issued by

the management Company but during his cross-

examination, he denied the said documents, for the reason

that it was a forged document as has been proved in the

evidence of Ms. Poonam Chopra on behalf of the

management. As regards the other document filed by the

Claimant, they are merely photocopies and do not support

the case of the claimant that he was in the employment of

the answering management.

The Management produced Ms. Poonam Chopra,

Senior Manager (P& IR), as their witness on behalf of the

management . She filed her evidence by way of Affidavit

and has specifically denied any employer-employee

relationship between the Claimant and the Management.

She stated that the Management is a Public Sector

‘Undertaking (a wholly Central Government owned

company) who could not indulge in any unfair labour

practice and/or violate any labour laws and also could not

file a false affidavit on oath before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

The said witness explained that for a person to be employed

in their company, it is mandatory for the company -

Management to issue a standardized Appointment Letter,

besides to contribute to statutory Insurance Scheme; to

comply with provisions relating to the payment of Wages

Act-Salary Register and Eligibility for Payment of Bonus.

The witness, in her cross-examination, also denied the

various documents submitted by the claimant and

specifically stated that the same were forged and fabricated.

They were mere photocopies.

During her cross-examination recorded on January 18, 2006,

the witness clearly denied any employer-employee

relationship between the claimant and the Management.

She stated that he had been employed by Mr. Hari Singh ,

Contractor. She further clarified that prior to the claimant’s

services being engaged through the said Hari Singh,

contractor, he had been in the employment of Mr. Surender

Singh Negi who was also a contractor with the answering

management. The witness, during the cross-examination

conducted on October 18, 2006, clarified that the Identity

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3191

Card issued to the claimant was to ascertain his identity

and was not a Company Identity Card and further stated

that the same had been issued for the safety and security

of the senior officials of the Company visiting the Transit

Guest House by providing clarity of identity to the claimant.

5. That the claimant, during his cross-examination,

failed to produce any cogent evidence with regard to his

alleged employment with the management. In fact, the

claimant has only relied upon the alleged Identity Card

issued to him bearing signatures of a representative of the

Management. It is pertinent to state that merely issuance

of an Identity Card is not sufficient or conclusive to

establish the factum of proving employment as has been

held by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in

the case of Rampat Vs. Presiding officer, Industrial Tribunal-

Cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Another reported as 2013LLR,

Page 323. The Hon’ble High Court has held that only an

Identity Card is neither sufficient nor conclusive evidence

to determine the status of employer- employee relationship

in the absence of any proof of salary or wages having been

paid to the workman to prove employer-employee

relationship.

Further ,the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of

Anand Prakash Vs. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. reported as 2009

LLR 564 has held that the labour court was right in rejecting

a dispute of a Petitioner alleging wrongful termination in

case he has failed to support his claim by producing any

documentary evidence including the Appointment letter

whereas the Management has categorically rebutted

contention of the workman pertaining to his employment

with the management and also producing the record

showing that the workman was never employed by the

management.

6. That the claimant has filed to substantiate the

assertions and contentions raised by him vide his Statement

of Claim. In fact, it is the well settled principle of law and

that the burden of proof to prove a fact lies upon the person

alleging the said fact. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court,

in the case of Vinod Kumar II Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour

Court, Agra & Another reported as 2005 LLR 1229 has held

that while challenging the termination of services, it is for

the workman to prove, in the first instance, his employment,

and thereafter, wrongful termination. On his failure to do

so, he will not be entitled to any relief in a dispute before

the Labour Court. The Hon’ble Court has further held that

the burden of proof lies heavily on the workman who has

sought the reference of his dispute for adjudication before

the Labour Court as the burden of proof lies initially on the

party who raises the dispute, and at the instance of whom,

the industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication.

7. That even in the present matter the Claimant has

failed to produce any documentary evidence in the form of

an Appointment Letter and/or salary slips in support of his

alleged claim of employment with the management. The

salary slips are those of the Contractor and not those of

the management Company. In fact, all employees of the

Management Company are paid salary by direct remittance

to the respective Bank Account of the employee concerned.

8. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the

case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National

Union Water Front Workers & others reported as 2001

Lab. I.C. 3656 has held that it cannot be said that by virtue

of engagement of Contract Labour by the contractor in

any work of or in connection with the work of an

Establishment, the relationship of master and servant is

created between the Principal Employer and the contract

Labour. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that

even a combined reading of the definition of the term

‘Contract Labour’, ‘Establishment ‘and in an industry and

the owner of the industry is created irrespective of the fact

as to who has brought about such a relationship. The word

‘Workman’ is defined in wide terms and is a generic term of

which Contract Labour is a species.

The Hon’ble Supreme has further opined that it is

true that a combined reading of the terms ‘Establishment’

and ‘Workman’ shows that a workman engaged in an

Establishment would have direct relationship with the

Principal Employer as a servant or master, but what is true

of a workman could not be correct of Contract Labour.

When the provisions of the Act neither contemplate creation

of direct relationship of master and servant between the

Principal Employer and the Contract Labour nor can such

relationship be implied from the provisions of the CLRA

Act.

9. That in view of the specific pleadings of the Man-

agement as well as the failure on the part of the claimant to

prove his alleged claims, as also based upon the legal pre-

cedents cited hereinabove, the Claimant is neither entitled

nor eligible to any relief as sought by him in his Statement

of Claim.

It is, therefore, prayed before this Hon’ble Tribunal

that an Award may be passed in favour of the Management

and against the claimant holding that the claim as stated

vide the statement of claim is not maintainable as there

exists no employer-employee relationship between the

claimant and the management.

Ld. A/R for the workman filed written arguments.

Wherein she mentioned as follows:-

l. That the workman Sh. Chattar Pal the workman

concerned has challenged the validity of termination

against the management of M/s I.B.P. Co. Ltd and has raised

the dispute against the management, the said matter was

referred by the appropriate Government (Central) to this

Hon’ble Court for adjudication. The terms of reference are

as under:

3192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

“Whereas the action of the management of I.B.P. Co. Ltd.

in terminating the services of Sh. Chatter pal, sweeper, w.e.f

7.12.95 is justified, legal and fair?” If not, to what relief the

workman entitled?

2.That the workman has filed his claim statement

before the Hon’ble court and after received the notice the

management appeared and filed the written statement. That

on the basis of pleading the Hon’ble Court has framed the

issues on the basis of pleadings.

l.That after framing of the issues by the Hon’ble Court

the matter was fixed for workman evidence by way of

affidavit. The workman filed the evidence by way of

Affidavit along with relevant documents which are on

record as Ex WW1/1 to Ex. WW 1/19 and attendance sheet

A-1 to A-1 to A-9.

2.That the workman has lead his evidence by way of

Affidavit which is on record as Ex WW / A and the workman

relied upon the documents which are Ex WW1/1 to Ex

WW1/19 . The workman stated on the workman was

appointed by the management as an Sweeper w.e.f

09.05.1987 and last salary drawn @ Rs. 1983/- per month.

The work performance of the workman was quite

satisfactory and unblemished service record and has never

given any cause of complaint to the management rather

the management was satisfied with his work and conduct.

The relationship between the workman and the

management was exists as admitted by the workman during

the course of examination that the workman was employee

of the management since 1987 as per document EX WW 1/

14 (WW1/4) . The management witness Mrs. Poonam

Chopra admitted in cross examination. The claimant Chattar

Pal worked as Sweeper in the Guest House of the

respondent company since 1987 to till 1995 continuously.

3.During the course of cross examination of the

workman admitted that the workman was join the

management- since Sh. Hari Singh was not the contractor

of the management. No such cogent evidence and or

document were ever place on record by the management.

Even other wise the management witness admitted in cross

examination as ” I do not -actuallv remember since when

Hari Singh has been looking after the quest house on

contractual basis” When Mrs.Poonam Chopra being as

Senior Manager Marketing does not about the employees

working with the management. It is admitted by the

management witness that Sh. Chattar Pal was an employee

of the management but I donot reminder whether Sh. Hari

Singh was an employee of the management or not. It is also

admitted by the management witness as ” It is correct that

some concessions in the form of proving of umbrella was

given to the workman including the uniform and other basic

amenities. It means that the management providing the

legal facilities to the workman because if there was no

relationship then why the management has providing the

basic amenities as well as legal facilities to the workman.

The relationship exists between the management and its

employees.

4. It is submitted that on 07.12.1995 the management

without any cause and reason refused to join the duties of

the workman and there by his service was terminated by

the management on the same day i.e. 07.12.1995. The

workman also stated that the termination of the service of

the workman is totally illegal, unjustified and in operative

and such the same is void abinitio. At the time of the

termination of the workman the management had not paid

any terminal benefits to the workman. The management

clearly violated the provision of section 25 F of the I D Act

1947.

5. That it is submitted that the management also

adopted the unfair labour practice towards the workman

and the main intention in the mind of the management to

terminate the services of the workman in any circumstances.

The management also become success and achieve the

purpose to terminate the services of the workman on

07.12.1995 . The management without any cause or reasons

illegally and unjustifiably terminated the services of the

workman on 07.12.1995, at the time of illegal termination of

the workman the management had not paid any terminal

benefits to the workman nor the management complied

with section 25F of the ID. Act. The law is very much clear

on the point of non compliance of Section 25 F of the

Industrial Dispute Act- 1947 as the judgment was passed

by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that

“Section 25 F termination of workman without notice and

compensation the termination is in clear violation of

mandatory provisions of Section 25F . Improvement Trust

Amritsar Versus The presiding officer and another. 2006 [1]

SCT Page 25 [PHHC].

6. The law is very much clear in this point, when the

management alleges that the workman was never

appointment by the management whereas the workman

was appointed by the management as admitted by the

management witness in cross examination as “The Claimant

Chattar Pal worked as Sweeper in the Guest House of the

respondent company since 1987 to till 1995 continuously”

The management witness corroborated the statement of

the workman. The management has not given any

suggestion in this point as such the adverse inference

goes against the management. It is well established that

the workman was appointed by the management as

sweeper. It is submitted that the management no point of

time had sent any letter to the workman asking him to report

for duty. It is imperative to follows the rules of principles of

natural justice by giving opportunity and the principle of

natural justice had to be complied with. In the instance

case the management neither complied any provisions nor

complied the natural justice. The law is also very much

clear, when non payment of retrenchment compensation to

a workman will render the termination illegal. [Suraj Pal

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3193

Singh Versus The President Officer Labour Court no. III

2002 LLR Page 975 Delhi High Court.

The law is also very much clear in this point whenever

there is retrenchment even in cooperative Society the

provisions of the Act will be applicable i.e. non payment of

retrenchment compensation at the time of termination to

even an employee of cooperative Society will render the

termination illegal. [Executive Director, district Scheduled

cast Service Cooperative Society Ltd. Guntur and Another

2002 LLR Page 1020 [Andhra Pradesh High Court].

The law is also very much clear when the

retrenchment Compensation is not paid at the time of

termination it will be rendered as illegal. [State of Maharastra

through Executive Engineer Versus Sayyedial Gani Sayyed

2002 LLR Page 1155 Bombay High Court.

The law is also very much clear that non payment of

retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of a

workman who was completed 240 days services will amount

to illegal termination [State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Versus Vinod Singh Rathure and others. 2002 LLR Page

1093 [M.P. High Court].

The law is also very much clear that Industrial dispute

Act-1947 Section 25F-non compliance of it- by corporation

in making payment of retrenchment compensation at the

time of termination. of services- Learned single Judge has

rightly held that summary dismissal of the workman was

illegal. [Municipal Corporation of Delhi Versus Mahavir

2002 LLR Page 1160 Delhi High Court.

The law is also very much clear much that non

payment of retrenchment compensation to a Driver who

was worked for more than 240 days will be illegal

retrenchment. [State of MP through Conservator of Forest

Versus Ram Prakesh Tiwari 2003 LLR 9 MP High Court].

7. The workman also stated and it is submitted that

the workman so many times approached the management

but the vindictive management rejected the lawful demand

of the workman. The workman is unemployed after his best

efforts the workman could not get the job any where and

still without job.

8. That prior to the termination of the workman the

management had not served any show cause notice and or

charge sheet to the workman and also the management

had not initiated any enquiry against the workman. The

disciplinary enquiry is imperative.

It is correct that the management had not issued any

appointment letter. The identity card was issued by the

management to the workman and the salary receipt by ways

of attendance register is also opn record as EX A-1 to A-9.

The management has not placed any document to this

effect and as such the adverse inference goes against the

management. The management has never given any

suggestion in this point that the workman was not the

employee of the management, therefore the adverse

inference goes against the management. It means that the

workman was the employee of the management. Therefore,

the employer and employee relations exists.

The termination of services of the employee without

holding any enquiry of affording him an opportunity to

put forth his case. Depriving him of his livelihood. Relief -

termination of services of a workman- Held illegal being

violation of principle of natural justice workman was

ordered to be reinstated with 50% of back wages. D.K.

Yadav Versus M/s. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. 1993 LLR page

584 [SC].

The law is very much clear as per section 2[oo] and

25 F , Abandonment of services without enquiry will be

retrenchment section 25 B & 25 F -When services of a

workman who has completed 240 days will amount to

retrenchment- The question is whether it is violation of

Section 25F of the Industrial dispute Act-In as much as the

petitioner has put in 240 days of services and is a workman

under section 2[s] of the I.D. Act, held termination without

enquiry is violation of section 25 F of the Industrial dispute

Act. The management directed to reinstate the petitioner

employee with back wages. [Smt. Muththabranam Versus

Presiding Officer, Labour court, Coimbatore & Another 2002

LLR 202 [Madras High Court].

9. That the workman has raised the dispute against

the management before the conciliation officer but the

management did not cooperate and as such the conciliation

officer submitted his failure report to the appropriate

Government and as such the appropriate government

referred the said dispute to this Hon’ble Court for

adjudication.

10.That it is also very much clear that the management

not allowed the workman to report for duty thereby the

management terminated the services of the workman on

07.12.1995 without any cause or reason. At the time of

termination of the workman the management had not paid

any terminal benefits to the workman.

11.That the management illegally and unjustifiably

terminated the services of the workman without any cause

or reasons. No terminal benefits were paid at the time of

illegal termination of the workman. The management prior

to terminate the services of the workman the management

has not initiated any departmental enquiry against the

management has not initiated any departmental enquiry

against the management as the management has not issued

any type of show cause notice and or charge sheet to the

workman. The said terminated of the workman is illegal and

inoperative and the same void abinitio.

12. That the workman since the date of termination is

unemployed and after his best efforts the workman could

not get any job any where.

That the workman so many times approached the

management but the revenge full attitude of the

management declined the requet of the workman.

3194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

In view of the above, it is, therefore, respectfully

prayed to this Hon’ble Court to kindly pass the directions

to the management to reinstate the services with

consequential benefits and the award be pass accordingly

in favour of the workman and against the management in

the interest of justice and to answer the reference

accordingly.

In this background I am deciding the case in the light

of pleadings & evidence on record including the principles

laid down in cited rulings as well as settled law on the

relevant points.

Perusal of following question of determination

mentioned in schedule of reference.

“Whether the termination of the management of I.B.P.

Co. Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh. Chatter pal,

sweeper, w.e.f 7.12.95 is justified, legal and fair?” which

shows that burden of proof of this question of

determination lies on management especially in the instant

case wherein workman has filed his oral & available

documentary evidence in rebuttal no evidence has been

filed by management.

It is relevant to mention here that in the instant case

management’s failure to produce the attendance register

to controvert the workman’s claim as to the number of

days he had actually worked, will lead to an inference of

the correctness of the workman’s claim as laid down in

case of H.D. Singh V/s Reserve Bank of India (1983) 4SCC

201.

It is further relevant to mention here that principle

laid down in case of Rampat V /s Presiding Officer, Industrial

Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Panipat and Another, 2013 LLR

(Punjab & Haryana High Court) is inapplicable in the instant

case because workman not only filed identity card but filed

several other documentary evidence to establish his claim

against which no rebuttal documentary evidence by

management filed.

It is also relevant to mention here that principle laid

down in case of Anand Prakash V/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd.

2009 LLR 564 (Delhi High Court) doesnot favour to

respondent rather it favours to workman.

So far principle laid down in case of Vinod Kumar II

V/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra & Another, 2005

LLR 1229 (Allahabad High Court) is inapplicable because

it is based on Section 4K -U.P. Industrial Dispute Act which

is not under consideration in the instant case.

It is further relevant to mention here that principle

laid down by their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Other Vs. National

Union Water Front Workers & Others, 2001 Lab. IC 3656

(Supreme Court) is not at all favorable to management.

In addition to its evidence of MW1 Smt. Poonam

Chopra is not based on personal knowledge but based on

those documents of which no original or photocopies are

filed by management. It is further relevant to mention here

that management witness admitted the material fact that

claimant Chattar Pal worked as sweeper in the guest house

of the respondent company since 1987 till 1995

continuously. Management witness also admitted certain

other material facts which prove the case of workman.

In this background management through its evidence

could not establish its case rather proved the case of

workman.

In this background there is no option ot his Tribunal

except ot decide question of determination No. 1 mentioned

in the Schedule of reference in favour of workman and

against management. Which is accordingly decided.

In the light of contentions and counter contentions

I perused the settled law of Hon’ble Supreme court on the

point of reinstatement and grant of back wages which

shows that reinstatement is not a necessary consequence

wherever termination is held illegal. Depending upon the

facts of each case a suitable compensation can be awarded.

In Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev. Corporation and Anr

Vs. Gitam Singh, (2013)11 LLJ 141 Hon’ble Supreme Court

has held that reinstatement of workman with continuity of

service and 25% back wages was not proper in the facts

and circumstances of the case and the compensation of

Rs.50,000/-(Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) shall meet the ends

of justice. In Jagbir Singh Vs. Haryana State Agriculture

Marketing Board & Anr AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3004,

Hon’ble Supreme Court held thus “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.” In catena of Judgments,

Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a view that reinstatement

is not automatic, merely because the termination is illegal

or in contravention of S-25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act.

In Talwara Co-operative credit and service society Limited

Vs. Sushil Kumar (2008) 9 SCC 486, Hon’ble Supreme Court

held thus,” grant of relief of reinstatement, it is trite, is not

automatic. Grant of back wages is also not automatic.”

Workman of the instant case was not appointed by

following due procedure and as per rules. He had rendered

service with the respondent as a casual worker, thus.

Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) by

way of damages as compensation to the workman/claimant

by Management after expiry of period of limitation of

available remedy against Award. That will meet the ends of

Justice.

Thus Reference is decided in favour of workman and

against Management.

Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 7.3.2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3195

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1224.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

47@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&4&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@171@2005&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1224.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial 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 workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/4/2014.

[No. L-20012/171/2005-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. l), DHANBAD

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE U/S 10(1) (D) (2A)

OF I. D. ACT, 1947

Ref. No. 47/2006

Employers in relation to the management of Bhowra Area

M/s. BCCL

And

their workman

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For the Employers :- Sri U.N. Lall, Advocate

For the Workman :- Sri R. Rai, Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 18-2-2014

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/171/2005-IR (CM-I), dated

01/06/2006, 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

“ Whether the demand of the Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda

Mazdoor Union from the management of E. J. Area of

M/s. BCCL from regularizing Shri Manik Chandra

Sarkar, Typist as X-Ray Technician Gr. ‘C’ is justified?

If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled

and from what date?”

2. The case is received from the Ministry of Labour

on 20.06.2006. After receipt of the reference, both parties

are noticed. The sponsoring Union files their written

statement on 1l.07.2006. Thereafter the management files

their written statement-cum-rejoinder on 07.08.2008.

Rejoinder and document also filed by both side.

3. The claim of the workman is, he be regularized as

radiographer. It is his case that he was appointed as clerk

but he is doing the work of radiographer technician, but he

has also admitted, that he did not have radiographer

diploma. Clerk grade is admittedly different grade from the

radiographer. The said fact has been admitted by the

workman in his evidence (WW-I).

4. Moreover, the case of the management is that the

workman is not having any requisite degree/diploma for

the job of X-Ray Technician and this is the cadre scheme

for ministerial cadre.

5. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that change of grade is not permissible. Hence

the demand of Bihar Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union

from the management of E. J. Area M/s. BCCL to regularize

Sri Manik Chandra Sarkar typist as X-Ray technician

Gr. “C” is not justified so, he is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1225.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

U;k;ky; ua- 1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 8@2013) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&4&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@288@2003&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1225.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

3196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. IISCO

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/4/2014.

[No. L-20012/288/2003-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO.1), DHANBAD

In the matter of a complaint U/s 33(A) of I.D. Act, 1947

Lok-Adalat

COMPLAINT NO. 8/2013

( Arising out of Ref. 44/2010)

Smt. Sindhu Sinha W/o Late Arvind Kumar Sinha

Posted at Accounts Deptt. Central Office, IISCO,

Steel Plant, Steel Authority of India Ltd.

P.O.+ P.S.-Chasnalla, Distt. Dhanbad

...Complainant

Vs.

General Manager, IISCO,

Chasnalla Colliery, M/s. IISCO Ltd.

P.O.+P.S.- Chasnalla, Distt. Dhanbad

...Opp. Party

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances:

For Complainant : Sri P. N. Singh, Advocate

For Opp. Party

: Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated : 12-2-2014

AWARD

2. Complaint received. Admitted. Notice issued to

other side. After certain date, the learned counsel for the

Complainant files an application for withdrawal of the same.

Hence the complaint is withdrawn. Award passed.

Communicated.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 2 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1226-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-lh-lh-,y-

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

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

vfèkdj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

76@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 2&04&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@90@2004&vkbZvkj (lh&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 2nd April, 2014

S.O. 1226.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. BCCL

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 2/4/2014.

[No. L-20012/90/2004-IR(C-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL (NO.2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 76 OF 2004.

PARTIES :

The Vice President,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,

At/PO: Amalabad Colliery, Dhanbad

Vs. The General Manager

W. J. Area of M/s. BCCL, PO: Monidih,

Distt. Dhanbad.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman /Union : Mr. S.C. Gaur,

Ld. Advocate

On behalf of the Management :

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 26th Feb., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec. 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.

L-20012/90/2004-IR(C-I) dt 02.07.2004.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of BCCL,

W. J. Area to dismiss Bhagwat Mahato from service

w.e.f. 21.06.2001 is just, fair and legal? If not, to what

relief Shri Bhagwat Mahato entitled.”

On receipt of the Order No. L-20012/90/2004-I.R.(C-I)

dt 02.07.2004 of the above mentioned reference from the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for

adjudication of the dispute, the reference Case No. 76 of

2004 was registered on 9th July, 2004 and accordingly an

order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3197

the Registered Post to the parties concerned, directing them

to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file their

written statements along with the relevant documents. In

pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered Post

were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances personally

as well as through their Ld. Advocates and respectively

filed their pleadings and their documents concerned, and

contested accordingly.

2. The case of sponsoring Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union for workman Bhagwat Mahato in brief is that the

workman was appointed as Miner/Loader in the year 1997

while he was quite young. He worked upto 14.5.1999.He

was sincere, devoted and laborious worker for the highly

tough job in the Mine full of coal dust, due to which he fell

ill, and went his village home where he remained for

treatment of jaundice upto 8.9.1999. He returned with a

Medical certificate and reported with his duty on

9.9.1999,but he was denied to join his duty. His absence

due to illness beyond control was only for a period of four

months. Though chargesheet was issued, he did not get it,

so he did not file any explanation. He was dismissed by the

Project Officer, 20/21 Pits Colliery from the services of M/s.

BCCL on 21.06.2001. He made the mercy Appeal through

the proper channel to the General Manager, W.J. Area of

M/s BCCL on 9.02.2002 for its consideration as per the

Certified Standing Orders of the Company, but denying

the principles of natural justice, the G.M. unreasonably

decided to remain him dismissed, without hearing his mercy

Appeal.Besides, his dismissal was excessively harsh,

disproportionate and oppressive.

Not any rejoinder filed on behalf of the workman.

3. Whereas, challenging the maintainability of the

Reference either in law or in fact, the case of the O.P./

Management with categorical denials is that the workman

was a habitual absentee, and never regularly performed his

duty as evident from his last three attendances 41, Nil and

25 days in the years 1997 to 1999 respectively. He began to

absent unauthorizedly and unreasonably from his duty

w.e.f. 15.5.1999. So he was issued the charge sheet No.

3613 dt. 9.9.99 for his misconduct under the Certified

Standing Order of the Company. He did not submit his

reply to it. Finding no alternative, the Management

appointed the Dy. Personnel Manager of the Colliery as

the Enquiry Officer for fairly conducting domestic enquiry

into the chargesheet. In spite of several notices dt. 4.12.1999,

8.2.2000 and lastly on 15.5.2000 to the workman on his

home address and on the Notice Board of the Colliery, he

did not turn up before the Enquiry Officer. At last, the

Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte enquiry in accordance

with the principle of natural justice, and submitted his

enquiry report, holding the charges proved against him.

Even on supply of the copy of the enquiry report to the

workman for submitting his explanation, he did not submit

his any explanation. On consideration of the enquiry

proceeding, enquiry report and last three years’ attendance

of the workman, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him

from the service of the Company which is legal and justified.

The O.P./Management sought permission to adduce

evidence afresh to prove the charges, in case the domestic

enquiry is held unfair and improper at the preliminary

enquiry.

4. The O.P./Management in its rejoinder has

specifically denied the all the allegations of the workmen,

and stated that the workman after getting his appointment

was all along reluctant to perform his duty, and to absent

from duty unauthorizedly as previously as his past

attendance was very poor. Besides, he did not deliberately

reply to the charge sheet.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. In the instant case, consequent upon the Order

No. 9 dt. 6.4.2006 of the Tribunal at the Preliminary Point,

the domestic enquiry was held not fair, proper and in

accordance with the principle of natural justice. In result,

the O.P./Management has afresh examined its witnesses

namely, MWI Anil Roy, MW2 Pawan Kumar Mahato, both

the Leave & Sick Clerks, and MW3 Ashish Gohe, the

Asstt.Manager (HR/Personnel) at Murlidih 20/21 Pits

colliery of M/s. BCCL on merits.

Mr. D.K.Verma,the Ld.Advocate for the O.P./

Management has submitted that the chargesheeting of the

workman for his unauthorized absence from his duty w.e.f.

15.5.1999 as orally asserted by all the three Management

witnesses (MWs 1 to 3) on merits is an acknowledged fact

that despite several notices, the non- appearance of the

workman resulted in the ex-parte enquiry; the workman

devoid of his any justification for his absence from duty as

usually in his previous years was dismissed as per the

letter dt.18.6.2001 which as quite just and proper.

Whereas Mr. S.C. Gaur, the Learned Counsel for the

Union/workman has to contend that admittedly the General

Manager of the W.J.Area is the Dismissal Authority as per

the provision of the Certified Standing Orders of BCCL,but

in the instant case, the G.M. of the Area unmindfully

approved it only by two words “Dismissal Approved”,

and the G.M. is the Appellate Authority, so once he

approved the dismissal, he could not sit in appeal, the

workman was prejudiced, as his mercy appeal through

received, could not be replied to the workman; thus the

order of dismissal is bad in law as held in the case of Pandav

Kumar Vs .Union of India reported in 2012 (2) JLJR 129. On

meticulous study of the ruling as relied by Mr.Gaur,1 find

that it relates to a case wherein petitioner could not

communicate the authority regarding extension of leave

and thereafter submitted an application/representation for

extension of leave, but no reply was given by the

concerned authorities, absence found without any

3198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

application or prior permission may amount to

unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean willful,

there may be different eventualities due to which an

employee may abstain from duty, including compelling

circumstances beyond his control like illness Disciplinary

Authority is required to prove that absence is wilful in

absence of such finding, absence will not amount to

misconduct, so it was quashed and petitioner was ordered

to be reinstated (Paras 11, 15 & 19)

But at variance with the cited case, the instant case

reflects all along absence of the workman from his duty

without any permission or reasonable cause, rather his

quite willful absence as evident from his conducts. In this

circumstance, the aforesaid ruling holds not good with the

case under adjudication.

In view of the above facts and circumstances as orally

brought on the case record, the Tribunal has found that

the dismissal of the workman for unauthorized absence

appears to be not only harsh but also disproportionate to

the nature of it, rather unjustified; therefore, the workman

is entitled to the relief of his re-instatement under Sec.11 A

of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

In result, it is, in the terms of the reference, responded,

and hereby

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of the BCCL,W.J. Area to dismiss

on Bhagwat Mahato from service w.e.f. 21.6.2001 is quite

unjust, unfair and illegal. Therefore, Sri Bhagwat Mahato

is entitled to re-instatement but without back wages.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1227-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

103@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&4&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20013@02@2014&vkbZvkj (lh ,e&I)]

,e- ds- ¯lg] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1227.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 103/2004

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Pawan

Hans Helicopter Ltd., and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 4/4/2014.

[No. L-20013/02/2014-IR(CM-I)]

M. K. SINGH, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI.

I.D.No.103/2012

Capt. R.K.Sareen,

R/o 12/2 Subash Nagar,

New Delhi -110027

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd.

Safdarjung Airport,

New Delhi - 110003

...Management

AWARD

Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd. (hereinafter referred to

as the rnanagement) availed services of Col. R.K. Sareen,

skilled single engine pilot, on deputation with effect from

21.03.2009. On his retirement from the Indian Army on

31.05.2011, Col. Sareen was appointed as Assistant Flight

Safety officer with effect from 01.06.2011 by the

management. Lastly, on 01.08.2011, he was appointed as

‘Pilot B’ on contractual basis for a period of five years or till

he attains age of 60 years, which ever was to be earlier.

2. On 15.01.2012, Col. Sareen undertook flying duties

as pilot in command on Dhruv Advanced Light Helicopter,

VT-BSN at Raipur Airport. The helicopter met with an

accident soon after it took off, descended and struck against

the runway of the airport. It was badly damaged. However,

no casualty took place. Two crew members sustained

serious injuries, while three others sustained minor injuries

in the accident. Enquiry was ordered by the Ministry of

Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi, by way of

appointment of an enquiry committee under rule 74 of the

Aircraft Rules 1937(in short the Rules) to determine causes

and contributory factors to the accident.

3. The management asked Col. Sareen to attend a

refresher training from 13.02.2012 to 15.02.2012, to be

followed by a test. He appeared in the test. However, due

to his unsatisfactory performance, he was instructed to

undergo retest vide letter dated 02.03.2012. Col. Sareen

refused to undergo retest. His performance and ability to

fly twin engine Dhruv helicopter could not be assessed by

the management, after the accident referred above. Show

cause notice was served on Col. Sareen calling upon him

to explain as to why disciplinery action should not be

initiated for his lapses to obey command of taking retest,

besides termination of his contract of service. Reply to the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3199

said show cause notice was submitted by the claiment,

which was found not to be satisfactory. The management

terminated services of Col. Sareen, vide its letter dated

01-6-2012.

4. Aggrieved by the act of the management, Col.

Sareen moved Ombudsman, seeking reinstatement in

service of the management. When his grievances were not

addressed to he approached the Conciliation Officer for

redressal of his grievance. Conciliation Officer called upon

the management for conciliation of the dispute, by way of

issuance of notice dated 05.08.2012. Claimant alleged that

he had moved application before the Conciliation Officer

on 25.07.2012 and period of 45 days, as stipulated under

sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act) stood expired and filed claim

statement before this Tribunal for adjudication of his

dispute, without being referred by the appropriate

Government under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Act.

5. Since the dispute filed by Col. Sareen was within

period of limitation as enacted by sub-section (3) and prima

facie satisfied requirement of sub-section (2) of section 2A

of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute.

6. Claim statement was filed by Col. Sareen pleading

therein that his services were availed on deputation by the

management with effect from 21.03.2009, since there was

acute shortage of skilled pilots with them. He was selected

as a pilot by the management after detailed screening of

many pilots. His services were so availed, by taking special

sanction from Government of India under rule 160 of the

Rules. After his retirement from the Indian Army on

31.05.2011, he was appointed as Assistant Flight Safety

Officer by the management with effect from 01.06.2011.

Formal appointment for a period of 5 years was issued in

his favour by the management on 01.08.2011. He was

selected by the management to fly twin engine Dhruv

helicopter as captain, on consideration of his initial

experience of flying single engine helicopter. He was also

selected twice to undertake accident investigation courses.

Based on his past performance and excellent service record,

he was given additional charge of the post of Assistant

Flight Safety Officer, Northern Region, by the management.

Due to violation of flight safety rules, issued by Director

General, Civil Aviation, 5 helicopters met with accidents in

a span of one year in 2011. Being Assistant Flight Safety

Officer, he could not violate safety rules, when he was

asked to fly Dhruv helicopter in Gadchiroli in November,

2011. He reported the matter to the management, pursuant

to its whistle blower policy vide his letter dated 11.08.2011.

No cognizance of his letter was taken, hence he was

compelled to stop flying for a period of 10 days in Gadchiroli.

When lot of pressure was put on him, he resumed flying on

verbal assurance of the management to protect interest of

pilots. He resumed flying in good faith when directions

were given to him in that regard through SMS message.

Unfortunately, he also met with an accident on 15.01.2012.

However, he was able to save five precious lives in the

crash by the grace of God. Instead of holding his hands

and reward him for saving lives, the management started

harassing and victimizing him from very next day of the

accident. His flying pay was stopped with effect from

15.01.2012. Detachment allowance was illegally deducted

out of his wages for the month of March 2012. Co-pilot,

who was medically unfit, was paid more than the wages

paid to him for March 2012. He was victimized by the

management by way of calling upon him to undergo illegal

tests and retests. It was so done when he testified facts

against the management in the enquiry being convened by

the Government of India, in respect of the accident dated

15.01.2012. He had passed the test conducted by Director

General, Civil Aviation and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd.,

which certificates were valid for a period of 5 years. Despite

validity of the tests referred above, the management wanted

to put him to test and retest, after the accident referred

above. Even otherwise, pilots undergo proficiency test

every six months. Proficiency test was passed by him on

08.09.2011 with good performance. Based on that test, he

was subsequently cleared to fly as captain on Dhruv

helicopters. During currency of above proficiency

certificate, he was ordered to take test and retest in a biased

manner.

7. Claimant projects that he appeared in the test and

passed it with margin for the status of captain. However,

there was no restriction on him for flying as co-pilot. Other

pilots, who miserably failed in the test, were declared pass

in retest. Show cause notice was served calling upon him

to detail reasons for not appearing in retest. He informed

the management on 09.03.2012 for reconsideration of their

decision for holding a retest on 13.03.2012. No reply to the

said letter was given. He believed that his justification for

exemption from retest has been accepted, since test

conducted by Director General, Civil Aviation, was valid

for a period of five years. He was being tested by enquiry

committee on that aspect too.

8. Claimant projects that when a pilot is availing “off

period”, he is not required to attend to his duties. However,

he was asked to attend to his duties within a short notice.

The management violated air safety circular No. 09 of 2009.

His monthly flying allowance was also not paid to him. A

sum of Rs. 30 lakh towards accidental insurance, besides

Rs.30 lakh towards enhanced insurance for operating in

anti naxal operation was also not paid to him. Two months

notice pay, as contemplated in appointment letter, was also

not paid. His services were illegally terminated, claiming

that his past performance was not good. Prior to that date

no warning or any adverse comments was served upon

him. On the other hand, on account of his sincere work,

additional responsibility of Assistant Flight Safety Officer

for Northern Region was given to him. His services were

3200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

terminated without holding any domestic enquiry and in

violation of principles of natural justice .

9. Claim has been made that he approached the

Conciliation Officer (Central) on 25.07.2012 seeking

redressal against illegal termination of his services. Since

conciliation could not be done and period of 45 days

expired, he invoked jurisdiction of this Tribunal for

adjudication of the dispute. He presents that contents of

show cause notice projects a different case than the one

mentioned in the termination letter. He had rendered

continuous service of more than 240 days from 02.08.2011

to 31.05.2012. Action of termination of his services does

not withstand the protection available to him in the Act. He

seeks reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

10. In his claim statement, Col. Sareen presents

various arguments relating to loss of licence insurance

coverage of Rs.30 lakh, loss of salary of June and July

2011, overtime allowance, non-return of flying log book

and encashment of leaves @ 21 days per year, which claim

cannot be adjudicated with the present dispute, since sub-

section( 2) of section 2A of the Act permits a workman to

raise a dispute, without being referred for adjudication by

the appropriate Government under section 10 of the Act, in

case of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise

termination of his services. Thus claim of insurance amount

for loss of licence, loss of accidental insurance amount,

loss of enhanced insurance of Rs.30 lakh for operating in

anti naxal operation, non-payment of wages for June &

July 2011, non payment of overtime allowance of two hours

per day for 361 days, claim for encashment of leaves as

well as for returning of flying log book will not fall within

the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act. Hence,

these claims are not taken into consideration in adjudication

of the dispute raised under sub-section (2) of section 2A of

the Act.

11. Claim was demurred by the management, pleading

that the claimant was not a workman since he was appointed

in supervisory/managerial capacity, being captain of a

helicopter. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,22,175.00 per

month and was at par with executives employed by the

management. He does not answer status of a workman

within meaning of section 2(s) of the Act. Even otherwise,

he was employed for a specified period, in terms of

appointment letter dated 01.08.2011. His contractual

appointment was severed pursuant to terms of service,

contained in the appointment letter. Monetary claims, made

by the claimant, have no reference to validity of his

termination order. He cannot make those claims in the

present dispute.

12. Claimant approached this Tribunal in undue haste.

As per notice served on the management, Conciliation

Officer was holding conciliation proceedings on 20.09.2012.

Claimant opted not to await result of the conciliation

proceedings and filed the dispute in undue haste. Present

claim is not maintainable at all on that count too.

13. Claimant did not have experience of flying Dhruv

helicopters, before his appointment by the management.

He had to execute a bond for his training, checks and tests.

Additional assignment of Flight Safety Officer was given

to the claimant on account of his supervisory and

managerial expertise and not because of his excellence of

past performance. There were approximately 150 pilots

employed by the management on approximately 50

helicopters. There were 35 Dauphin medium helicopters,

01 Mi-172 helicopter, 07 Bell helicopters and 02 AS 350 B3

helicopters, besides 8 Dhruv helicopters on which the

claimant was imparted training. The management performs

operation and maintenance contract in respect of

helicopters owned by Border Security Force and Oil and

Natural Gas Corporation for fixed duration of 1-2 years,

extendable at the option of the owner of Dhruv helicopter.

After accidents, 2 Dhruv helicopters were destroyed and

in one of the accidents, claimant was involved as a Captain.

2 Dhruv helicopters became non-operational and two were

damaged in the accident. Thus, only 6 helicopters are

operational and need of the management for pilots to

operate helicopters has gone down. There is no need for

any more Pilot B to operate Dhruv helicopters, pleads the

management.

14. The helicopter, which met with an accident, was

damaged not on account of any engineering or mechanical

fault. It was damaged due to fault of the pilot. Claimant is

making baseless allegations relating to violation of safety

rules. He wrote letters to the management from November

2011 and even after the accident under reference. He twisted

facts relating to violation of safety rules and stoppage of

flying for a period of 10 days. In respect of the accident

under reference, enquiry by Director General, Civil Aviation

authorities is being conducted. When report would be

received, it would be placed before the Tribunal. However,

prima facie, management is of the opinion that the accident

was caused due to pilot error. On account of his error,

claimant put five human lives in jeopardy.

15. When a pilot is involved in an accident, he cannot

be given flying duties unless cleared by Director General,

Civil Aviation authorities, in that regard, pleads the

management. The management has a right to take test,

retest to assess performance and understanding ability of

pilot to fly a helicopter. Claimant had not undergone any

test, which was valid for a period of 5 years. He was asked

to attend refresher training on 03.02.2012 to 15.02.2012, to

be followed by a test. He appeared in the test, but due to

his unsatisfactory performance, he was instructed to

undergo retest, vide letter dated 02.03.2012. Since he refused

to undertake re-test and claimed that he was not required

to undergo retest, show cause notice was served upon

him. When the claimant did not undergo retest, there was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3201

no need for holding any departmental enquiry against him.

Since show cause notice was served upon him, principles

of natural justice were not violated. The management

terminated services of the claimant pursuant to contract of

service contained in his appointment letter. Claim put

forward by Col. Sareen for reinstatement in service is not

maintainable at all. Since termination of his services was in

accordance with terms of appointment, he is not entitled to

relief of reinstatement in service. His claim may be

dismissed, being devoid of merits, pleads the management.

16. On pleadings of the parties, following issues were

settled:

(i) Whether claimant is a workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(ii) Whether action of the management in terminating

his services amounts to retrenchment within the

meaning of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947?

(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service? If not what relief he is

entitled?

17. In order to discharge onus resting on him, claimant

testified facts in his favour. Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal detailed

facts on behalf of the management. No other witness was

examined by either of the parties.

18. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Devender

Sharma, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

management. Written arguments were also filed by the

claimant. I have given my careful considerations to the

arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the

record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy

are as follows:-

Issue No. 1

19. First and foremost contention advanced by the

management is that Col. Sareen is not a workman. It has

been projected that he was appointed in a supervisory/

managerial capacity, being Captain of the helicopter and

drawing salary of Rs.1 ,22,175.00 per month, which was at

par with the executives employed by the management.

Contra to it, Shri Devender Sharma argued that Col. Sareen

was appointed as Pilot ‘B’ by the management to pre-

dominantly perform job of flying helicopter as a Pilot in

Command. Hence it does not lie in the mouth of the

management to assert that he is not workman within the

meaning of section 2(s) of the Act.

20. In order to appreciate facts, it would be expedient

to consider definition of the term ‘workman’. The term

“workman” has been defined by section 2(s) of the Act,

which definition is reproduced thus:

“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) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of

1950), or the Army Act 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy

Act, 1957 (62 of 1957), or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison, or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity, or

(iv) who being employed in a supervisory capacity,

drawn wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

reupees per mensum 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.”

21.Definition of term workman contains three limbs.

First limb of the definition gives statutory meaning of the

word and determines a workman by reference to a person

(including an apprentice) employed in an industry to do

any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operative, clerical

or supervisory work for hire or reward. The second limb is

designed to include a person—(i) who have been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an

industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to an industrial dispute, within the

ambit of workman. However, the third part of the definition

excludes the categories of persons specified in clause (i) to

(iv) from the expression “workman”. The definition does

not state that a person, in order to be a workman should

have been employed in a substantive capacity or on

temporary basis in the first instance or after he is found

suitable for the job after a period of probation. In other

words, every person employed in an industry irrespective

of his status—temporary, permanent or probationary—

would be a workman. The expression “employed” has at

least two known connotations, that is, a relationship

brought by express or implied contract of service in which

employee renders service for which he is engaged by the

employer and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind,

as agreed between them or statutorily provided. It discloses

a relationship of command and obedience. Reference can

be made to the precedent in Food Corporation of India’s

case [1985 (2) LLJ 4].

3202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

22. In his affidavit Ex.WW1/A, claimant presents that

he was appointed by the management in its service to fly

Dhruv helicopter. Appointment letter Ex.WW1/1 was issued

to him on 01.08.2011. Facts in this regard are not disputed

by the management. When Ex.WW1/1 is scanned, it

emerged over the record that claimant was appointed as

“Pilot B” on contractual basis for a period of five years

from the date of assuming flying assignment. It has been

detailed therein that the claimant was entitled for flying

related variable allowances like flying allowance, additional

flying allowance, night halt, casualty excavation and pre-

flight inspection allowance from the date of commencing

flying Dhruv helicopter. His appointment was made subject

to his possessing valid commercial helicopter pilot licence,

issued by Director General, Civil Aviation/ Government

approval under rule 160 of the Rules. Therefore, out of

facts detailed by the claimant and those projected in his

appointment letter Ex.WW1/1 it creep over the record that

the claimant was appointed by the management to fly Dhruv

helicopter.

23. As detailed by the claimant, the helicopter which

he was flying met with an accident on 15.01.2012. He was

flying that helicopter in the capacity of pilot in command.

Brig. Tiwari worked as his co-pilot on the said helicopter

that day. Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal also reaffirms those facts in

his affidavit Ex.MW1/A, wherein he presents that the

claimant was involved in the accident dated 15.01.2012,

when he was working as pilot in charge of the helicopter.

Brig. Tiwari was his co-pilot that day. Since claimant was

pilot in charge of the helicopter, which met with an accident,

he was grounded as per guidelines of the Director General,

Civil Aviations, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of

India, New Delhi. Therefore, above facts bring it to light of

the day that the claimant was appointed as pilot in

command by the management. Claimant used to fly Dhruv

helicopter in discharge of his duties. On 15.01.2012, he was

flying the Dhruv helicopter, which met with an accident.

All these facts make me to announce that the claimant was

working as Pilot in Command on Dhruv helicopter.

24. Pilot has been held to be a workman by High

Court of Delhi in Mathur Aviation [1977 (2) LLJ 255]. The

management has not been able to project that the claimant

was performing supervisory or managerial or administrative

duties. As such, he falls within the ambit of definition of

workman as contained in section 2(s) of the Act. The issue

is, therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and against

the management.

Issue No. 2

25. In order to discharge onus resting on him, claimant

presses his affidavit Ex.WW1/A as evidence. He unfolds

therein that he survived helicopter crash on 15.01.2012,

which crash occurred due to various violations of DGCA

rules and shortcuts adopted by the management to earn

maximum revenue in a wrong way. He asserts that details

of violation of rules and shortcuts adopted by the

management are given in the claim statement. Enquiry Team,

appointed by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government

of India, asked him to tender his old flying log books, in

order to ascertain his training and standards obtained in

1985-86. This act projects that the management is biased

against him and now trying to investigate initial flying

training obtained by him. Test conducted in 2009 on Dhruv

helicopter (twin engine) has not been taken into

consideration. He agitates that media reports, appearing in

newspapers after the air crash, projects that the accident

was attributed to automatic flight control system failure. It

rules out lack of piloting proficiency on his part. The

management claimed in its written statement that it was of

prima facie view that the accident was caused due to pilot

error. According to him, above claim projects that the

management had pre-judged the matter and not awaited

for outcome of the report of the Enquiry Team .

26. He has been made a victim of unfair labour

practice, since cause of accident has not been made known

to him. He projects that the management violated their own

whistle blower policy, by not protecting him. In spite of

writing various letters as per whistle blower policy, neither

simulator training for Dhruv helicopter nor IR training and

continuity training was given to the pilots, before clearing

them as Captain. It has been falsely claimed by the

management that he had not passed the test and in case he

has passed one, it was not valid for five years. Facts have

been concealed by the management on the matter of test/

retest. Pilots, who have fared extremely poor in the test,

were declared pass without making the result public/

transparent. Pilots, senior to him, were not cleared to fly as

Captain whereas he was cleared due to his skills and

proficiency. Capt. J.S. Jodha and Capt. M.S. Chauhan were

terminated not for their poor performance but on reaching

maximum age limit for flying. Findings of the Enquiry Team

have been made known to the management in violation of

DGCA rules. The claimant projects that he was not allowed

to participate in the enquiry, produce documents and cross

examine the witnesses.

27. The Director General, Civil Aviation, had

grounded entire fleet of Dhruv helicopters due to technical

flaws, which fact vindicates his stand to the effect that the

crash was due to technical fault. The Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, had also grounded

entire Dhruv fleet of BSF due to two crashes in a short

span. The Director General, Civil Aviation, while making

assessment on the accident brought out serious

supervisory lapses on the part of the management.

Sequences of events, leading to illegal termination, were

created when he was obeying whistle blower policy in the

interest of the management, pilots and passengers to avoid

any further fatality.

28. A number of new flying commitments were

undertaken by the management by way of flying its

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3203

helicopters. The claimant was appointed to undertake this

commitment, but was terminated from service on flimsy

grounds. The last pilot, recruited under similar

circumstances, was not retrenched. Three months notice

was not given, as per terms of his appointment. No prior

permission was sought from the Government before his

retrenchment. The claimant was flying under rule 160 of

the Rules. By taking advantage under this rule, the

management was utilizing pilots without simulator training,

IR training and continuity training for day and night flying,

violating DGCA rules. The management had full faith in

proficiency and competence of the claimant, that is why he

was sent to Raipur to carry out flying task.

29. In his affidavit Ex.MW1/A, tendered as evidence,

Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal unfolds that the claimant was

appointed on contractual basis vide letter dated 01.08.2011.

In letter of appointment, it has been stipulated that services

of the claimant could be terminated without assigning any

reason or notice thereof at any point of time. Claimant was

involved in the accident on 15.01.2012, when he was flying

as pilot in command on the helicopter. In that accident, co-

pilot, namely, Brig. Tiwari sustained spinal fracture injuries

and three crew members sustained minor injuries. Since

the claimant was pilot in charge of the said helicopter, he

was grounded as per DGCA guidelines, contained in Air

Safety Circular dated 03.1.2009.

30. Shri Aggarwal deposed that pursuant to the said

accident, claimant was asked to undergo refresher training

from 13.02.2001 to 15.01.2012. Refresher training covers

special visual flight rules, advance light helicopter

automatic flight control system and many other important

aspects to make a pilot efficient in flying and controlling

helicopters. The management was under an obligation to

keep its pilots well acquainted with the helicopter system,

meteorology, aerodynamics, emergencies etc. to make them

efficient to operate holicopters and react to various

situations. Simply by passing of air navigation and air

regulation papers, a pilot cannot have full knowledge of

technical, general and emergencies to be handled by him

while flying. Entire fleet of Dhruv helicopters was grounded

by DGCA after the major accident on 15.01.2001. Grave

situation was caused when 22 Dhruv qualified pilots were

kept out of flying. The above refresher training, which took

place from 13.02.2014 to 15.02.2014, was followed by a test.

The said test pertains to knowledge of aviation subjects

like aircraft system, aerodynamics, meteorology, knowledge

of flying and aircraft specifics etc. Test consists of papers

to be attempted on emergencies, technical & general

knowledge and awareness of the pilots. Claimant attended

the refresher training. Since his performance was found

not to be satisfactory he did not qualify the test. Other four

pilots in command also could not qualify the test. The

management took a lenient view and gave them another

opportunity to quality the test. Claimant was asked to

undergo re-test on 13.03.2012, vide letter dated 02.03.2012.

Other pilots were also asked to go for refresher training

and to appear in the test. Claimant did not appear in re-test,

without any intimation/permission from the management.

When claimant did not appear for retest, appropriate action

was recommended against him by Com. Alok Kumar. Show

cause notice dated 09.04.2011 was served on him. By not

undergoing retest, claimant violated rules of discipline and

administrative instructions. It was willful disobedience of

orders of the management on the part of the claimant. Reply

to show cause notice, submitted by the claimant, for his

failure to appear in retest was found to be of no substance.

Since the claimant was a contractual employee, his contract

of employment was terminated vide letter dated 06.06.012.

As per terms of his appointment, his performance was

required to be reviewed quarterly during first year of his

service and if fond unsatisfactory his services were liable

to be terminated without any notice. Termination of his

service was in consonance with terms of his appointment,

contained in letter dated 01.08.2011.

31. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

detailed by Shri Aggarwal are scanned, it came to light that

the claimant was appointed as “Pilot B” vide appointment

letter dated 01.08.2011, proved as Ex.WW1/1. EX.WW1/1

highlights that the claimant was appointed for a period five

years which term was to come to an end on the stipulated

date.Performance or the claimant was to be reviewed

quarterly during first year of service and on being found

unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated

without any notice. Right was retained by the management

to terminate contract of service of the claimant at any time

by giving two months notice or salary in lieu thereof. In

case of resignation, claimant was put under an obligation

to give 6 months notice subject to completion of his

contractual obligations laid down in the bond executed by

him.

32. As detailed above Dhruv helicopter crashed on

15.01.2012, on which the claimant was flying as pilot in

command. The management commanded the claimant to

undergo refresher training from 13.02.2014 to 15.02.014,

followed by a test. Claimant was declared unsuccessful in

the test. He was ordered to undergo retest, vide letter dated

02.03.2012, proved as EX.MW1/1. The management projects

that the claimant did not appear for retest, which action on

his part amounts to violation of rules of discipline and

adminis.trative instructions, applicable to him. He willfully

disobeyed official order and as such a decision was taken

to terminate his services. Terms of service, contained in

letter appointment Ex.WW1/1, were invoked and services

of the claimant were terminated, projects the management.

33. Question for consideration would be as to

whether action of the menagement, in terminating services

of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment? For an answer

to this proposition, definition of the term “retrenchment”,

3204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

enacted by section 2(oo) of the Act is to be taken of. The

definite of the said term is extracted thus:

“2(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted

by way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of employment

between the employer and the workman concerned

contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman

as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the workman

concerned on its expiry or of such contract being

terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained

therein; or

the ground of continued ill-health”.

34. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of a

workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever’

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement of

workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. (1979

(I) LLJ 1) and Mahabir (1979 (II) LLJ 363).

35. Sub Clause (bb) purports to exclude from the

ambit of the definition of retrenchment (i) termination of

the service of a workman as a result of non- renewal of the

contract of employment between the employer and the

workman concerned, on its expiry, or (ii) termination of the

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf. The first part

relates to termination of service of a workman as a result of

non-renewal of the contract of employment between the

employer and the workman concerned on its expiry. Thus

“non-renewal of contract of employment” pre-supposes

an existing contract of employment, which is not renewed.

When services of an employee is terminated on account of

non-renewal of contract of employment, between the

employer and the workman, it does not amount to

retrenchment. The second part refers to “such contract”

being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained

therein. The cases contemplated, under this part too, would

not amount to retrenchment. However this sub-clause,

being in the nature of an exception to clause (oo) of section

2 of the Act, is ruled to be construed strictly when

contractual agreement is used as modus operandi to

frustrate claim of the employee to become regular or

permanent against a job. The adjudicator has to address

himself to the question whether the period of employment

was stipulated in the contract of employment as a device

to escape the applicability of the definition of retrenchment.

See Shailendra Nath Shukla (1987 Lab. I.C. 1607), Dilip

Hanumantrao Shrike (1990 Lab. I.C. 100) and Balbir Singh

(1990 (1) LLJ. 443).

36. On review of law laid by the Apex Court and

various High Courts, a single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh

High Court, in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari Sangh

(1996 Lab. I.C. 1161) has laid following principles of

interpretation and application of sub-clause (bb) of clause

(oo) of section 2 of the Act:

“(i) that the provisions of section 2(oo)(bb) are to be

construed benevolently in favour of the workman,

(ii) that if the workman is allowed to continue in

service by making periodic appointments from time

to time, then it can be said that the case would not

fall under section 2(oo) (bb),

(iii) that the provisions of section 2 (oo)(bb) are not

to be interpreted in the manner which may stifle

the main provision,

(iv) that if the workman continues in service, the non-

renewal of the contract can be deemed as mala

fide and it may amount to be a fraud on statute;

(v) that there would be wrong presumption of non-

applicability of section 2(oo)(bb) where the work

is of continuous nature and there is nothing on

record that the work for which a workman has

been appointed had come to an end”.

37. Whether provisions of retrenchment, enacted in

the Act, provide for any security of tenure? Answer lies in

negative. Provisions of retrenchment provide for certain

benefits to a workman in case of termination of his service

falling within the ambit of definition of retrenchment. On

compliance of the requirements of section 25F or 25N and

25G of the Act, it is open to the employer to retrench a

workman.

38. Termination of service of an employee during the

period of probation was held to be covered by the exception

contained in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3205

C.M.Venugopal (1994 (1) LLJ 597). As per facts of the case,

Regulation 14 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India

(Staff) Regulation 1962 empowered the Corporation to

terminate the service of an employee within the period of

probation. The employee was put on probation for a period

of one year, which was extended by another year. Since he

could not achieve the target to earn confirmation, his service

was terminated in terms of Regulation 14 as well as order of

appointment. The Apex Court ruled that the case was

covered by the exception contained in sub-clause (bb),

hence it was not retrenchment.

39. In Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (1996

Lab. I.C. 221) a sugar factory used to employ certain number

of workmen during crushing season and at the end to the

crushing season their employment used to cease. The

Supreme Court held that despite the fact that the workmen

worked for more than 240 days in a year, cessation of their

employment at the end of crushing season would not amount

to retrenchment in view of the provisions of sub-clause

(bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. It was observed as follows:

“4. It would thus be clear that the respondents were

not working throughout the season. They worked

during crushing seasons only. The respondents were

taken into work for the season and consequent to

closure of the season, they ceased to work.

5. The question is whether such a cessation would

amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal

work, the respondents cannot be said to have been

retrenched in view of what is stated in sub-clause

(bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. Under these

circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view

taken by the Labour Court and the High Court is

illegal. However, the appellant is directed to maintain

a register for all workmen engaged during the seasons

enumerated herein before and when the new season

starts the appellant should make a publication in

neighbouring places in which the respondents

normally live and if they would report for duty, the

appellant would engage them in accordance with

seniority and exigency of work”.

40. Above legal position was reiterated by the Apex

Court in Anil Bapurao Kanase (1997 (10) S.C.C. 599) wherein

it was noted as follows:

“3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the judgment of the High Court of Bombay relied

on in the impugned order dated 28.3.1995 in Writ

Petition No.488 of 1994 is perhaps not applicable.

Since the appellant has worked for more than 180

days, he is to be treated as retrenched employee and

if the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is applied, his

retrenchment is illegal. We find no force in this

contention. In Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. v.

Ram Kishan in para 3, this Court has dealt with

engagement of the seasonal workman in sugarcane

crushing, in para 4, it is stated that it was not a case

of retrenchment of the workman, but of closure of

the factory after the crushing season was over.

Accordingly, in para 5, it was held that it is not

‘retrenchment’ within the meaning of Section 2(oo)

of the Act. As a consequence the appellant is not

entitled to retrenchment as per sub- clause (bb) of

Section 2(oo) of the Act. Since the present work is

seasonal business, the principles of the Act have no

application. However, this Court has directed that

the respondent management should maintain a

starts in the succeeding years in the order of seniority.

Until all the employees whose names appear in the

list are engaged in addition to the employees who

are already working, the management should not go

in for fresh engagement of new workmen. It would

be incumbent upon the respondent management to

adopt such procedure as is enumerated above”.

41. In Harmohinder Singh (2001 (5) S.C.C. 540) an

employee was appointed as a salesman by kharga canteen

on 1.6.74 and subsequently as a cashier on 9.8.75. The

letter of appointment and Standing Orders, inter alia,

provided that his service could be terminated by one

month’s notice by either party. He was served with a notice

to the effect that his service would be relinquished with

effect from 30.6.1989. Relying precedent in Uptron India

Ltd. (1998 (6) S.C.C. 538) the Apex Court ruled that contract

of service for a fixed term are excluded from the ambit of

retrenchment. Decision in Balbir Singh (supra) was held to

be erroneous. It was also ruled that principles of natural

justice are not applicable where termination takes place on

expiry of contract of service.

42. In Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd. (2005 (8) S.C.C.

481) an employee was engaged on casual basis on daily

wages for specific work and for a specific Period. He was

engaged on 1-4-1986 and worked upto 12-2-94. The Labour

Court concluded that termination of his services was

violative of provisions of section 25-F of the Act, hence

ordered for his reinstatement with 50% back wages. Relying

precedents in Morinda Coop. Sugar Mills (supra) and Anil

Bapurao Kanase (supra) the Apex Court ruled that since

his engagement was for a specific period and specific work,

relief granted to him by the Labour Court can not be

maintained.

43. The Apex Court dealt with such a situation again

in Darbara Singh (2006 LLR 68) wherein an employee was

appointed by the Punjab State Electricity Board as peon

on daily wage basis from 8.1.88 to 29.2.88. His services

were extend from time to time and finally dispensed with in

3206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

June 1989. The Suprerne Court ruled that engagement of

Darbara Singh was for a specific period and conditional.

His termination did not amount to retrenchment. His case

was found to be covered under exception contained in

sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act. In Kishore

Chand Samal (2006 LLR 65), same view was ‘maintained by

the Apex Court. It was ruled therein that the precedent in

S.M. Nilajkar (2003 (II) LLJ 359) has no application to the

controversy since it was ruled therein that mere mention

about the engagement being temporary without indication

of any period attracts section 25 F of the Act if it is proved

that the concerned workman had worked continuously for

more than 240 days. Case of Darbara Singh and Kishan

Chand Samal were found to be relating to fixed term of

appointment.

44. In BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (2006 LLR 1144)

Rakesh Kumar was appointed as Copyist on 29.9.89,

initially for a period of three months as a daily wager. His

term of appointment was extended up to 20.9.90. No further

extension was given and his services were dispensed with

on 20.9.90. On consideration of facts and law High Court of

Delhi has observed thus:

“ ... In the present case, the respondent was appointed

as a copyist for totalling the accounts of ledger for

the year 1986-87 and then for 1987-88. His initial

appointment was for the period of three months. It

was extended from time to time and no extension was

given after 20th September, 1990. He was appointed

without any regular process of appointment, purely

casual and on temporary basis for specific work of

totalling of ledger. When this work was over, no

extension was given. I consider that appointment as

that of the respondent is squarely covered under

section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act. Giving of non extension

did not amount to termination of service, it was not a

case of retrenchment” .

45.Precedents, handed down by Allahabad High

Court in Shailendra Nath Shukla (supra), Bombay High

Court in Dilip Hanumantrao Shirke (supra), Punjab &

Haryana High Court in Balbir Singh (supra) and Madhya

Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh Bank Karamchari

Sangh (supra) castrate sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of

the Act. Ratio decidendi in these precedents abrogates

statutory provisions of sub-clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of

the Act without even discussing the legality or

constitutional validity of the clause. On the other hand the

Apex Court in C.M. Venugopal (supra), Morinda Co-

operative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra), Anil Bapurao Kanase

(supra), Harmohinder Singh (supra), Batala Coop. Sugar

Mills Ltd. (supra), Darbara Singh (supra) and Kishore Chand

Samal (supra) and High Court of Delhi in BSES Yamuna

Power Ltd. (supra) spoke that case of an employee,

appointed for a specific period which was extended from

time to time, would be covered by the exception contained

in sub-clause (bb) of section 2(oo) of the Act, in case his

services are dispensed with as a result of non-renewal of

the contract of employment between him and his employer,

on its expiry or termination of the contract of employment

in terms of a stipulation contained in the contract of

employment in that behalf. The law, so laid, holds the water

and would be applied to the claimant.

46. Second part of sub-clause (bb) of clause(oo) of

section 2 of the Act, refers to termination of contract of

employment upon giving notice of certain specified period

of time. Generally, contract of employment or in case of

statutory corporation or Government undertaking,

statutory rules or regulations governing the service provide

that service of an employee can be terminated by giving

notice of specified period of time by either side or payment

in lieu thereof. In some cases, even unilateral provisions to

the effect that services of an employee can be terminated

at any time without assigning. any reason are inserted,

The Apex Court in Deshbandhu Ghosh (1985(1) LLJ 315)

construed regulation 34 of West Bengal State Electricity

Board Regulations which empowered the Board to terminate

services of an employee by giving three months’ notice or

pay in lieu thereof and ruled that the regulation is violative

of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court struck down

the regulation and ruled as follows:

“On the face of it the Regulation is totally arbitrary

and confers on the Board a power which is capable

of vicious discrimination. It is a naked ‘hire and fire’

rule, the time for banishing which altogether from

employer- employee relationship is fast approaching.

Its only parallel is to be found in the Henry VIII clause

so familiar to administrative lawyers”.

47. In Brojonath Ganguly (1986(2) LLJ 171), the Apex

Court struck down rule 9(i) of Service Discipline and Appeal

Rules, applicable to employees of Central Inland Water

Transport Corporation Ltd., which provide that employment

of a permanent employee shall be subject to termination by

giving three months’ notice by either side or payment of

amount equivalent to three months basic pay and dearness

allowance in lieu thereof, as violative of Article 16 and 14 of

the Constitution, besides being void under section 23 of

the Indian Contract Act, as opposed to public policy. In

view of grossly unequal position of employer and the

employee, the Court discountenanced the agreement of

the Corporation that the clause was duly accepted by the

employee. In the same manner, In O.P. Bhandari (1986(2)

LLJ 509) the Apex Court struck down rule 31 (IV) of

IndianTourism Development Corporation, Conduct,

Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1978 wherein provisions

relating to discharge of an employee from service by giving

notice for a specified period of time or salary in lieu thereof

were incorporated. Relying the precedent in Deshbandhu

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3207

Ghosh (supra), the Court ruled that to uphold such a clause

under service rules would amount to accord a magna carta

to the authorities invested with these powers to practice

uncontrolled discrimination. Observations made by the

Court in that regard are reproduced thus:

“This rule cannot co-exist with Articles 14 and 16 (1)

of the Constitution of India. The said rule must

therefore die, so that the fundamental rights

guaranteed by the aforesaid constitutional provisions

remain alive. For, otherwise, the guarantee enshrined

in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be set at

naught simply by framing a rule authorizing

termination of an employee by merely giving a notice.

In order to uphold the validity of the rule in question

it will have to be held that the tenure of service of a

citizen who takes up employment with the State will

depend on the pleasure or whim of the competent

authority unguided by any principle or policy. And.

that the services of an employee can be terminated,

though there is no rational ground for doing so, even

arbitrarily or capriciously. To uphold this right is to

accord a “magna carta” to the authorities invested

with these powers to practice uncontrolled

discrimination at their pleasure and caprice on

considerations not necessarily based on the welfare

of the organization but possibly based on personal

likes and dislikes, personal preferences and

prejudices”.

48. In Delhi Transport Corporation [1991 (1) LLJ 395]

law laid in the precedents referred above was reaffirmed by

the Apex Court holding that regulation 9(b) of Delhi

Transport Corporation, which provided for termination of

employment by giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu

thereof, vested absolute unbridled and arbitrary powers in

the employer to terminate services and as such, was

violative of the constitutional mandate envisaged in Article

14 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the Corporation

had no powers to make a rule providing for sacking of the

permanent employees on unspecified grounds, by merely

giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof.

49. The Apex Court dealt with legal validity of

statutory regulations, framed by the statutory

corporations, providing for termination of service of an

employee by giving him notice of specified period of time

or paying salary in lieu thereof, in the precedents referred

above. The Court was not dealing with legal validity of

section 2(oo) of the Act. Effect of dicta, in the above

precedents, is that any stipulation in a contract of

employment, fixing terms of employment or providing for

termination of services by giving notice for certain specified

period of time or payment of wages in lieu thereof, will be

void. In case of public sector undertakings, such stipulation

will be violative of guarantee enshrined in Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution being arbitrary and discriminatory

and also being opposed to public policy under Section 23

of the Contract Act. In case of private sector undertakings,

such provisions will be void under Section 23 of the

Contract Act. Thus, it is evident that the holdings, in the

aforesaid precedents therefore castrates second part of

sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of section 2 of the Act.

50. On turning to facts, it is noted that the claimant

was appointed as “Pilot B” for a period of five years with

effect from 01.08.2011, vide appointment letter EX.WW1/1.

The management claims that his services were dispensed

with in terms of service conditions contained in appointment

letter dated 01.08.2011. As emerge out of the appointment

letter EX.WW1/1 claimant was appointed on contractual

basis for a period of five years, which contents are extracted

thus:

“1. Contractual appointment

a. Duration

You will be appointed as Pilot B on contractual basis

for a period of 5(five) years with effect from 01.08.2011

or from the actual date of resuming flying assignment

and will come to an end on 5(five) years or your

attaining the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier

without any further action or orders by the company.

Be it understood and agreed clearly that due to

fluctuating and uncertain nature of contract awarded

to the company by its clients, this contractual

appointment is purely temporary and for a fixed term

only and shall automatically come to an end on the

stipulated date as above or on any other earlier date

and if communicated to you by the management.

Further continuance of the contractual employment

would not entitle you any right for regularization in

the company”.

51. Relating to assessment of performance of the

claimant, while in service of the management, stipulation

has been made in the appointment letter, which terms are

reproduced thus:

“II. Performance Review/termination of service

Your performance will be reviewed quarterly during

the first year of service and if found unsatisfactory,

your services are liable to be terminated without any

notice.

Thereafter, the company can terminate your contract

at any time by giving two months’ notice or salary in

lieu thereof. In case of resignation, you would be

required to give six months’ notice subject to the

completion of contractual obligation on your part as

laid down in the bond as well as relative clause of

Civil Aviation Requirement dated 01.09.2005 issued

3208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

by the Director General Civil Aviation. In no case

there would be any payment in lieu of notice period

to waive of the actual notice period for resignation.

52. In his testimony, the claimant does not dispute

that he was appointed by the management on 01.08.2011

for a period of five years. However, he agitates that he

served the management from 21.03.2009 till 06.06.2012, in

order to project that his performance was reviewed by the

management from time to time and found him to be a

proficient pilot. Shri Aggarwal brought it over the record

that the claimant served the management on deputation

from 21.03.2009 till 31.05.2011. These facts were not dispelled

by the claimant at all. Therefore, it emerged over the record

that the claimant served the management on deputation

from 21.03.2009 till 31.05.2011. He superannuated from the

Army services and then joined the management as Pilot B

on contractual basis vide appointment letter Ex.WW1/1.

Performance of the claimant, while being on deputation

with the management, is not relevant for the period when

he was appointed as Pilot B on contractual basis. Even

otherwise, term of service contained in appointment letter

Ex.WW1/1 were not questioned by the claimant. He

accepted terms of his service and put his signatures at

Point A on Ex.WW1/1 in token of its acceptance. Out of

these facts, it emerged that the claimant was appointed as

Pilot B with stipulation that his performance would be

reviewed by the management quarterly for the first year

and if found unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be

terminated without any notice.

53. Stipulation contained in Ex.WW1/1 to the effect

that in case of performance of the claimant found to be

satisfactory within period of one year, even then his

services can be dispensed with by the management by

way of giving two months or salary in lieu thereof, cannot

withstand the safeguards provided in Article 14 of the

Constitution. Such powers cannot be held to be fair and in

consonance with principles of natural justice. Evidently,

these stipulations are arbitrary and vests the management

with right to hire and fire. The management can banish

relationship of employer and employee between it and the

claimant by merely giving two months’ notice or pay in lieu

thereof. It is evident that termination of the claimant will

depend upon whims or pleasure of the management,

unguided by any principle or policy. Ihe management can

dispense with services of the claimant on its whims and

fancies without disclosing and rational ground for doing

so. Relying law laid by the Apex Court, referred above, it is

concluded that the above stipulations are violative of Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution, besides being void under

section 23 of the Contract Act. Resultantly, it is concluded

that the right vesting in the management to terminate

contract of employment of the claimant by way of giving

two months’ notice or salary in lieu thereof is void.

Stipulation, as referred above, is hereby, brushed aside.

54. Whether stipulation to the effect that the

management was to review performance of the claimant

quarterly during the first year of service and if found

unsatisfactory, his services were liable to be terminated

without any notice, is in consonance with law? For an

answer to this proposition, it is to be taken note of that an

employer has right to assess fitness of an employee to the

post. Concept of fitness to the post includes three main

ingredients, viz. performance or productivity, discipline or

conduct and attendance. Employer has right to put an

employee on trial when he has been employed provisionally

to fill a permanent vacancy. Obviously, purpose of putting

him on trial is to find out his suitability of holding the post

substantially or permanently and thereafter he gets a right

to hold the post. Fitness or suitability is to be judged at the

time of his confirmation and not unless any specific rule or

term of contract of service so provides, as on the date of

his original appointment. If an employee is found to be

unsuitable, either during the period when he was put on

trial or on completion of the said period, he is not to be

retained in service. Main essence of the concept of putting

a person on trial is to judge his suitability for a regular

appointment on the post. He is liable to be discharged on

being found to be unsuitable for absorption on the post.

Testing of a person’s capacity, conduct or character

empowers an employer to watch the employee for a

particular period and the employee has to prove his worth

to become eligible for that post in substantive capacity.

Stipulation, relating to review of performance of the claimant

during the first year of his service, in his appointment letter

Ex.WW1/1, makes it apparent that he was put on probation

for that period.

55. Whether discharge of services of the claimant

during first year of service can be held to be within the

rights of the management? As projected above, claimant

was appointed on 01.08.2011 and his performance was to

be reviewed quarterly for first year of his service. The

management was competent to review his service on

30.11.2011, 29.02.2012, 31.05.2012 and 31.08.2012. Services

of the claimant were dispensed with on 01.06.2012 on the

strength of termination letter, proved as EX.WW1/6. Thus,

obviously his performance was reviewed by the

management for three quarters. His services were dispensed

with at the end of third quarter, without permitting him to

prove his worth in forth quarter of the year.

56. The principle of law relating to discharge under

contract and discharge simpliciter were extended to the

discharge of probationer by the Supreme Court in Express

Newspaper Ltd. [1964 (I) LLJ 9]. Facts of the case were that

a journalist was appointed on probation for a period of 6

months and was to be confirmed on being found suitable

for the job. Before the expiry of period of probation the

employer terminated his services on the ground that his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3209

work was not satisfactory. The journalist challenged his

discharge on the ground that it was mala fide and unfair

labour practice on the part of the employer. The employer

pleaded that the journalist was appointed on probation,

hence termination of his service on account of

unsatisfactory work was well within rights. The Apex Court

recognized the right of the employer ot terminate service of

a probationer at the end of the period of probation. The

observations made by the Apex Courts are extracted thus:

“there can, in our opinion be no doubt about the

position in law that an employee appointed on

probation for 6 months continues as probationer

even after the period of 6 months if at the end of the

period his services had either not been terminated or

he is confirmed. It appears clear to us that without

anything more an appointment on probation for 6

months give the employer no right to terminate the

service of an employee before 6 months had expired

except on the ground of misconduct or other

sufficient reasons in which case even the service of

a permanent employee could be terminated. At the

end of the 6 months period the employer can either

confirm him or terminate his services because his

performance is found unsatisfactory. If no action is

taken by the employer either by way of confirmation

or by way of termination the employee continues to

be in service as a probationer”.

57. The distinction was maintained by the Apex Court

between cases of termination of employment of a

probationer before period of probation had expired and the

cases where the employer exercise his inherent right either

to confirm or to terminate the employment of the probationer

at the end of the period of probation. When an employee

appointed on probation for a specific period is allowed to

continue in the post after the expiry of that period without

any specific order of confirmation, he continues in his post

as a probationer only and acquires no substantive right to

the post in the absence of any stipulation to the contrary

in the original order of appointment or service rules. When

an employee is allowed to continue after end of period of

probation, necessary implication would follow that his

period of probation has been extended and it cannot be

concluded that he should be deemed to have been

confirmed. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in

Dharam Singh (AIR 1968 SC 1210). Consequently it is clear

that an express order of confirmation is necessary to give

an employee substantive right to the post and from the

mere fact that he is allowed to continue in the post after the

end of period of probation, it is not possible to hold that he

should be deemed to have been confirmed. In unit Trust of

India (1993 (I) LLJ 240) the Apex Court announced that the

vary purpose of putting a person on probation is to watch

his performance.

58. Whether assessment made by the employer about

suitability of the employee can be weighed by an Industrial

Adjudicator ? It is a settled proposition that assessment to

the effect that service of a probationer is satisfactory or

not rests with the satisfaction of the employer. Such

satisfaction could be objectively assessed and employer

is not bound to give any reason when he does not confirm

a probationer on expiry of the period of probation. However

the industrial adjudication may call upon the employer to

put reason for not confirming an employee when he finds

the order laced with mala fide. In Upkar Machinery Ltd.,

(1996 (1) LLJ 398) the Apex Court ruled that when validity

of termination of services, during period of probation

without notice and without assigning any reason, is under

challenge in that situation Industrial Adjudicator would be

competent to find out whether the order of termination was

bona fide exercise of power conferred by the contract. In

Brook Bond India (Pvt.) Ltd., (1993 (11) LLJ 454) workman

was appointed in the first instance for a period of six

months, extendable for a further period of three months or

more in absolute discretion of the employer. The terms of

appointment further provided that the employer had a right

to terminate the services of a probationer, “during the period

of probation or extended period of probation or before

confirmation in writing, without notice and without

assigning reasons whatsoever.” Service was terminated

within the period of probation. During the course of

adjudication the employer adduced no evidence to show

that the work of probationer was unsatisfactory. The Apex

Court ruled that the order of terminating the service of a

probationer was capricious and unreasonable. The

termination was held to be not justified. The above

precedents make it is clear that an Industrial Adjudicator

has a right to see whether the order of termination is mala

fide or whether it amounts to victimization or unfair labour

practice.

59. As unfolded by Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal, claimant

was involved in a helicopter crash, which occurred on

15.01.2012. He was pilot in-charge of the said helicopter,

which met with an accident. In that accident, the co-pilot

sustained spinal fracture injuries, while other three crew

members sustained minor injuries. Pursuant to the said

accident, claimant was asked to undergo refresher training

from 13.02.2012 to 15.02.2012, which was followed by a

test. Since performance of the claimant was found to be

unsatisfactory, he did not qualify the test. He was asked to

undergo test on 13.03.2012 vide letter dated 02.03.2012,

proved as Ex.MW1/1. Claimant did not appear in the retest,

without any information or permission from the

management. Facts unfolded by Shri Aggarwal are not

disputed in that regard. Claimant tried to agitate that his

test conducted in the year 2009 was valid for a period of

five year and there was no occasion for the management to

call the claimant to undergo retest. Therefore, out of facts

3210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

unfolded by the parties, it is emerging that on account of

helicopter crash, claimant was called upon to undergo

refresher training, followed by a test. When he failed to

perform satisfactorily in the test, he was ordered to undergo

retest, which command he opted not to obey.

60. Services of the claimant were dispersed with vide

termination letter, proved as Ex.WW1/6. As detailed therein,

his services were terminated in terms of clause No.i

(inadvertently that clause has been mentioned as clause

No.iii) of appointment letter dated 01.08.2011. For sake of

convenience, contents of termination letter are reproduced

thus:

“This has reference to show-cause notice No. PHHL/

NR/P&A/20293/1294 dated 09.04.2012 issued to you

and your reply thereto vide your letter dated

13.04.2012. The explanation submitted by you has

been perused and is found to be unsatisfactory and

keeping in view your past performance, license status

and the flying need of the company, your services

are no longer required and your contract of

employment is hereby terminated with immediate

effect in terms of Clause No.(i) Performance Review/

Termination of Service) of your appointment letter

No. PHHL/CO/PERS/1268/B/498 dated 01.08.2011.

You are liable for payment of Service Bond amount

of Rs.25 lakh in terms of Clause No.9 of Service

Agreement dated 1^st August, 2011 executed by you

along with your sureties.

You may collect your dues including two months

notice pay from F&A department of NR during

working hours after payment of bond money.”

61. As projected in Ex.WW1/6, the management took

note of show-cause notice served upon the claimant, his

reply thereto and recorded opinion that reply was

unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the management took into

consideration past performance, license status and flying

need and concluded that services of the claimant were no

longer required. One may take note of the facts that the

management highlights that show-cause notice was served,

which not satisfactorily replied by the claimant. Show-cause

notice EX.WW1/9 makes it apparent that when claimant

opted not to undergo re-test that act was taken as willful

disobedience of official orders, besides being subversive

of discipline or good behavior. Claimant was made known

that the said act may require stringent disciplinary action,

including termination of his contract, in case his explanation

was to be found unsatisfactory. As emerge out of the

termination order, explanation offered by the claimant, was

held not to be satisfactory. Therefore, one may venture to

ascertain as to whether terminology used in the termination

letter casts a stigma on the claimant. As projected above,

termination order though appears to be innocuous yet was

made in the backgrounds of acts of misconduct, allegedly

committed by the claimant. Contents of termination order

visits the claimant with evil consequences, since it is

mentioned therein that his reply to the show-cause notice

was found not to be satisfactory. When gauged in show-

cause notice Ex.WW1/4, insinuation of disobeying official

orders were levelled against the claimant, which acts were

held to be subversive of discipline and good behavior.

Obviously his termination order seems to be order of

dismissal for the misconduct, detained in show-cause

notice Ex.WW1/4. Therefore, it is obvious that the

termination order, though counched in innocuous words,

casts stigma on the claimant. Resultantly it is concluded

that the termination order is not a discharge simpliciter, but

an order of dismissal for the misconduct.

62. No charge sheet was served on the claimant for

the misconduct for which his services were dispensed with.

No enquiry was conducted in the matter. As brought over

the record by Shri Aggarwal, only show-cause notice was

served on him, which is Ex.WW1/4. Though reply was

submitted which is Ex.WW1/5, yet it was held to be

unsatisfactory. Thus it is evident that no opportunity of

being heard was granted to the claimant when his services

were dispensed with by the management. Evidently, this is

a case of no enquiry. In such a situation, termination order

is held not to be fair and legal. It cannot be said that services

of the claimant were dispensed with in accordance with

principles of natural justice. In view of these facts, order of

termination cannot be held to be by way of punishment for

a proved misconduct. Action of the management. cannot

be held to be saved in main part of the definition of the term

retrenchment, contained in section 2(oo) of the Act.

Resultantly, it is concluded that action of the management

is retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the

Act. Issue is therefore, answered in favour of the claimant

and against the management.

Issue No. 3

63.Four standards were delineated by the Labour

Appellate Tribunal in Buckingham & Carnatic Company

Limited (1952 L.A.C. 490) to render managerial right of taking

disciplinary action vulnerable, namely, (i) where there is a

want of bona fides or (ii) when it is a case of victimization

or unfair labour practice or violation of the principles of

natural justice, or (iii) when there is basic error of facts, or

(iv) when there has been a perverse finding on the materials.

This articulation was adopted by the Apex Court with slight

modification in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited

(1958(1) LLJ 260), without any acknowledgement to the

precedent in Buckingham & Carnatic case (supra), wherein

it was ruled that the power of the management to direct its

own internal administration and discipline was not unlimited

and liable to be interfered with by industrial adjudication

when a dispute arises to see whether termination of services

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3211

of a workman is justified and to give appropriate relief.

However, it was announced that the jurisdiction of an

Industrial Tribunal to interfere with the managerial

prerogative of taking disciplinary action is not of appellate

nature as the legislature has not chosen to confer such

jurisdiction upon it. Hence Tribunal could not substitute

its own judgement for that of the management. The Court

laid down that in the following circumstances an industrial

adjudicator can interfere with the disciplinary action taken

by the employer: (1) when there is want of good faith,

(2) when there was victimization or unfair labour practice,

(3) when the management had been guilty of a basic error

or violation of the principles of natural justice, or (4) when

on the materials, the finding was completely baseless or

perverse.

64. Enunciation (1) and (2), referred above, are

addressed to the bona fides of the employer in initiating

the action and inflicting the punishment, while postulates

(3) and (4) are addressed to domestic enquiry. Therefore,

an employer is required to act bona-fide in initiating

disciplinary action as well as in inflicting the punishment.

In initiating the action, the alleged act of misconduct shouid

not be a ruse for something else, such as the trade union

activities of the workman or employers dislike of him for

some personal reasons. The action should not be motivated

by vindictiveness or ulterior purpose, so as to smack for

victimization or unfair labour practice. Likewise in the matter

of inflicting punishment, the employer should act fairly. In

case punishment awarded is so shockingly

disproportionate to the act of the misconduct, as no

reasonable man would ever impose that “itself may lead to

an inference of rnalafides, victimization or unfair labour

practice. In holding enquiry, the Enquiry Officer must

comply with the rules of natural justice. He must not be a

biased person and give reasonable opportunity to both

sides for being heard. His findings should not be baseless

or perverse

65. In Ramswarth Sinha (1954 L.A.C. 697) the Labour

Appellate Tribunal recognized the right of the management

to ask for permission to adduce evidence before the Tribunal

to justify its action in a “no enquiry” case. Following that

proposition the Apex Court equated the cases of “defective

enquiry” with “no enquiry” cases and ruled that in either

cases, the Tribunal have jurisdiction to go into the merits

of the case on the basis of evidence adduced before it by

the parties. Reference can be made to the precedent in

Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. [1965(2) LLJ 162] where

the employer had held no enquiry at all before the dismissal

and, therefore, adduced evidence to justify its action before

the Tribunal, which decision was upheld. The Apex Court

discarded the plea on behalf of the workman that since no

enquiry at all had been held by the employer, it had no right

to adduce evidence to justify its stand before the Tribunal.

In Ritz Theatre [1962 (11) LLJ 498] it was ruled by the

Supreme Court that the Tribunal would be justified to go to

the merits of the case and decide for itself on the basis of

the evidence adduced whether the charges have indeed

been made out. It announced that it would neither be fair to

the management nor fair to the workman himself in such a

case that the Tribunal should refuse to take the evidence

and thereby drive the management to pass through the

whole process of holding the enquiry all over again.

Reference can also be made to the Precedent in Bharat

Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961 (11) LLJ 644].

66. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company [1972

(1) LLJ 180], Apex Court considered the catena of decisions

over the subject and laid down the following principles :

“(1) If no domestic enquiry had been held by the

management, or if the management makes it clear

that it does not rely upon any domestic enquiry that

may have been held by it, it is entitled to straightaway

adduce evidence before the Tribunal justifying its

action. The Tribunal is bound to consider that

evidence so adduced before it, on merits, and give a

decision thereon. In such a case, it is not necessary

for the Tribunal to consider the validity of the

domestic enquiry as the employer himself does not

rely on it.

(2) If a domestic enquiry had been held, it is open to

the management to rely upon the domestic enquiry

held by it, in the first instance, and alternatively and

without prejudice to its plea that the enquiry is proper

and binding, simultaneously adduce additional

evidence before the Tribunal justifying its action. In

such a case no inference can be drawn, without

anything more, that the management has given up

the enquiry conducted by it.

(3) When the management relies on the enquiry

conducted by it, and also simultaneously adduces

evidence before the Tribunal, without prejudice to

its plea that the enquiry proceedings are proper, it is

the duty of the Tribunal, in the first instance, to

consider whether the enquiry proceedings

conducted by the management, are valid and proper.

If the Tribunal is satisfied that the enquiry

proceedings have been held properly and are valid,

the question of considering the evidence adduced

before it on merits, no longer survives. It is only

when the holds that the enquiry proceedings have

not been properly held, that it derives jurisdiction to

deal with the merits of the dispute and in such a case

it has to consider the evidence adduced before it by

the management and decide the matter on the basis

of such evidence.

(4) When the domestic enquiry has been held by the

management and the management relies on the same,

it is open to the latter to request the Tribunal to try

3212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the validity of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary

issue and also ask for an opportunity to adduce

evidence before the Tribunal, if the finding on the

preliminary issue is against the management.

However, elaborate and cumbersome the procedure

may be, under such circumstances, it is open to the

Tribunal to deal, in the first instance, as a preliminary

issue the validity of the domestic enquiry. If its

finding on the preliminary issue is in favour of the

management, then no additional evidence need be

cited by the management. But, if the finding on the

preliminary issue is against the management, the

Tribunal will have to give the employer an

opportunity to cite additional evidence and also give

a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence

contra, as the request to adduce evidence had been

made by the management to the Tribunal during the

course of the proceedings and before the trial has

come to an end. When the preliminary issue is decided

against the management and the latter leads evidence

before the Tribunal, the position, under such

circumstances, will be, that the management is

deprived of the benefit of having the finding of the

domestic tribunal being accepted as prima facie proof

of the alleged misconduct. On the other hand, the

management will have to prove, by adducing proper

evidence, that the workman is guilty of misconduct

and that the action taken by it is proper. It will not be

just and fair either to the management or to the

workman that the Tribunal should refuse to take

evidence and thereby ask the management to take a

further application, after holding a proper enquiry,

and deprive the workman of the benefit of the

Tribunal itself being satisfied, on evidence adduced

before it, that he was or was not guilty of the alleged

misconduct.

(5) The management has got a right to attempt to

sustain its order by adducing independent evidence

before the Tribunal. But the management should avail

itself of the said opportunity by making a suitable

request to the Tribunal before the proceedings are

closed. If no such opportunity has been available of,

or asked for by the management, before the

proceedings are closed, the employer can make no

grievance that the Tribunal did not provide such an

opportunity. The Tribunal will have before it only

the enquiry proceedings and it has to decide whether

the proceedings have been held properly and the

findings recorded therein are also proper. :

(6) If the employer relies only on the domestic enquiry

and does not simultaneously lead additional

evidence or ask for an opportunity during the

pendancy of the proceedings to adduce such

evidence, the duty of the Tribunal is only to consider

the validity of the domestic enquiry as well as the

finding recorded therein and decide the matter. If the

Tribunal decides that the domestic enquiry has not

been held properly, it is not its function to invite

suomoto the employer to adduce evidence before it

to justify the action taken by it.

(7) The above principles apply to the proceedings

before the Tribunal, which have come before it either

on a reference under Section 10 or by way of an

application under Section 33 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947.

67. Keeping in view the proposition laid by the Apex

Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company (supra),

the Parliament inserted section 11-A in the Act, which came

into force w.e.f. 15^th cf December, 1971. In the statement of

objects and reasons for inserting section 11-A, it was stated :

“In Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited and

Another Vs. Their Workmen (AIR 1958 S.C. 130 at

p.138) , the Supreme Court, while considering the

Tribunal’s power to interfere with the management’s

decision to dismiss, discharge or terminate the

services of a workman, has observed that in case of

dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal does not act

as a court of appeal and substitute its own judgment

for that of the management and that the Tribunal will

interfere only when there is want of good faith,

victimization , unfair labour practice, etc., on the part

of the management.

2. The International Labour Organization, in its

recommendation (No.119) concerning Termination of

employment at the initiative of the employer’ adopted

in June 1963, has recommended that a worker

aggrieved by the termination of his employment

should be entitled to appeal against the termination

among others, to a neutral body such as an arbitrator,

a court, an arbitration committee or a similar body

and that the neutral body concerned should be

empowered to examine the reasons given in the

termination of employment and the other

circumstances relating to the case and to render a

decision on the justification of the termination. The

International Labour Organization has further

recommended that the neutral body should be

empowered (if it finds that the termination of

employment was unjustified) to order that the worker

concerned, unless reinstated with unpaid wages,

should be paid adequate compensation or afforded

some other relief.

3. In accordance with these recommendations , it is

considered that the Tribunal’s power in an

adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or

dismissal of a workman should not be limited and

that the Tribunal should have the power, in cases

wherever necessary to set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3213

the workman on such terms and conditions, if any,

as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the

workman including the award of any lesser

punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the

circumstances of the case may require. For this

purpose, a new section 11-A is proposed to be

inserted in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .......”.

68. After insertion of section 11-A , the Apex Court

summed up the law in the case of Firestone Tyre and Rubber

Company [1973 (1) LLJ 278] in the following propositions:

“(1) The right to take disciplinary action and to decide

upon the quantum of punishment are mainly

managerial functions, but if a dispute is referred to a

Tribunal, the latter has power to see if action of the

employer is justified.

(2) Before imposing the punishment, as employer is

expected to conduct a proper enquiry in accordance

with the provisions of the Standing Orders, if

applicable, and principles of natural justice. The

enquiry should not be an empty formality.

(3) When a proper enquiry has been held by an

employer, and the finding of misconduct is a

plausible conclusion flowing from the evidence,

adduced at the said enquiry, the Tribunal has no

jurisdiction to sit in judgement over the decision of

the employer as an appellate body. The interference

with the decision of the employer will be justified

only when the findings arrived at in the enquiry are

perverse or the management is guilty of victimization,

unfair labour practice or mala fide.

(4) Even if no enquiry has been held by an employer

or if the enquiry held by him is found to be defective,

the Tribunal in order to satisfy itself about the legality

and validity of the order, had to give an opportunity

to the employer and employee to adduce evidence

before it. It is open to the employer to adduce

evidence for the first time justifying his action, and it

is open to the employee to adduce evidence contra.

(5) The effect of an employer not holding an enquiry

is that the Tribunal would not have to consider only

whether there was a prima facie case. On the other

hand, the issue about the merits of the impugned

order of dismissal or discharge is at large before the

Tribunal and the latter, on the evidence adduced

before it, has to decide for itself whether the

misconduct alleged is proved. In such cases, the

point about the exercise of managerial functions does

not arise at all. A case of defective enquiry stands on

the same footing as no enquiry.

(6) The Tribunal gets jurisdiction to consider the

evidence placed before it for the first time in

justification of the action taken only, if no enquiry

has been held or after the enquiry conducted by an

employer is found to be defective.

(7) It has never been recognized that the Tribunal

should straightaway, without anything more, direct

reinstatement of a dismissed or discharged employee,

once it is found that no domestic enquiry has been

held or the said enquiry is found to be defective.

(8) An employer, who wants to avail himself of the

opportunity of adducing evidence for the first time

before the Tribunal to justify his action, should ask

for it at the appropriate stage. If such an opportunity

is asked for, the Tribunal has no power to refuse.

The giving of an opportunity to an employer to

adduce evidence for the first time before the Tribunal

is in the interest of both the management and the

employee and to enable the Tribunal itself to be

satisfied about the alleged misconduct.

(9) Once the misconduct is proved either in the

enquiry conducted by an employer or by the evidence

placed before a Tribunal for the first time, punishment

imposed cannot, be interfered with by the Tribunal

except in cases where the punishment is so harsh as

to suggest victimization.

(10) In a particular case, after setting aside the order

of dismissal, whether a workman should be reinstated

or paid compensation is, as held by this Court in The

Management of Panitole Tea Estate Vs. The workmen,

within the judicial decision of a Labour Court or

Tribunal.”

69. In Mahatta [2012(133) FLR 418], the High Court

of Delhi dealt with a series of decision on the topic and

ruled that an industrial adjudicator, upon completion of

pleadings, is required to proceed with the adjudication in

the following manner:

(a) To examine whether the domestic enquiry

preceding the punishment is pleaded to have been

held and documents in support thereof filed.

(b) If the domestic enquiry is pleaded and the

documents in support thereof filed, and the workman

has challenged the validity of the said domestic

enquiry, to determine whether such challenge is on

any factual or purely legal grounds and frame issues

on the same.

pleaded but no documents in support thereof filed,

the question of framing any issue as to domestic

inquiry does not arise

(d) If an issue as aforesaid to the domestic inquiry

has been framed and the employer has also sought

opportunity to in the alternative establish misconduct

3214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

before the Industrial Adjudicator, to frame issue

thereon also, simultaneously with framing issues on

validity of inquiry.

(e) To, after hearing the parties consider whether in

the facts of the present case any prejudice (other

than as above) is likely to be caused to either of the

parties if evidence on both sets of issues is led

together. Only on finding, by a reasoned order, a

case of such prejudice or any other reason, is the

trial to be bifurcated into two states. Else, the parties

to be directed to lead evidence on both sets of issues

together.

(f) To, if the evidence on both sets of issues has

been recorded together, to first consider the evidence

only on the aspect of validity of the inquiry and

without being influenced in any manner whatsoever

by the depositions of the witnesses on the merits of

the dispute, i.e. misconduct with which the workman

was charged with. If the enquiry is found to be vitiated

and a finding in that regard is returned, the Industrial

Adjudicator may then proceed to adjudicate on the

basis of evidence in that respect, whether misconduct

has been established or not.

(g) The Industrial Adjudicator to, on case to case

basis, decide whether the arguments on both aspects

are to be heard together or at different stages.

However, as aforesaid an endeavour is to be made to

record the evidence of the witness on both issues in

one go only.

70. As noted above, it was a case of no enquiry.

Evidence was produced by the management before this

Tribunal to prove charges against the claimant. In order to

prove misconduct of the claimant, the management projects

that when claimant was involved in helicopter crash on

15.01.2012, entire fleet of Dhruv helicopter was grounded.

Claimant was ordered to undergo refresher training from

13.02.2012 to 15.02.2012 followed by a test. Claimant took

the test but Could not perform satisfactorily. He was

ordered to undergo retest, vide command contained in

Ex.MW1/1. The said command was not obeyed and show-

cause notice EX.WW1/4 was served. Explanation offered

by the claimant through Ex.WW1/5 was held to be

unsatisfactory. As contained in Ex.WW1/5, claimant

nowhere projects facts to offer explanation as to why he

had not undergone retest despite command given in

EX.MW1/1. In order to appreciate justification of the

command of retest given to the claimant, guidelines issued

by the Director General, Civil Aviation, are to be looked in

to. Civil Aviation Requirements, effective from 30.11.2006

highlights that recurrent training of pilot at periodical

intervals is imperative and necessary to ensure standards.

The management was to ensure proficiency of pilots on

the type of helicopter (twin engine) and his role as pilot in

command and to monitor him periodically to upgrade his

skill and knowledge as a pilot so that he acquires and

maintains competency in his duties. When he crashed the

helicopter, the management called upon the claimant to

undergo refresher training pursuant to Civil Aviation

Requirements, referred above. He opted to undergo

refresher training and test but could not come out

successfully. Hence, he was ordered to undergo retest,

which directions he failed to follow. Thus, it is evident that

the claimant had not undertaken retest and committed

misconduct of disobeying lawful orders of his employer.

Orders given to the claimant were to upgrade skill and

efficiency to work as pilot in-charge. Instead of upgrading

his efficiency and skill, he violates lawful orders. which act

is subversive of discipline or good behaviour. Evidently,

gross-misconduct was committed by the claimant, which

has been proved to the hilt.

71. Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal deposed that the claimant

was involved in a helicopter accident wherein co-pilot

sustained spinal fracture injuries while other three crew

members sustained minor injuries. Clamant was pilot in

charge of the ill-fated helicopter. Thus, out of facts unfolded

by Shri Aggarwal, it emerged that the management projects

that on account of errors of the claimant, said accident

occurred. The claimant attempts to dispel facts testified by

Shri Aggarwal. However, the situation is otherwise as

noticed by the Enquiry Committee, appointed by the

Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi.

Enquiry Committee, it its report dated 22.04.2013, ruled

that the helicopter was airworthy. For sake of convenience,

findings of the Enquiry Committee are extracted thus:

“2.1 Airworthiness of Helicopter

2.1.1 Maintenance of the helicopter : The Certificate

of Airworthiness of the helicopter was current and

valid. Periodicity of all scheduled maintenance tasks

was maintained. The helicopter was under the

maintenance of an approved maintenance

organization. AME who carried out daily inspection

on the day of the accident, is appropriately licensed

for the maintenance of this type of helicopter. He did

not observe any snag or abnormality during his

inspection. Engine power assurance check was being

carried out at intervals specified by the manufacturer

(i.e. at 25 hours and no anomaly was observed.

2.1.2 System/component Failure: the helicopter had

snag related to tail rotor and main rotor on numerous

occasions and they were rectified as per the

procedure. TR imbalance was also reported twice

within a span of one month after major inspection of

250 hours on 16.11.2011. On being referred, HAL

recommended repainting of TR blades to address

paint peel off that was opined to have been caused

by sand/dust in the operating environment. Painting

of the blades was carried out under the supervision

of HAL engineer, holding authorization for the scope

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3215

of work issued by QM HAL. TR assembly was

installed after painting and rigging check was carried

out on TR flight controls. Helicopter was offered for

dynamic balancing of TR on 15.01.2012, comprising

ground and flight regimes.

♦

No snag or abnormality was observed by the AME

during his pre-flight inspection. After satisfactory

check in the ground regime, the helicopter was

released for vibration assessment in the flight regime.

After about four minutes of the flight, the helicopter

entered into uncontrolled and rapid descent and thus

impacted the ground.

♦

After the accident detailed inspection of helicopter

and its system was carried and no defect was

observed, damages observed were post impact.

♦

To assess any failure related to the power system,

the ECU date from the ECU of both the engines were

down loaded and no discrepancy was observed.

DFDR data also did not indicate any engine related

discrepancies.

♦

Integrity of transmission system was checked and

found satisfactory.

♦

To assess any defect related to Auto Flight Control

System (AFCC) which could have led to possible

loss of control, both the AFCC were checked at the

facility of HAL at Bangalore. No discrepancy was

observed.

♦

During the descent, collective pitch lever was

vigorously used by the crew to arrest the rapid rate

of descent. However the descent could not be

arrested. To obviate malfunction/failure of the CPA,

the component was checked at the HAL facility and

no discrepancy was observed.

♦

The helicopter was maintained as per the approved

maintenance programme. No snag was reported

before the accidental flight.

Thus, it can be safely concluded that the helicopter was in

airworthy condition to undertake the flight.”

72.The Committee conducted an investigations to

draw lessons from the accident in order to prevent future

accidents. To assess facts, so that in future lessons may

be learnt, the Committee went on to ascertain as to whether

there was any human error involved in the accident. The

committee ruled that the accident was result of situational

unawareness of the pilot in command. For sake of

convenience, report of the Committee In that regard IS

extracted thus:

“2.5 Piloting and Handling of Emergency

2.5.1 On the day of accident, the helicopter was

checked for vibrations on ground and then flown for

OGE hover check. The helicopter was ‘Picked Up’

and power used was read out by the PlC, without

stabilizing the hover. Collective setting being greater

than the IGE requirement, the helicopter continued

to gain height. Further increment resulted in

appreciable increase in Q (22.12% in excess of OGE

hover requirement) and ROC (438 feet/min). Higher

power settings were maintained despite Co-pilot’s

advisories on height attained from 90 feet onwards

and H.HT mode was engaged at 105 feet, without

stabilizing the helicopter. In the duration that AFCS

could stabilize and bring the helicopter to the

reference height, it had exceeded permissible

deviation of 30 feet, resulting in un-commanded

disengagement of H.HT. Consequent illumination of

AFCS annunciator and MW light was seen but the

situation was not comprehended. No effort was made

to analyze the cause and the PlC perceived it as AFCS

malfunction. The helicopter continued to climb

thereafter until Pilot’s next advisory. Further ascend

was stopped for about half minute but was resumed

thereafter, during the ensuing spot turn. The turn

was intended to assess winds, to align the helicopter

into wind for minimizing vibrations. The turn was

unnecessary as winds could have been assessed on

EHSI and wind vector indication.

2.5.2 OGE hover in this helicopter variant is carried

out visually and requires alertness to appreciate

vertical movement, especially at higher heights. H.HT

reduces the work load and its disengagement

worsened the situation. Execution of a spot turn

added to the pilot’s work load. The pilot remained

focused in position keeping and missed out on height

maintenance, revealing inappropriate scanning of

flight instruments.

2.5.3 Near continuous gain in height reveals

inadequate co-relation of power utilization vis-a-vis

calculation based requirements for IGE as well as

OGE hover.

2.5.4 Pilot’s initial attempt for descent did not did

not consummate as the helicopter had been in a state

of climb and reduction in power settings was not

sufficient for commencing a descent. After waiting

for about six seconds, he lowered the collective

further. Reduction was excessive and the helicopter

began to descend rapidly, resulting in ingress into

vortex ring regime. The crew displayed poor

Situational Awareness in not appreciating high ROD

in low power setting descent at zero forward speed.

Onset of the Vortex Ring was not recognized, thus

requisite action could not be initiated. Dhruv

FRC(checklist) mentions following indications and

recovery actions for Vortex Ring :

3216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Indications

Uncontrolled vertical descent at speed close to zero

Increase in vibrations with random pitching and

rolling

Actions

Collective: Maintain approximately at hover setting

Cyclic: Forward to lower attitude by 10 deg. to 15

deg.

As speed builds to 60 KIAS: Raise attitude and arrest

descent

2.6 Cockpit Resource Management

2.6.1 CVR analyses reveals lack of effective CRM.

The Co-pilot did not assist the pilot during the initial

hover but had tried to render assistance in

establishing the hover by calling out heights from 90

feet onwards up to the intended hover height of 105

ft. RH. Later, he had urged the pilot to stop (the climb)

at 215 ft. and again informed the pilot of the height at

500 ft. The Co-pilot however lacked the requisite

assertiveness.

2.6.2 The PlC had continued with the sortie profile

without attempting to analyze or discuss the cause

for activation of MW light. This was despite AME’s

availability on board on Dhruv.

2.6.3 During the descent, the Co-pilot did not caution.

the PlC of high descent rate and hazards associated

with such a condition. This was despite the fact that

there was no adverse Trans-Cockpit Authority

Gradient (TAG). The two Pilots had comparable

number of flying hours and in addition, the Co-pilot

was a qualified Captain on type and had also flown

modern generation helicopter (Bell 407) prior to Dhruv

conversion.

.................

3.1 Findings

3.1.1 On 15th January 2012, Dhruv helicopter VT-

BSN undertook a flight from Raipur aerodrome for

Vibrex Check at 0653 UTC after filing a VFR flight

plan. The exercise entailed checking of TR vibrations

in OGE hover and forward flight regimes. The PlC

initiated a hover and continued uninterrupted ascent

for OGE hover. At about 105 ft, he engaged H. HT

hold which went ‘OFF’ un-commanded. This was

indicated by illumination of AFCS annunciator on

CWP, followed by activation of MW caption. The

helicopter continued to ascend and attained an

approximate height of 800 feet AGL. A descent was

initiated thereafter to get down for establishing

forward flight. Excessive lowering of collective pitch

during vertical descent led to high ROD and onset of

Vortex Ring condition. Collective Pitch was raised to

arrest the sink which led to lntensification of vortices

and further increase in sink rate. Subsequent

reduction in power did not help in reducing or

controlling the sink. The helicopter continued to lose

height rapidly and as the ground came closer, the

PlC raised the collective to maximum possible extent.

The helicopter impacted ground at 06:57 UTC. It

bounced upwards after the initial impact and settled

back on the runway after rotating approximately 360

degrees.

3.1.2 Crash services were promptly activated and

occupants were evacuated.

3.1.3 There was no fire.

3.1.4 No failure or abnormality was found in any of

the helicopter systems.

3.1.5 Flight Crew’s speculated malfunction of AFCS

or PCA is ruled out.

3.1.6 Inadequate systems’ knowledge and previous

vibration history contributed in obscuring Flight

Crew’s Situational Awareness and mis- judgement of

the emergency.

3.1.7 Flight planning for the flight was inadequate.

3.1.8 The CRM was sub-optimal. Lack of all-inclusive

utilization of available aircraft resources and limited

contribution by Co-pilot during critical phase of flight

precipitated the emergent situation.

3.1.9 Training imparted by the manufacturer was

found inadequate considering PlC’s lack of previous

experience in multi engine/1FR capable helicopter.

3.1.10 The pilots were not scheduled for simulate or

training by the company despite availability of type

simulator since May 2010.

3.1.11 Opportunities accorded to pilots for

consolidation were found to be lacking as quantum

of flying undertaken by Dhruv fleet had been low.

3.1.12 Flying syllabus followed for conversion by

HAL was as per DGCA CAR. The conversion and

consolidation training is found inadequate in the

instant case considering break in flying, previous

experience and individual capabilities. Substantial

number of pilots with only single engine helicopter

and limited IFR exposure were inducted in the

company.

3.2

Probable Causes and Contributing Factors

The accident is attributed to loss of Situational

Awareness by the PlC wherein he allowed the helicopter to

enter Vortex Ring state during vertical descent. High rate of

descent in low power settings had led to onset of the

phenomenon. The Flight Crew failed to recognize the

condition, therefore, stipulated recovery actions were not

initiated. Instead, the PlC attempted to arrest the descent

by raising Collective lever which aggravated the situation.

Crew’s fixation to vibrations’ history of this helicopter and

other speculated failures contributed towards misjudgment

•

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3217

of the situation. Limited experience on type and inadequate

knowledqe of the helicopter systems also contributed

towards the accident.”

73. As is evident, helicopter accident, referred above,

occurred due to loss of situational awareness by the

claimant. He could not attempt to arrest descend by using

capabilities. His failure to handle the helicopter resulted in

the accident wherein the chopper was completely damaged,

the Co-pilot sustained spinal fracture injuries and three

crew members sustained minor injuries. Thus it is evident

that the claimant lacked proficiency and skill, hence could

not exercise efficiency and control while flying Dhruv

Advanced Light Helicopter VT-BSN, which met with an

accident on 15.01.2012. Inefficiency of the claimant led to

this disaster. The management has been able to prove case

of gross misconduct on the part of the claimant.

74. Right of an employer to inflict punishment of

discharge or dismissal can not be held to be unfattered.

The punishment imposed must commensurate with gravity

of the misconduct, proved against the delinquent workman.

Prior to enactment of Section 11-A of the Act it was not

open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of

punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too

severe and was not commensurative with the act of

misconduct. In other words, the industrial adjudicator could

not interfere with the punishment as it was not required to

consider propriety or adequacy of punishment or whether

it was excessive or too severe. Apex Court, in this

connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal Bhatdee

Coal Company [1963 (I) LLJ 291] that where order of

punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act

of the misconduct which no reasonable employer would

impose in like circumstances, that itself would lead to the

inference of victimization or unfair labour practice which

would vitiate order of dismissal or discharge. But by

enacting the provisions of Section 11-A of the Act, the

Legislature has transferred the discretion of the employer,

in imposing punishment, to the industrial adjudicator. It is

now the satisfaction of the industrial adjudicator to finally

decide the quantum of punishment for proved acts of

misconduct, in cases of discharge or dismissal. If the

Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal

is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case,

it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment

and direct reinstatement with back wages, but it has also

the power to impose certain conditions as it may deem fit

and also to give relief to the workman, including award of

lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal.

75. It is established law that imposing punishment

for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing

authority to decide and normally it should not be interfered

with by the Industrial Tribunals. The Tribunal is not required

to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment. But

where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate,

regard being had to the particular conduct and past record,

or is such as no reasonable employer would ever impose in

like circumstance, the Tribunal may treat the imposition of

such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair

labour practice. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex

Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Ltd.

(1965 (I) LLJ 462), Likewise in Management of the

Federation of Indain Chambers of Commerce and Industy

(1971 (II) LLJ 630) the Apex Court ruled that the employer

made a mountain out of a mole hill and had blown a trivial

matter into one involving loss of prestige and reputation

and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be

unwarranted. In Ram Kishan (1996 (I) LLJ 982) the

delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using

abusive language against a superior officer. On the facts

and in the circumstances of the case, the Apex Court held

that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and

disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to

the delinquent. It was ruled therein, “when abusive

language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be

understood in the environment in which that person is

situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that

led to the use of abusive language. No straight- jacket

formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the

abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant

dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on

its own facts”.

76. In B.M.Patil (1996 (11) LLJ 536), Justice Mohan

Kumar of Karnataka High Court observed that in exercise

of discretion, the Disciplinary Authority should not act

like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism

and understanding. It has to assess each case on its own

merit and each set of fact should be decided with reference

to the evidence recording the allegation, which should be

basis of the decision. The past conduct of the worker may

be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity

to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of

punishment to be imposed. In that case a conductor of the

bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss

of 50p to the employer by irregular sale of tickets. It was

held that the punishment was too harsh and

disproportionate to the act of misconduct.

77. After insertion of section 11-A of the Act, the

jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment is there with

the Tribunal, who has to see whether punishment imposed

by the employer commensurate with the gravity of the act

of misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the

misconduct is proved, it may still hold that the punishment

is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is

such as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or

dismissal and where necessary, set aside the order of

discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or

without any terms or conditions as it thinks fit or give any

other relief, including the award of lesser punishment, in

lieu of discharge or dismissal, as the circumstance of the

case may warrant. Reference can be made to a precedent in

Sanatak Singh (1984 Lab.I.C.817). The discretion to award

punishment lesser than the punishment of discharge or

dismissal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal

3218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

can interfere only when it is satisfied that the punishment

imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to

the decree of the guilt of the workman. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Kachraji Motiji Parmar (1994 (11)

LLJ 332). Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has now

jurisdicatioon and power of substituting its own measure

of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom, once it is

satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not

justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case, section

11A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the

Industrial Tribunal, first is virtually the power of appeal

against findings of fact made by the Enquiry Officer in his

report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the

conclusion on facts and secondly of foremost importance,

is the power of reappraisal of quantum of punishment.

78. In Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (2005 (2) S.C.C.

481) the Apex Court was confronted with the proposition

as to whether power available to the Industrial Tribunal

under section 11-A of the Act are unlimited. The Court

opined that “there is no such thing as unlimited jurisdiction

vested with any judicial or quasi judicial forum and

unfettered discretion is sworn enemy of the constitutional

guarantee against discrimination. An unlimited jurisdiction

leads to unreasonableness. No authority, be it administrative

or judicial, has any power to exercise the discretion vested

in it unless the same is based on justifiable grounds

supported by acceptable materials and reasons thereof’.

The Apex Court relied its judgement in C.M.C. Hospital

Employees Union (1987 (4) S.C.C. 691) wherein it was held

that “section 11-A cannot be considered as conferring an

arbitrary power on the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour

Court. The power under section 11-A of the Act has to be

exercised judiciously and the Industrial Tribunal or Labour

Court is expected to interfere with the decision of a

management under section 11-A of the Act only when it is

satisfied that the punishment imposed by the management

is highly disproportionate to the degree of guilt of the

workmen concerned. The Industrial Tribunal or Labour

Court has to give reasons for its decision”. In Hombe Gowda

Educational Trust (2006 (1) S.C.C. 430) the Apex Court

announced that the Tribunal would not normally interfere

with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employer

unless an appropriate case is made out therefore.

79. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal

and grant relief of reinstatement or lesser punishment is

not untrammeled power. This power has to be exercised

only when Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge

or dismissal was not justified. This satisfaction of the

Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one.

It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to

various circumstances like nature of delinquency committed

by the workman, his past conduct, impact of delinquency

on employer’s business, besides length of service rendered

by him. Furthermore, the Tribunal has to consider whether

the decision taken by the employer is just or not. Only after

taking into consideration these aspects, the Tribunal can

upset the punishment imposed by the employer. The

quantum of punishment cannot be interfered with without

recording specific findings on points referred above. No

indulgence is to be granted to a person, who is guilty of

grave misconduct like cheating, fraud, misappropriation of

employers fund, theft of public property etc. A reference

can be made to the precedent in Bhagirath Mal Rainwa

(1995 (I) LLJ 960).

80. What should be the appropriate punishment for

the misconduct committed the claimant? Claimant failed to

follow lawful orders issued by the management when he

was commanded to under retest pursuant to Civil Aviation

Requirements effect from 30.11.2006. His act was subversive

of discipline, which is a grave misconduct. Furthermore, he

lacked proficiency and crashed Dhruv Advanced Light

Helicopter VT BSN on 15.01.2012. His act led to complete

damage of the helicopter. Such gross misconduct on his

part requires stern action. A pilot in command who lacks

proficiency and skill cannot be retained in service.

Therefore, termination of service is the appropriate

punishment which can be awarded to such an employee.

Resultantly, I am of the view that punishment awarded to

the claimant commensurate to his misconduct.

81. Whether the penalty of termination of service

would relate back to the date of order passed by the

management? For an answer, it is expedient to consider the

precedents handed down by the Apex Court. In Ranipur

Colliery [(1959) Supp. 2 SCR 719] the employer conducted

a domestic enquiry though defective and passed an order

of dismissal and moved the Tribunal for approval of that

order. It was ruled therein that if the enquiry is not defective,

the Tribunal has only to see whether there was a prima

facie case for dismissal and whether the employer had come

to the bonafide conclusion that the employee was guilty of

misconduct. Thereafter on coming to that conclusion that

the employer had bonafide come to the conclusion that the

employee was guilty, that is, there was no unfair labour

practice and no victimization, the Tribunal would grant the

approval which would relate back to the date from which

the employer had ordered the dismissal. If the enquiry is

defective for any reason, the Tribunal would also have to

consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it

whether the dismissal was justified. However on coming to

the conclusion on its own appraisal of evidence adduced

before it that the dismissal was justified its approval of the

order of dismissal made by the employer on defective

enquiry would still relate back to the date when order was

made.

82. In Phulbari Tea Estate (1960 (I) S.C.R. 32) the

domestic enquiry held by the employer culminating in the

order of dismissal was found to be invalid, being in gross

violation of the rules of natural justice. Even before the

Tribunal, the employer did not lead proper evidence to

justify the order of dismissal and contended itself by merely

producing the statement of certain witnesses recorded

during the domestic enquiry and the workman had no

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3219

opportunity to cross- examine the witnesses before the

Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence before it, justifying

the dismissal, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal

and granted compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which

order was upheld by the Apex Court. In that case question

of relating back of the order of dismissal did not arise.

83. In P.H. Kalyani (1963 (1) LLJ 673) the employer

dismissed the workman after holding a domestic enquiry

into the charges. Since some dispute was pending before

the Industrial Tribunal, the employer applied for “approval”

of action of dismissal in compliance with the proviso to

section 33(2)(b) of the Act. The workman made an

application under section 33-A of the Act. Apart from relying

on validity of domestic enquiry, the employer adduced all

the evidence before the Tribunal in support of its action.

On basis of evidence before it, the Tribunal came to the

conclusion that the facts of misconduct committed by the

workman were of serious nature involving danger to human

life and therefore dismissed the application under section

33-A and accorded “approval” to the action of dismissal

taken by the employer. In this situation the Apex Court

held that if the enquiry is not defective and the action of

the employer is bona fide, the Tribunal will grant the

“approval” and the dismissal would “relate back to the

date from which the employer had ordered dismissal”. If

the enquiry is invalid for any reason, the Tribunal will have

to consider for itself on the evidence adduced before it,

whether the dismissal was justified. If it comes to the

conclusion on its own appraisal of such evidence that the

dismissal was justified, the dismissal would “still relate

back to the date when the order, was made”. Sasa Musa

Sugar Works case (supra) was distinguished saying that

observations made therein “apply only to a case where the

employer had neither dismissed the employee nor had come

to the conclusion that a case for dismissal had been made.

In that case, the dismissal of the employee takes effect

from the date cf the award and so until then the relation of

employer and employee will continue in law and in fact”.

84. D.C.Roy [(1976) Lab. I.C. 1142] is the illustration

where domestic enquiry held by the employer was found

to be invalid being violative of principles of natural justice

and the employer had justified the order of dismissal by

leading evidence before the Labour Court, on appraisal of

which the Labour Court found the order of dismissal

justified. In appeal, the Apex Court upheld the award with

the observation that “the ratio of Kalyani’s case (supra)

would therefore, govern the case and the judgment of the

Labour Court must relate back to the date on which the

order of dismissal was passed”.

85. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. (1980 (1) LLJ 137)

inverted image of the D.C. Roy’s case was presented by a

majority of three judge bench wherein it was held that

“where no enquiry has preceded punitive discharge, and

the Tribunal for the first time upholds the punishment, this

court in D.C. Roy vs. Presiding Officer (supra) has taken

the view that full wages be paid until the date of the award.

There cannot be any relation back of the date of dismissal

when the management passed the void order”. Though

the court ruled that law laid in D.C. Roy is correct yet it

followed obiter instead of the decision. Observations of

the Apex Court in above decision, bearing on the relate

back rule, were taulted in R.Thiruvirkolam (1997 (1) SCC 9)

on the ground that they “are not in the line with the decision

in Kalyani which was binding or with D.C. Roy to which

learned Judge Krishna Iyer J. was a party. It also does not

match with the juristic principle discussed in Wade”. The

view taken in R.Thiruvirkolam (supra) was affirmed in Punjab

Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. (1997 (2) LLJ 1041).

86. In view of the catena of decisions, detailed above,

it is clear that an employer can justify its action by leading

evidence before the Tribunal. This equally applies to cases

of total absence of enquiry and defective enquiry. A case

of defective enquiry stands on the same footing as no

enquiry. If no evidence is led or evidence adduced does

not justify the termination of service by the employer, the

Tribunal can order reinstatement or payment of

compensation as it may think fit. But if it finds on the

evidence adduced before it that the termination of service

is justified, the doctrine of relate back is pressed into service

to bridge the time gap between the rupture of the

relationship of employer and employee and the finding of

the Tribunal.

87. If the workman is to be paid wages upto the date

of the award of the Tribunal, the Parliament has to enact

so, declares the Delhi High Court in Ranjit Singh Tomar

(ILR 1983 Delhi 802). Obviously the Act does not make any

provision for the situation. Precedents in Ghanshyam Das

Shrivastava (1973 (1) SCC 656), Capt. M.Paul Anthony (1999

(3) SCC 679) and South Bengal State Transport Corporation

(2006 (2) SCC 584) nowhere deal with the controversy,

hence are not discussed.

88. Relying the law laid above and facts relating to

misconduct of the claimant, it is announced that punishment

of termination from service awarded to the claimant, would

relate back to the date of the order.

Relief

89. In view of above discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that the Pilot in command lacks

proficiency and skill. Such an employee cannot be retained

in service. Therefore punishment of termination is not to

be interfered with by this Tribunal. The claimant is not

entitled to any relief not to talk of relief reinstatement in

service. His claim statement is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly it is concluded that the action of the

management in terminating his service is legal and justified.

Claim statement is brushed aside. An award is passed in

favour of the management and against the claimant. It be

sent to appropriate Govt. for publication.

Dated : 14.2.2014

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

3220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1228-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 84@2003) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29011@35@2003&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1228.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 84/2003)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Steel Authority of India Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1-4-2014

[No. L-29011/35/2003-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, (NO. 2), AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act.,1947

REFERENCE No. 84 of 2003

PARTIES :

The President,

Palamau Pramondal Khan Mazdoor

Sangh, Daltonganj

Vs.

The Exec. Director,

Steel Authority of India Ltd.,

(SAIL) 10, Camac Street,

Kolkata-17

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman/Union

None

On behalf of the Management

Mr. D. K.Verma,

Ld. Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Mines

Dated, Dhanbad, the 12th Feb., 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act,1947 has referred the following dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-29011/

35/2003-IR(M), dt 13.06.2006

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of SAIL

(RMD) in not extending the term of contract for the

contractors engaged even though they was enough

work in Tulsidamore, Dolomite Mines and Bhaw

Nathpur Lime Stone Mines causing to stop the work

w.e.f. 1.2.2002 to 11.3.2002 is legal and justified?

Whether the stand taken by the Management of SAIL

(RMD) even after directing the contractors not to

execute work from 1.2.2002 to 11.3.2002 that the wages

for the above period is to be decided with the

contractors is legal and or justified? Whether the

claim of the idle wages by the Union under Section

25 C of the I.D Act for the above period to the workers

as per enclosed lists legal and or justified? If not, to

what relief the workers are entitled?”

2. Neither the Union Representative nor any

Advocate for the Contractors appeared Mr. D.K.Verma,

the Ld.Advocate for the O.P./Management is present.

Today the case is fixed for hearing over the affidavited

petition dt.13.12.13 earlier filed under the signature of

Mr.Satyapal Verma, the Union Representative for

withdrawal of the case with a prayer to pass “No Dispute

Award”. Mr.Verma, the Ld. Counsel for the O.P./

Management has no objection to it, if the union

Representative is willing to withdraw it voluntarily.

The perusal of the case record reveals that the

Union Representative has mentioned in the aforesaid

petition that since due to closure of the Mines in question

for non-clearance of Environmental Clearance (EC) and

Forestry Clearance (FC), the workers are still sitting idle

and starving since August, 2013, they are not in a position

to contest the present Reference; so it was decided by the

union to withdraw the case in the interest of the workmen;

moreover the Union is not willing to contest the case

anymore.

The present reference relates to an issue about

non-extension of the term of contract by the Management

for the Contractors despite enough work in Tulsida more,

Dolomite Mines and Bhaw Nathpur Lime Stone Mines.

Though two witnesses, namely, WWI Jagdish Ram and

WW2 Bikhari Ram on their affidavited Chief were cross-

examined by Mr. Arjun Singh and Mr. D.K. Verma, the Ld.

Advocates for the Contractor and the SAIL respectively.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3221

Under these circumstances, the instant case is

closed as “No Industrial Dispute” existent accordingly; it

is passed an Order of “No dispute”.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

Annexure A

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. Anil Kumar,

Contractor, Limestone Mines, Bhawanathpur

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Kapil deo Ram

Sahadev Mahto

110

Nirmal Oraon

111

Sugrim Uraon

126

Mahadeo Uraon

244

Sikandra Uraon

034

Jagdish Ram

036

Antu Ram

042

Dharnraj Mochi

10.

045

Dhanukdhari Mochi

054

Gasriba Bhuiya

068

Jai Kumar Ram

072

Nanku Dusadh

081

R.C. Raiwar

083

Kail Baitha

091

Amardeo Uraon

095

R.D. Uraon

103

Jagarnath Uraon

106

R.K. Uraon

107

R.C. Uraon

111

Ghura Uraon

114

Janki Bhuiya

142

R.N. Bhuiya

154

Jagdish Uraon

155

B. Bhuiya

164

S. Hussain

166

R.S. Bhuiya

169

B. Choudhary

177

Haridas Uraon

178

Sharma Uraon

179

Jitan Uraon

180

H. Uraon

181

R.K. Uraon

191

Jhari Mochi

197

Harihar Mochi

201

Sukan Uraon

205

Sohan Uraon

210

Suresh Paswan

211

R.D. Ram

212

A.K.Mehta

217

Bhim Singh

219

F. Prajapati

222

Sita Ram

223

S. Baitha

225

Ayub Md.

226

Jhulan Sah

Supervisory Staff

183

Jugal Kishor Singh

185

Rajendra Choudhary

186

Vijay Singh

187

Mithilesh Dubey

188

Jai Kumar Singh

189

Sudheshwar Prajapati

190

Bikeshwar Paswan

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. S.L. Co.,

Contractor, Limestone Mines, Bhawanathpur

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Ram Ru Mohta

Mohan Singh

Basant Mehta

Digan Mehta

Baijnath Baitha

Rajendra Sah

Hasrat Miya

M. Ansari

Sarju Baitha

10.

Bifan Ram

Gauri Singh

Ram Sundar Choudhary

Baijnath Ram

Mhabir Ram

Rahman Miya

Maruf A1i

Laxman Mehta

Ganga Chamar

Chattu Baitha

Rajba1i Ram

100

Jamaludin Mian

3222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

101

M. Ansari

102

Om. Ansari

106

Bhuneshwar Ram

120

S.K. Ram

123

S. Baitha

138

R. Mehta

141

Jashmudin Mian

177

Amirka Ram

195

Dharamdeo Mehta

322

Shankar Ram

213

Kameshwar singh

217

R. Baitha

219

Bigan Ram

221

R. Singh

226

Guthal Ram

229

Kapi1 deo Singh

231

Badan Yadav

232

Ajay Singh

233

M. Miya

236

Amar Choubey

238

S. Prasad

239

Raj Kumar Ram

240

Ghoghan Baitha

243

Chandrika Singh

Supervisors

187

J.L.N. Reddy

197

Ashok Kumar

174

Suresh Pd.

210

Lok Nath Ram

173

Ramjee Thakur

290

Shiv Shankar Pd.

295

C.S. Banerjee

291

Sumer Upadhyaya

092

Uma Shankar Singh

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. I.S.S. (C) Co.,

Contractor, Limestone Mines, Bhawanthapur

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

J. Biyar

R. Mehta -I

B. Ali

Gopi Pal

Charita Ram

Pyari Biyar

Maluki Biyar

Birja Biyar

Amerika Ram

10.

Yakuph Miya

Jugal Ram

Jasngali Bhuiya

S. Dheodhani Sah

Guthal Miya

I. Ali

Shankar

Puttu Biyar

Dhami Sah

Permeshwar Sah

B. Singh (Baudh)

Bireandr Chaudhari

Lahru Sah

Chaturgunhj Sah

Samshuddin Mia

128

Ram Lakhan Bhuiya

130

Inderjet Sah

131

Nasurddin Miya

135

S. Miya

136

Hafij Miya

138

Chanderman Sah

139

Lalgee Sah

142

Kailsash Ram

143

Dawarika Ram

145

Naresh Ram

146

A. Miya

149

Ram Kailash Sah

151

Sita Ram Mahara

161

Sakur Miya-II

162

Raj Keshwar Ram

164

Laljee Yadav

165

Lakhan Ram

166

Sangu Sah

195

M. Yadav

198

Jagrup Yadav

205

Kamewhar Sah

206

R.J. Ram

209

Habib Mian

216

Tpeshwar Ram

218

Jibrail Mian

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3223

219

Islam Ansari

220

S. Chaudhary

221

Fariad Ali

222

Adam Ali

223

Aklu Sah

Supervisory Staff

188

C.B. Yadav

192

Devendra Kr. Singh

190

Shri Ram Yadav

202

Baleshwar Pd. Singh

200

Rana Prasad

199

Ashok Kr. Singh

201

Lallu Ram

193

Ram Avilakh Shukla

183

Ajay Kr. Sharma

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. R.S. Grewal,

Contractor, Limestone Mines, Bhawanathapur

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Kailash Mahta

Chaturgun Ram

Nandeo Ram

Ramjee Ram

100

Ram Saran Ram

117

S.R. Praiapatai

119

Naresh Mehta

121

Ram Brikash Ram

122

Udai Ram

124

Jadun Sah

172

Shobnath Ram

180

Raghubir Prajapati

181

Ramesh Prasad

183

Nandeo P.P.

186

R. Ram II

188

Ram Pati Mehta

192

Ganesh Mehta

193

Lakhan Ram

194

Sarwan Ram

196

H.M. Pandey

259

Birjhu Ram I

285

Jagarnath Sah

299

Chandrika Ram

328

Pragash Ram

329

Dhaneshwar Ram

007

Donath Ram

008

Santoo Ram

Raj Kumar Ram

Bachan Ram

Gopi Ram

Tpeshwar Ram

B. Prajapathi

N. Prajapathi

L. Ram

R.S. Ram

Amerika Ram

Hari Charan Mehta

Ganesh Ram

Sudarshan Ram

Inderadeo Ram

L. Baitha

110

Dukhi Ram-I

111

Dukhi Ram-II

117

Jawahar Ram

124

Suresh Ram

139

Maloo Sah

122

B. Piyar

129

Sheenath Ram

130

Kameshwar Mehta

131

S. Mehta

132

Prasad Mehta

133

Vijay Bikar

138

Sita Ram

141

Sarju Mehta

140

Bishambhar Ram

145

Sita Mehta

146

Nandoo Paswan

147

Laloo Mehta

Supervisory

127

Mundrika Ram

136

Girija Nand Dubey

137

Girendra Pd. Mishra

135

Krishna Nand Shukla

134

Shankar Suman Srivastava

207

Ratandeep Kr. Sinha

3224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Annexure B

List of Contractual Workmen of M/s. Anil Kumar,

Contractor of Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Smt. Fulmania Devi

Lalman Ram

Ramjee Oraon

Muni Oraon

Deo Kumar Oraon

123

Chaitu Oraon

126

Inderdeo Oraon

128

Krishna Mahato

141

Shanti Devi

198

Bifan Sah

199

Jagarnath Sah

212

Gaya Mahato

213

Shalik Miya

245

Harnath Singh

249

Gauri Shankar Singh

261

Sundera Thakur

262

Maniki Ram

268

Amerika Ram

281

Makharu Ram

295

Ram Prit Baitha

296

Salima Sheikh

299

Mundrika Bhuiya

301

Mahadeen Sheikh

303

Bihari Oraon

306

Majuddin Mia

307

Sita Ram Mahato

315

Pyari Oraon

316

Raksha Ram

317

Jatan Bhuiya

318

Ram Khelawan Oraon

319

Pratap Singh

320

Jatan Singh

321

Subhash Ram

323

Chandrika Bhuiya

324

Rajdeo Oraon

325

Sheo Singh

326

Dinath Sah

328

Suba Chand Yadav

330

Akshawat Sah

332

Bhisham Sah

335

Rajendra Ram

339

Charaku Ram

340

Ramesh Paswan

341

Bhawat Mahato

342

Gulab Chand Yadav

344

Ram Briksh Sinah

345

Surendra Singh

346

Rajendera Singh

347

Bishwanath Singh

348

Lakhan Ram

350

Najime Rashual

351

Lal Bihari Singh

352

Inna Ram

353

Ramjeet Ram

354

Rameshwar Yadav

355

Sarju Bhuiya

356

Suneshwar Yadav

357

Narsingh Ram

358

Raieshwar Ram

359

Triveni Ram

360

Jawahir Singh

361

Rabindra Ram

362

Permaeshwar Oraon

363

Mangru Uraon

364

Dinanath Oraon

365

Rahkumar Bhuiya

366

Kodu Ram

367

Rajeshwar Oraon

369

Boleash Uraon

371

Laloo Ram

372

Loknath Ram

373

Laxmi Mahato

374

Hirra Singh

SUPERVISOR

284

Basant Mishra

285

Bideshwar Singh

287

Ram Lakhan Yadav

290

Birendra Kumar Mishra

List of Contractual Workmen of M/s. S.L. & Co. of

Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Shri Jai Ram Ram

Ramjee Paswan

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3225

144

Chura Biyar

180

Lal Bihari Ram

184

Shankar Biyar

186

Satar Mia

187

Modina Bibi

192

Suraj Ram

193

Giriwar Ram

10.

194

Bachu Biyar

203

Santu Ram

208

Bishwanath Dusadh

242

Prabhu Dusadh

254

Sheodash Ram

255

Bisheshwar Ram

256

Laxman Ram

259

Ram Raj Chero

264

Bandhu Mahata

267

Ram Janam Singh

268

Fathuli Ram

284

Suresh Mahara (II)

288

Sheo Narain Singh

389

Leyakat Ali

308

Naresh Mshara

310

Asbarfi Paswan

312

Rajkurnar Mistgry

356

Kail Ram

357

Bharathu Ram

358

Ram Pyare Ram

359

Ram jee Biyar

360

Lakhan Bhuiya

361

Kashi Bhuiya

362

Raj Deo Bhuiya

363

Mukhlal Bhuiya

364

Nathu Singh

365

Moti Thakur

366

Kameshwar Bhuiya

367

Gulab Ram

368

Jhari Sah

369

Jaraphat Miya

370

Ram Nath Biyar

373

Rajnath Biyar

375

Baiinath Biyar

376

Bando Ali

377

Bishwanath Dusadh

379

Ram Dhani Mistry

380

Mundrika Singh

381

Makharu Bhuiya

382

Bijjhu Ghashi

383

Keshwar Singh

384

Shyam Sundar Paswan

389

Barfi Ram

390

Chandrika Paswan

392

Sanesh Ram

393

Pragash Rajwar

394

Manik Chandra Thakur

395

Birbal Biyar

396

Dinesh Ram

397

Krit Biyar

398

Amrit Biyar

399

Khushilal Sah

400

Asharfi Bhuiya

401

Belash Uraon

402

Daya Shankar Singh

403

Jai Kumar Singh

Wagon Loader :

253

Ganesh Ram

178

Girjhan Singh

Supervisors :

324

Ram Parikha Mahato

329

Ram Bhajan Yadav

331

Sushil Kumr Singh

353

Ram Vijay Singh

List of Contractual Workmen of M/s. I.S.S. (Con) Co. of

Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Baldeo Singh

Pragash Singh

Birbal Singh

Modi Ram

Masudan Singh

Tapeshwar Baitha

Naresh Baitha

Keshar Ram

Ghuran Ram

Lal Mohan Ram

Basant Ram

Basdeo Ram

3226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Suraj Deo Baitha

Ram Chandra Ram

Rameshwar Ram

Raghunath Ram

Mithayee Sah

Bahadur Sah

Tivu Bhuiya

Puran Bhuiya

Raghunandan Mahato

186

Ram Pd.Orzon

189

Jagamath Uraon

190

Fulchand Uraon

198

Laxman Ram

218

Lacchu Uraon

219

Naresh Uraon

220

Rikhi Sah

223

Jagarnath Mahara

225

Harihar Ram

227

Yadunandan Ram

230

Kalicharan Uraon

233

Mohan Sah

234

Bihari Sah

239

Asharfi Mochi

240

Aklu Mochi

242

Sarju Mahra

252

Doman Uraon

254

Jahur Mian

259

Ram Dhani Uraon

260

Baharu Uraon

261

Kanhai Pal

262

Ramjee Baitha

263

Ganuri Ram

268

Narain Chere

273

Bhikhi Ram

276

Sheo Bacghan Uraon

281

Mithan Uraon

282

Habib Mia

283

Hari Ram

286

Sachita Ram

287

Bishnu Ram

288

Bhola Ram

292

Ram Dayal Uraon

293

Bishwanath Oraon

294

Ganesh Oraon

295

Gaya Uraon

296

Jawahir Ram

297

Jag Mohan Uraon

298

Rajendra Uraon

299

Suresh Uraon

300

Ram Kesh Ram

302

Narain Ram

304

Basdeeo Sinzh

305

Ram Deo Chere

307

Ram Janam Uraon

308

Belash Uraon

309

Asharfi Uraon

311

Harihar Singh

Bikhari Ram

221

Deena Baitha

Supervisors :

J. K. Pandey

184

Raieshwar Singh

290

Manohar Ram

Wagon Loaders :

112

Mandip Biyar

113

Pyare Sah

115

Jainath Biyar

116

Ghuran Biyar

121

Bhukhari Chere

122

Budh Rai Chere

123

Sarju Biyar I

125

Suresh Biyar

150

Girija Biyar

163

Sitararn Singh

172

Raju Biyar

175

Buchi Biyar

176

Pyare Biyar

177

Narain Chere

178

Naresh Biyar

182

Rupdeeo Choudhary

187

Bishwanath Biyar

List of Contractual Workmen of M/s. R.S. Grewal

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Amerika Singh

Ayodhya Ram

Binod Bhuiya

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3227

Bhikham Bhuiya

Sudeshi Bhuiya

Ram Peveri Biyar

Lal jee Biyar

Naresh Biyar

Nakoo Biyar

Preman Singh

103

Raj Muni Ram

104

Deo Sharma Ram

105

Bhikhari Ram

108

Birjhan Singh

114

Sheo Kumar Ram

115

Krishna Ram

117

Mandesh Biyar

118

Lakhan Biyar

119

Bulchoo Biyar

122

Motichand Sah

123

Ganga Ram

125

Jagdish Ram

128

A1i Bakash Sheikha

129

Govind Thakur

130

Prayag Ram

135

Sobhnath Uraon

137

Laxman Singh

146

Rajeshwar Mahato

148

Delip Singh

149

Dhanu Ram

150

Raihan Ram

151

Bho1a Rajwar

153

Mandeep Ram

154

Harihar Moochi

155

Durian Singh

156

Indrajeet Bhuiya

158

Bhuneshwar Ram

160

Chhatan Raiwar

162

Sahadat Ali

163

Sunder Rajwar

164

Makhan Singh

165

Ram Sundar Rajwar

167

Raj Kumar Mochi

168

Nagina Singh

169

Sarju

171

Ram Nath Mochi

172

Motal Ram

173

Madan Singh

174

Sheo Pd.Ram

176

Dewa Ram

177

Basudeo Ram

178

Sambhu Ram

180

Suner Ram

181

Giraj Ram

182

Ambikha Ram

183

Raj Nath Singh

184

Ram Deo Biyar

187'

Ram Piyari Bhuiya

188

Shankar Ram

190

Bhola Ram

191

Tulsi Singh

192

Sheo Kumar Singh

193

Raj Nath Ram

196

Kanhai Singh

197

Ajmatula Sheikh

199

Rarnjee biyar

200

Bideshi Bhuiya

Wagon Loader

Ram Pado Ram

Nankaku Ram

Sita Ram

Harbansh Ram

Sita Ram Chere

Kapil Sah

Mundrika Mahato

Kashim Ansari

100

Sarju Biyar

103

Suresh Ram

104

Jashim Ansari

106

Bachan Ram

107

Jagdish Ram

Ajay Singh

Murasat Ali

Supervisor/Munshi

205

Nathu Singh Deo

203

Sheo Kumar Verma

202

Dilip Kumar Verma

206

Lav Tiwary

3228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. Ashok Kumar of

Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Raj Deo Ram

Nandoo Ram

Dharamdeo Ram

Suneshwar Ram

Baijnath Ram

Yagpat Ram

Sardar Ram

Narain Ram

Prayag Baitha

Baijnath Ram

Gulab Chand Ram

Muneshwar Ram

Chandrika Ram

Prasad Ram

Triveni Ram

Bideshi Ram

Ram Bachan Ram

Brikash Ram

Bhukhan Bhuiya

Rama Bhuiya

Shital Ram

Laxman Ram

Harihar Ram

Bishwanath Biyar

Gulab Biyar

Amerika Ram

Budhan Ram

Sohar Bhuiya

Sharwan Bhuiya

Ram Pati Ram

Mahendra Sah

Baban Sah

Jiwrakhan Sah

Sinil Toppo

Ram Lakhan Ram

Nihora Ram

Ram Pyera Bhuiya

Sheo Narain Bhuiya

Lal Bihari Bhuiya

Ram Nath Bhuiya

Anil Bhuiya

Muneshwar Rajwar

Asharfi Rajwar

Munshi Rajwar

Nathuni Rajwar

Laxman Rajwar

Tulsi Rajwar

Rata Rajwar

Ramjeet Rajwar

Haquemuddin Sheikh

Kalamuddin Sheikh

Frukh Sheikh

Kayammudin Ansari

Asshgar Ali

Karamjit Sah

Wagon Loader

Rajeshwar Ram

Samjhawan Ram

Ram Jee Ram

Amerika Uraon,

Bhagaru Uraon

Lakhan Ram

Supervisor

Krishna Kumar Pd.

Dharamdeo Choubey

Jitendra Kumar Dubey

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. R.R.P. Deo,

Contractor of Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Sharwan Ram

Rajnath Singh

Kodu Singh

Harihar Singh

Sudama Ram

Jasmuddin Sheikh

Pragash Mahato

Bhukhu Singh

Raghu Singh

Kamala Singh

Awadesh Singh

Sarju Oraon

Ram Janam Singh

Tijan Singh

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3229

Jagdish Mahato

Jagdeo Ram

Raghunath Baitha

110

Dasrath Mahato

I11

Udai Mahato

112

Lala Mahato

114

Amar Sinah

115

Raj Kumar Singh

116

Mohan Singh

117

Ata Uraon

120

Ram Swarup Mahto

121

Bhola Ram

123

Bhajan Uraon

122

Nagemdr Singh

124

Rama Singh

125

Bign Korwa

126

Aliyag Sheikh

127

Harihar Mahato

128

Ram Swrup Yadav

129

Ram Nath Sah

Wagon Loader

136

Jagdish Ram

134

Bishwanath Singh

135

Budhan Biyar

132

Deowan Ram

131

Somaru Singh

130

Ram Awatar Singh

Supervisor

Ram Vijav Singh

Brahama Singh

Bijav Bhadur Singh

Sheonath Ram

107

Praduman Singh

108

Sidheshwar Tiwari

133

Surendra Prasad

List of Contractual Workers of M/s. R.R.P. Deo,

Contractor of Dolomite Mines

Sl.No.

‘B’ Form No.

Name S/Sri

Yadunath Ram

Dharmu Ram

121

Teja Biyar

124

Jokhan Ram

127

Jaduni Kahar

138

Mishari Ram

140

Mankau Mahato

171

Majmuddin Mia

173

Sukhari Ram

175

Suleman Mia

184

Banshi Sah

195

Asharfi Ram

203

Ram Kewal Sah

205

Bishwanath Sah (A)

216

Hulash Biyar

217

Chanarik Biyar

220

Esahk Miya

224

Ram Nath Ram

227

Parikha Ram

230

Manick Chand Uraon

231

Ram Lal Ram

232

Raj Nath Oraon

233

Sita Ram (A)

235

Mahendra Sah

237

Palita Ram

243

Prayag Ram

244

Keyash Ram

245

Fekhan Ram

247

Suresh Paswan

249

Kariman Ram

251

Chandra Deo Paswan

252

Suraj Deom Paswan

252

Nageshwar Paswan

254

Khewraj Paswan

255

Lalu Paswan

256

Parshu Pawan

257

Rooda Paswan

258

Samukh Paswan

260

Ram Sunder Ram

Supervisor

215

R.K. Parth

164

Binay Kumar Sharma

Alimuddin Sheikh

262

Ishwari Mahato

3230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1229-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bU'kqjsUl dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 11&02&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1229.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2001)

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 Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/04/2014

[No. L-15025/1/2014-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 30th day of January, 2014

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 11/2001

Between:

Sri J.S. Chandra,

S/o J. Thayapa,

R/o 21.265/A, LIC Colony,

Adhoni, Kurnool District

….Petitioner

AND

The Zonal Manager,

Zonal Office, LIC of India,

Secretariat Road,

Hyderabad.

Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India,

Divisional Office,

College Road,

Cuddapah – 510 004

….Respondent

Appearances :

For the Petitioner

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya

Sree, P. Sudheer Rao,

B. Shivakumar & A. Laxman,

Advocates

For the Respondent :

M/s. Ravindra Bharati &

P. Damodar Reddy, Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed by Sri J.S. Chandra, invoking

Sec. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking for

declaring the action of the Respondents in imposing

punishment of his dismissal from service as wholly illegal

and unjustified, consequently directing the Respondent

to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential

benefits.

2. The averments made in the petition in brief are

as follows:

Petitioner joined in the service of the Respondent

bank as Typist in the year 1973. He got promoted as

Assistant in the year 1993, as Cashier in the year 1994 and

as Higher Grade Assistant in the year 1996. Since the

beginning of his service Petitioner performed his duties to

the satisfaction of his superiors. While so he was issued

with a suspension letter dated 26.9.92 and after lapse of

three months he was issued with charge-sheet dated

15.12.92, with the allegations as,

“I. You have intentionally got Life Insurance cover

on the life of his father J. Thayappa, Policy No.

650576223 and his mother Smt. Lakshmidevamma

Policy No. 650577674 in March, 1989 without their

knowledge and the relevant proposal form for Life

Insurance were signed by him instead of by the

proponent.

II. That you have been paying premium on the

policies of your parents to keep them in force since

their inspection.

III.That your father who is the nominee under the

Policy No. 650577674 on the Life of your mother Smt.

Lakshmidevamma has preferred a death claim at your

instance in respect of said policy though actually

your mother is alive.

IV. That you have got the death of your mother Smt.

Lakshmidevamma (life assured under Policy No.

650577674) registered at Yemmiganur Municipal Office

on 27.7.92 though the death was not at all true.

V. That you have got the attestation of Dr. A.

Nagaseshappa on the claim Form A. In respect of

the said policy through the Life assured your mother

Smt. Lakshmidevamma is very much alive.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3231

VI. That you have thus deliberately made attempt to

make a false death claim by falsification of all records

and thereby attempted to cause financial loss to the

Corporation.”

By virtue of proceedings dated 29.5.93 Sri N.

Narasimha Rao has been appointed as Preliminary Enquiry

Officer to conduct enquire into the charges. During the

enquiry Petitioner clearly denied all the charges. During

enquiry Petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity.

Management witnesses were not allowed to be cross

examined. Petitioner was only asked to give statement

without writing the records. Thus, it is a farce of enquiry.

Without considering the Petitioner’s explanation and in a

mechanical manner the Enquiry Officer held him guilty of

charges excepting charges one and six. He was issued

with a show cause notice dated 18.9.95. He submitted his

comments on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But,

without considering the same, punishment of removal from

service was imposed against him by virtue of proceedings

dated 19.12.1995. Aggrieved by the same he preferred an

appeal to Zonal officer. Without considering the facts the

Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. Thus, Petitioner

approached this forum. Petitioner got nothing to do with

the insurance policies, taken by his parents and payment

of premium in respect of the same. The charges framed in

this regard are not proved. The enquiry reveals that

Petitioner has taken blame upon him to save his father.

Dr. N. Nagaseshappa was not examined to prove that

Petitioner obtained his attestation. Letter was issued to

said Doctor but not to his correct address malafidely. The

Enquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence on record

properly and failed to see that Petitioner got nothing to do

with the charges levelled against him and that the

confession letter dated 25.9.92 and the affidavit dated

29.9.92 were signed under pressure and coercion by the

Marketing Manager, Sri M. Swami Nathan and Manager

(Claims), Sri R. Venkatramayya and Sri J. Thayappa, father

of the Petitioner. Against the rules an officer who is directly

sub-ordinate to Investigation Officer has been appointed

as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer has not fixed the

final date of hearing and has not given opportunity to the

Petitioner to make his statement and thus violated guideline

No. 36 of LIC of India Staff Regulation, 1960. Since removal

of the Petitioner from service, he could not secure any

alternate employment inspite of best efforts and remained

as unemployed. Due to financial problems he could not

approach the court immediately. Hence, the petition.

3. Respondents filed their counter with the

averments in brief as follows:

The contention of the Petitioner that since the

beginning he performed the duties to the satisfaction of

the superiors is not correct. In the year 1988 he was

punished for false LTC claim resulting in reduction in his

basic pay by three stages. The charges framed against the

Petitioner are correct. There is material available to show

that Petitioner himself filled in the data sheets and proposal

forms which contain the signature of the proponents i.e.,

the parents of the Petitioner and obtained policies bearing

Nos.650576223 and 650577674 for his father and mother

respectively. The letter addressed by Sri S. Mohan Rao,

the Development Officer to the Marketing Manager/

Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India

clarifies the same. It also reveals that Petitioner himself

has canvassed for both the said policies. Further he

submitted his notarised affidavit dated 28.8.92 before the

Divisional Manager, stating that his mother is illiterate and

he himself signed in the proposal form for policy

No.650577674 on behalf of his mother and further that he

himself was paying premia regularly in respect of both

policies. It also further stated in this affidavit that at his

instance only his father preferred death claim in respect of

his mother’s policy though she is alive and further that

Petitioner himself got the attestation of Dr. A. Nagaseshappa

on the claim Form-A, that apart in his letter dated 29.5.92

Petitioner himself has admitted that he made false claim by

falsification of records. Though there was procedural lapse

of not permitting the Petitioner to cross examine the

Management witnesses during the enquiry proceeding,

the Central office vigilance department pointed out the

procedural lapses and advised the Sr. Divisional Manager

to remit back the case to the Enquiry Officer and accordingly

the Sr. Divisional Manager directed the Enquiry Officer by

letter dated 16.11.1994 to reopen the enquiry proceedings

and see that all procedural lapses are taken care of.

Thereafter the Enquiry Officer addressed letter dated

22.12.94 to the Petitioner with a view to give him an

opportunity to cross-examine the Management witnesses

and that he would conduct enquiry at Adhoni from 23.1.95

to 28.1.95 and advising the Petitioner to be present there

on those dates. In response to the same Petitioner informed

the Enquiry Officer vide letters dated 12.1.95 and 15.2.95

expressing his inability to cross examine the Management

witnesses in the absence of a lawyer. The Enquiry Officer

in his letter dated 17.3.95 made it clear to the Petitioner that

since departmental enquiry is a de and also since the

Enquiry Officer as well as presenting officers are not having

any legal qualifications it was not possible to allow the

Petitioner to engage a lawyer to defend him. However, it

has been suggested to the Petitioner that he could take the

assistance of any of the employees of the Life Insurance

Corporation of India from the branch. But again Petitioner

addressed letter dated 15.2.95 to the Enquiry Officer

requesting for providing legal assistance. Thereon Enquiry

Officer addressed a letter dated 5.5.95 to the Petitioner

stating that it was construed that Petitioner was not

3232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

interested in further examination of the Management

witnesses and that further action in the matter would be

taken as per rules. The Enquiry Officer submitted report

on 5.5.95 to Sr.Divisional Manager, Cuddapah explaining

the said position. In the given circumstances, the allegation

that Petitioner was not provided opportunity to cross

examine the Management witnesses is not correct. He was

provided with ample opportunity to do so but he did not

avail the same. The contentions of the Petitioner that

without considering the material on record the Enquiry

Officer found him guilty of the charges Nos. 2 to 5 while

holding the charges Nos. 1 and 6 as not proved and further

that without considering the representation made by the

Petitioner Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of

removal from service on him are all absolutely baseless

and incorrect. The Appellate Authority rightly rejected

his appeal. Petitioner could prefer a memorial to the

Chairman, LIC after rejection of the appeal. Without

availing the said remedy Petitioner approached the court

by filing this petition. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

Service conditions of the Petitioner are governed by the

provisions of Life Insurance Act, 1956 and Life Insurance

Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. Provisions

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have no application to

him. As per the principles laid down in the case of A.V.

Nachane and another Vs. Union of India (AIR 1988

Supreme Court) page 1126. Thus, this petition is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. There is ample

evidence on record to prove the guilt of the Petitioner for

the charges levelled against him. Non-examination of Dr.

A. Nagasesheppa is of no consequence. Attributing

motives to the Enquiry Officer is highly illegal and

unwarranted. It is an after thought and is untenable. The

Enquiry Officer has properly appreciated the evidence on

record. Making wild allegations against a responsible

officer and his integrity who acted as Enquiry Officer are

unwarranted and highly uncalled for. Petitioner miserably

failed to establish that the confession letter dated 25.9.92

and the affidavit dated 29.9.92 were signed by him under

pressure and coercion from the Marketing Manager, Sri M.

Swaminathan and Sri R. Venkatramaiah Manager(Claims)

and Sri J. Thayappa, his own father. Thus, the said allegation

is devoid of merits and untenable. The punishment imposed

against the Petitioner is not disproportionate to the charges

levelled against him and proved since the same has been

imposed for the proven misconduct. It is not at all

disproportionate to the charges proved against the

Petitioner. The contention that there is violation of

guideline No. 20 is not correct. The other contention that

there is violation of guidelines No. 30 and 36 by the Enquiry

Officer is also not correct. Petitioner is to be put to strict

proof regarding his contention that he is remaining

unemployed since his removal from service as he could

not secure any alternate employment inspite of his best

efforts. This petition is filed after lapse of almost five

years from the date of communication of the appellate order.

On this ground also it is liable to be dismissed. The financial

problems give as reason for delay are concocted for the

purpose of this case and they cannot be believed. The

domestic enquiry conducted in this case is legal and valid,

there is no violation of any regulations or any principles of

natural justice. Petitioner is not entitled for reinstatement

into service or any consequential benefits. Petition is liable

to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both parties regarding the validity

of domestic enquiry, this court found the same as invalid

by virtue of orders dated 12.12.2001. The said order has

been challenged by the Respondent by way of filing

WP No. 4300/2002 thereon the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

has stayed the proceedings. The said WP has been

dismissed by virtue of order dated 19.1.2011. After receiving

the case file from the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., this court

has given opportunity to the Respondent to adduce

evidence. For Management MW1 to MW5 were examined

and Ex.M1 to M30 were marked and on behalf of the

Petitioner WW1 was examined and Ex.W1 to W7 were

marked.

5. Heard the arguments of either party. Written

arguments are also filed for either party and the same are

considered.

6. The points arise for determination are:

I. Whether the Petitioner is a workman?

II. Whether the impugned order of removal of the

Petitioner from service issued by the 2^nd

Respondent and which was confirmed by the

Appellate Authority i.e., 1^st Respondent, is liable

to be set aside, if so, on grounds?

III. To which relief the Petitioner is entitled for?

7. Point No. I :

Petitioner has been working as Higher Grade

Assistant with Respondent organisation i.e., Life Insurance

Corporation of India as on the date of arising of the present

dispute. It is an admitted fact. It is the contention of the

Petitioner that he is a workman whereas it is the contention

of the Respondent that Petitioner will not come under the

purview of the definition of the workman as provided in

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 since, he has been

enjoying the supervisory powers as Higher Grade Assistant

of the Respondent organization. Petitioner is denying the

truth of the same. While he was under cross-examination

as WW1, Petitioner admitted that while he was working in

Adhoni branch, there were four assistants one sub-staff

and one record keeper working in the said branch. But he

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3233

denied the suggestion put to him that those staff members

were working under his supervisory control. A suggestion

has been given to him that as Higher Grade Assistant, he

got power to make payment of claims upto Rs.50000 and

death claims upto Rs.25000. He denied the truth of the

same. But the fact remains that, as per Ex. M29 and M30

the Higher Grade Assistants are having supervisory powers

and they got financial powers upto and including Rs.1 lakh

for payment of claims by maturity and upto and including

Rs.50000/- as death claims. They also got power of paying

capital redemption of Rs.25000/- and sum assured by

instalments upto Rs.15000/-, quotations for and payment

of loans upto Rs.50000/-, quotations for and payment of

surrender value upto Rs.50000/- so on. It means Higher

Grade Assistants are the officers of Life Insurance

Corporation of India enjoying not only supervisory powers

but also financial powers. Such persons can not be termed

as workmen as defined in Sec.2(s) of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947. In the given circumstances it can safely be held

that Petitioner is not a workman.

This point is answered accordingly.

8. Point No. II :

Irrespective of the finding in Point No.I in the interest

of comprehensive disposal of this case the material

touching this point also is to be analysed and the point is

to be decided.

9. Petitioner, who has been Higher Grade Assistant

of the Respondent organization has been kept under

suspension by virtue of Ex.M9 vide letter dated 26.9.92.

M26 and M28 are the documents pertaining to the

suspension and payment of subsistence allowance to the

Petitioner. A perusal of the record shows that the notarised

declaration dt.25.9.92 admittedly made by the father of

Petitioner Sri J. Thayappa relinquishing his claim made in

respect of Ex.W4, the policy taken on the life of Smt. J.

Laxmi Devamma, his wife and who is also the mother of the

Petitioner, has been marked twice as Ex.M1 as well as Ex.M8.

Ex.M2 to M5 are the documents which were collected during

the course of preliminary investigation by MW1, the official

who conducted the said investigation. Ex.M6 is the

preliminary investigation report in this case. Thereafter by

virtue of chargesheet dated 15.12.1992 which is marked as

Ex.M7. Ex.M9 is the suspension order. Ex.M10 is annexure

to Ex.M9. Ex.M11 is the preliminary enquiry report

conducted into the said charges. Ex.M12 to M16 are the

enquiry proceedings. Ex. M17 to M22 are the

correspondence exchanged between the Enquiry Officer

and the Petitioner. Ex.M23 is the enquiry report filed in

this case. Ex.M24 and M25 are the impugned orders.

10. From the above referred documents and the oral

evidence adduced to prove these documents and other

relevant aspects of the case what one can gather is that

when it is surfaced that a false death claim has been made

in respect of the policy taken on the life of Smt. Laxmi

Devamma who is no other than the mother of the Petitioner,

though she was alive, investigation was made into the said

matter by the Respondent organization appointing MW1

as investigation officer. During the course of investigation

MW1 has taken statements of several persons in writing

including that of the Petitioner and his father.

11. Ex. M8 (Copy of Ex.M8 is marked as Ex.M1) is

the notarised statement/declaration given by Sri J.

Thayappa, father of the Petitioner who made the false death

claim, being the nominee of Ex.W4 life insurance policy

No.650577674 taken in the name of Smt. Laxmi Devamma,

reporting that she expired though she was very much alive.

In this document said Sri J. Thayappa admitted that the

death claim was made by the reported death of said Smt.

Laxmi Devamma on 26.7.92 but she is still alive and living

with his son at Adhoni at the address stated in this

document. He further said that he is relinquishing his claim

in respect of the said policy and declared that Respondent

corporation is entitled to forfeit and appropriate the same

to itself. This document is therefore clarifies that the

death claim made by this person is a false claim. But

evidently no action has been taken against him by the

Respondent organization. Any way it is outside the purview

of the present dispute. Ex.M8 is relevant for the purpose

of this dispute only to the extent to prove that there has

been a false claim made by Sri J. Thayappa the father of the

Petitioner on the Life Insurance policy taken by the

Petitioner’s mother, though she is very much alive. The

dispute concerns only the Petitioner. One another aspect

which can be gathered from this document is that

Petitioner’s mother is living with the Petitioner at Adhoni

at the relevant time. Ex.M2 and M3 also substantiate the

fact that the death claim made in respect of the insurance

policy taken in the name of the mother of Petitioner by his

father is a false claim.

12. Ex.M5 is the letter dated 25.9.92 given by the

Petitioner himself to the Marketing Manager of the

Respondent corporation, whereunder he stated that he

himself got his parents insured while he was working at

Yemmiganur, that he made false claim of his mother getting

the claim form filled in attested by Dr. M. Nagaseshappa

and that he has done the same out of monetary weakness.

He sought for condoning his action and help him to be

with the Life Insurance Corporation of India organization

in view of his family and children. He owned the entire

mistake as his and further stated that he has been making

the statement out of his free will.

13. Regarding the above referred confession made

by the Petitioner, he is claiming now that the said statement

3234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was not given by him out of his free will and that being

under coercion and pressure from MW1 and one Subbaiah,

the said statement was given by the Petitioner. A

suggestion has been put to MW1 while he was under cross

examination that being under pressure of MW1 and one

Subbaiah, Petitioner has given Ex.M5 statement, which he

denied. A fact to be noted is that nature of the pressure

said to have been applied by MW1 to the Petitioner is not

confronted to MW1 and therefore there is no opportunity

for him to know regarding the same and to defend himself.

It is only a vague suggestion put to MW1 that he

pressurised the Petitioner. That apart, as can be seen from

Ex.M11 and M12, the preliminary enquiry proceedings, the

Preliminary Enquiry Officer has elaborately examined the

Petitioner during Preliminary enquiry. He was also examined

during the departmental enquiry. While so, he claimed

that his mother was not residing with him whereas, as

already discussed above, as per Ex.M1, it is the claim of the

father of the Petitioner that, Petitioner’s mother has been

residing with the Petitioner at Adhoni.

14. Further, the contents at page No.5 of Ex.M12

reveal that Petitioner has admitted that data sheets

pertaining to the life insurance policies taken in the names

of his father and mother were filled in, in his own

handwriting. He claimed that he has done so, to the

dictation of Mr. Mohan Rao, the Marketing Manager. This

is an improbable version for the reason that, when he himself

filled up the particulars of his own parents in the data

sheets, he will have every understanding of the fact that

the policies were taken in the names of his parents.

15. Further more, regarding relations existing between

the Petitioner and his parents he gave different-different

versions during the enquiry proceedings. Further, contents

of page No.4 of Ex.M12 disclose that, 3 days after Ex.M5

dated 25.9.92 was given, Petitioner himself has given the

similar letter before the notary and further he signed an

affidavit on 28.9.92 and evidently at that time there was no

pressure applied on him by anybody. The explanation

given by the Petitioner for this conduct is available on the

same page of Ex.M12. It is to the effect that since he was

given an impression that if confession is made the

corporation would consider his case in sympathy he has

done so. But, it is not his claim that the confession given

by him was not correct.

16. One another important aspect to be noted while

considering the contention of the Petitioner that being

under pressure and coercion from the officers of the

Respondent corporation he has made the said confession,

is that at no point of time Petitioner ventured to make any

complaint against the said officers to any of their superiors

claiming that they applied pressure and coercion on him

and obtained his confession. If actually he was under

pressure and coercion at the time of making his confession,

soon after he became free from the same he would venture

to take all possible steps to annul the said confession being

aware of the consequences of the said confession.

17. One another important circumstance to be noted

is that as per the contents of Ex.M12, the officials of the

Respondent told the Petitioner at the time of making

confession that the Respondent organization would treat

his case with sympathy if he made his confession. It is the

contention put forth for the Respondent that actually, the

case of the Petitioner was considered sympathetically and

for that reason only instead of dismissing him from service,

he was merely removed from service.

18. When the material on record is considered

together, what one can understand is that with the fond

hope and understanding that if he made his confession,

the Respondent corporation would consider his case with

sympathy only the Petitioner made his confession and it is

a true confession made by him and it is a confession made

by him out of his free will and further that his contention

that being under pressure and coercion from the officials

of the Respondent he made such confession is far from

truth.

19. The Enquiry Officer has considered the

confession made by the Petitioner in the light of elaborate

enquiry made with him; during enquiry and also all other

relevant record produced before him and came to the

conclusion that Petitioner is guilty of the several of the

charges laid against him.

20. It is the contention of the Petitioner that non-

examination of Dr. N. Nagaseshappa inspite of his request

to examine him during enquiry is to be considered against

the Management and disciplinary proceedings. But, perusal

of the record indicates that irrespective of non-examination

of said doctor there is ample evidence adduced on record

which can point out towards guilt of the Petitioner only.

21. One another aspect to be considered is that it is

the contention of the Petitioner that he has not been given

due opportunity to cross examine the Management

witnesses during the enquiry by allowing him to engage

his advocate. The record discloses that for the reason that

neither the Enquiry Officer nor the Presenting Officer were

law graduates Petitioner was denied the legal assistance

during the enquiry. In such circumstances Management is

correct in disallowing the plea of the Petitioner to permit

him to take the assistance of an advocate. But in any view

of the matter, in the present proceedings Petitioner got

opportunity to get the Management witnesses cross-

examined with the advocate. Inspite of getting them cross-

examined at length he could not get elicit anything which

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3235

can discredit their respective evidence. Further more, there

is ample documentary evidence available on record, which

is enough for a reasonable and prudent person to come to

a conclusion that Petitioner has been guilty of various

charges levelled against him.

22. As can be seen from Ex.M23, the Enquiry Officer

has found charges No.1, 3 and 4 as not proved and the

other charges as proved. But while giving these findings

the Enquiry Officer has made some observations, regarding

the conduct of Petitioner in connection with this charges.

When the said observations are read together with said

finding, one can understand that the Enquiry Officer has

not held the charges No. 1 and 3 levelled against the

Petitioner as absolutely not proved. He answered these

charges by making his observations. When these answers

are perused, one can understand that the conduct of the

Petitioner in connection with the insurance policies taken

in the names of his parents and the false death claim

preferred in respect of his mother, is blame worthy.

23. The record discloses that after making an

elaborate preliminary investigation and department enquiry

and after giving due opportunity to the Petitioner and in

due consideration of the evidence gathered on record the

findings were arrived at finding the Petitioner is guilty of

grave misconduct.

24. After giving due opportunity to the Petitioner

the Disciplinary Authority has awarded the punishment to

him. Considering the gravity of the charges levelled and

proved against the Petitioner and also his past record on

can see that the punishment of removal from service

awarded to him is not at all disproportionate.

25. In the given circumstances, the impugned order

of removal of the Petitioner from service issued by the 2^nd

Respondent and which was confirmed by the Appellate

Authority i.e., 1^st Respondent, does not warrant any

interference.

This point is answered accordingly.

26. Point No. III :

In view of the Point No.I as well as Point No.II

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

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 30^th

day of January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Sri J.S. Chandra

MW1: Sri M. Swami Nathan

MW2: Sri S.K.V. Subbaiah

MW3: Sri B.T. Prasad

MW4: Sri N. Narasimha Rao

MW5: Sri C.K. Ravi Kumar

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1

Photostat copy of challan

Ex.W2

Office copy of representation of WW1

dt.29.1.94 to Enquiry Officer

Ex.W3

Office copy of notice issued to Sri M.

Nagasheshappa dt. 1.2.94

Ex.W4

Photostat copy of proposal form of insurance

policy of Smt. Laxmi Devamma

Ex.W5

Photostat copy of representation of WW1 dt.

18.1.1993

Ex.W6

Photostat copy of order passed in WP No.

4300 of 2002

Ex.W7

Photostat copy of order passed in WA No.

1299 of 2011 dt. 3.4.2012

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 & :

Notarised declaration sworn by J. Thayappa

Ex.M2

Lr. Dt. 24.9.92 by Smt. S.G. Bhagirathamma

Ex.M3

Lr. Dt. 24.9.92 by K. Venugopal,

Ex.M4

Lr. Dt. 24.9.92 by Dr. M. Nagaseshappa

Ex.M5

Lr. Dt.25.9.92 by J. Shaikh Chandra

Ex.M6

Report of Preliminary Investigation dt.

26.9.1992

Ex.M7

Chargesheet issued dt.15.12.1992

Ex.M9

Office copy of Order dt.26.9.1992

Ex.M10 :

Annexure to M9

Ex.M11 :

Preliminary enquiry report dt.16.6.93

Ex.M12 :

Enquiry proceeding dt.30.11.1993

Ex.M13 :

Enquiry proceeding dt.27.1.94

Ex.M14 :

Enquiry proceeding dt.28.1.94

Ex.M15 :

Enquiry proceeding dt.9.2.1994

Ex.M16 :

Enquiry proceeding dt.10.2.94

Ex.M17 :

Office copy of Lr. Dt. 22.12.94 by Enquiry

Officer to WW1

Ex.M18 :

Letter from WW1 to Enquiry Officer dt.

12.1.1995

3236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex.M19 :

Office copy of lr. dt. 27.1.95 by Enquiry Officer

to WW1

Ex.M20 :

Office copy of lr dt. 18.1.95 by Enquiry Officer

to WW1

Ex.M21 :

Telegram dt.18.1.95

Ex.M22 :

Office copy of reply by WW1 dt. 15.2.1995 to

the lr. Dt. 27.1.95 by Enquiry Officer

Ex.M23 :

Enquiry report dt. 21.5.94

Ex.M24 :

Photostat copy of Removal order dt. 19.12.95

Ex.M25 :

Photostat copy of order by Appellate

Authority dt.4.10.1996

Ex.M26 :

Photostat copy of order dt. 20.2.1996

Ex.M27 :

Authorization letter issued to Sri Ch. Ravi

Kumar

Ex.M28 :

Office copy of letter issued to WW1 dt. 5.4.93

reg. verification of staff Regulations 1960 etc.

Ex.M29 :

Photostat copy of Staff regulations

Ex.M30 :

Photostat copy of Extract of Chapter II relating

to financial powers of Higher Grade Assistants.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1230-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

16@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&04&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&29012@75@94&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1230.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.16/95)

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

1/04/2014.

[F. No. L-29012/75/94-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/16/95

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI R.B.PATLE

Shri Asharam, Kelabari,

Camp-I, Post Dallirajhara,

Distt. Durg

... Workman

Versus

General Manager,

Bhilai Steel Plant,

Bhilai, Durg

M/s. R.K.Transport Company,

Contractor,

Foolgaon Naak,

Durg

.....Managements

AWARD

(Passed on this 18^th day of February 2014)

1. As per letter dated 12-1-95 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/

75/94-IR(Misc). The dispute under reference relates to:

“ Whether the action of the management of M/s.

R.K.Transport Co., outgoing contractor, in refusing

employment to Shri Asha Ram is justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled to?”

And

“Whether in the case of reinstatement of the

workman, the responsibility lies with the management

of Bhilai Steel Plant to get the workman reinstated

through incoming contractor taken in the place of

M/s. R. K.Transport Company?”

2. After receiving reference, notices were issued to

the parties. Ist party workman submitted statement of claim

at Page 2/1 to 2/3. The case of workman is that he worked

as Transport Loader till 1980. Thereafter he was employed

as truck helper. Even though his designation was Truck

Helper, he was employed as truck driver continuously from

1983. He was holding valid heavy vehicle driving licence.

That there had been contracts and procedure of Bhilai Steel

Plant. That it was obligatory on part of outgoing contractor

to pass on a comprehensive life their transport workers to

the incoming contractor. Workman further submits that

during employment under M/s. B.R.Jain and company, he

was intermittently deprived work. His wages and other dues

were not paid for period 5-8-92 to 23-8-96. That at pressure

of C.M.S.S.Union to remove him from work and not to pay

his wages, he had also initiated industrial dispute dated

19-7-93 before ALC, Raipur. Order under Section 21(4)

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 by

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3237

the ALC, Raipur to clear my outstanding dues. The said

order was not complied with by the Principal Employer.

Workman further submits that on completion of contract

of M/s. B. R. Jain and Company, incoming contractors

R.K.Transport Company, he and other co-workers started

work as per earlier practice. However his wages for two

months were not paid. Workman further submits that

R.K.Transport Company abandoned their work half way.

Next incoming contractor M/s. Mahavir Traders contractor

had taken over the work. M/s. Mahavir did not employ him

on work on the ground that due to pressure of CMS Union

he was told to settle the matter with Union. That he had

also correspondence with Principal Employer. Workman

on such ground submits that he is entitled for full back

wages and benefits, reinstatement in employment.

3. IInd party filed Written Statement at Page 11/1 to

11/6 denying claim of workman. IInd party submits that

M/s. R.K.Transport Company and M/s. CMD, Bilaspur are

party to the dispute. However the workman in statement of

claim has impleaded M/s. B.R. Jain, Mahavir Traders, M/s.

Dilip Construction. Impleading Non-applicants No.2 to 5 is

not proper and legal. It is further submitted that workman

was a contractual worker. He had worked under different

contractors having B-Form No. 251 TD No. 1460 as per

provisions under Mines Act, 1952. That he was not engaged

by IInd party No.1. Rather he was engaged by different

contractors who were awarded transport contract by the

management of Bhilai Steel Plant. That terms and conditions

of service like pay and allowance were paid by the

contractor employer. There is no relationship of employer-

employee between the workman and IInd party no.2. IInd

party denies that the incoming contractor is under obligation

to employ the workman engaged by the outgoing

contractor. That IInd party No.2 used to see implementation

of the payment of wages, Minimum Wages Act by

contractor. It is submitted that the IInd party No.2 had

received correspondence from contractor that the workman

was absent from duty despite of letter dated 26-11-93. The

workman did not attend duty. The workman is not entitled

to relief claimed by him.

4. IInd party M/s. Mahavir Traders filed Written

Statement at Page 12. It is contented that said contractor is

not party. It is wrongly included in the reference. Despite

of the notices issues to the R.K.Transport, it has not caused

appearance in the proceeding.

5. Workman filed rejoinder at Page 18/1 to 18/3

reiterating his contentions in Statement of Claim.

6. Considering pleadings on record, the points which

arise for my consideration and determination are as under.

My findings are recorded against each of them for the

reasons as below:-

‘‘(i)

Whether the action of the

In Affirmative

management of M/s. R.K.

Transport Co., outgoing

contractor, in refusing

employment to Shri Asha

Ram is justified?

(ii)

Whether in the case of

In Negative

reinstatement of the workman,

the responsibility lies with the

management of Bhilai Steel

Plant to get the workman

reinstated through incoming

contractor taken in the place

of M/s. R.K.Transport Company?

(iii)

If not, what relief the workman

Workman is not

is entitled to?”

entitled to relief

claimed.

REASONS

7. As per terms of reference, the controversy

between parties relates to refusal of employment to

workman by outgoing contractor M/s. R. K.Transport and

whether Principal employer Bhilai Steel Plant is responsible

for reinstatement of the workman. Affidavit of evidence of

workman is filed. Workman has stated that he was working

as Truck Loader during 1975-76. That his services are

terminated without notice from 3-9-93. During 1982-83, he

was working as Truck Loader and thereafter he was working

as Truck Driver till 1993. However he was working under

different contractors. Other persons working with him have

been departmentalized in Bhilai Steel Plant. The work of

driver was extracted from him but his designation was

Helper. The affidavit of evidence of workman is silent about

the customer contracts that the employees engaged by

outgoing contractor were continued without break with

the incoming contractor. Workman in his cross-examination

says that CPF deducted were made from his pay, he claims

ignorance about EPF that R.K.Transport was a contractor

of Bhilai Steel Plant. He had received letter from

R.K.Transport. He had worked with said contractor till

3-9-93. Thereafter he was on leave after two months, letter

was issued. He denies that even after receiving letter, he

was not reported to work. In his further cross-examination,

workman says that he was discontinued without reason.

He denies that Bhilai Steel Plant had issued letter dated

26-11-93 for returning to work. After re-examination

document Exhibit B-1 is admitted in evidence. Letter Exhibit

W-1 shows that the experience certificate is issued to

workman by M/s. B.R. Jain and Company. It also bears

counter seal of the Welfare Officer and Dalli Mines.

3238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

8. Management filed affidavit of evidence of its

witness Mahadev Narayan Rao supporting contentions of

IInd party no.2. That there was no employer- employee

relationship between workman and Bhilai Steel Plant.

Workman was engaged by contractors. That on 23-10-93,

workman had written letter to Mines Manager Dalli Mines

regarding non-payment of salary for month of September

1993 by R.K.Transport Company.

9. The terms of reference does not include non-

payment of wages to the workman. The pleadings and

evidence on the point of non-payment of wages by both

the parties is beyond the terms of reference and therefore

needs no detailed consideration. Management’s witness

in his cross-examination admits that labours of contractors

are examined by Medical Officer and declared fit or unfit

for work. The suggestion is denied by witness that

workman is removed by IInd party. He admits that there is

no document produced about the workman was engaged

by R.K.Transport. The document Exhibit W-1 shows that

certificate was issued by contractor M/s. B.R. Jain. It

corroborate evidence of management’s witness that

workman was not engaged by Bhilai Steel Plant. The

evidence discussed above clearly shows that workman

was not engaged by Bhilai Steel Plant. There was no

employer-employee relationship. The pleading and evidence

of workman is silent how the Bhilai Steel Plant is responsible

for reinstatement of the workman. R.K.Transport has not

participated in the reference proceeding. The evidence of

workman is not clear and cogent about termination of his

services by R.K.Transport. The evidence is not cogent

about the workman completing 240 days service with

R.K.Transport, Contractor. Therefore the violation of

Section 25-F of I.D.Act cannot be established. For above

reasons, I record my finding in Point No. 1 in Affirmative,

Point No.2 in Negative.

10. In the result, award is passed as under:-

(1) Workman has failed to prove that R.K.Transport

refused his work. The workman is not entitled for

reinstatement through contractor R.K.Transport in Bhilai

Steel Plant. The reference is answered against workman.

R. B. PATLE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1231-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jk"Vªh; bLikr

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

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

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 42@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

11&02&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@01@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1231.—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 Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited 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 3^rd 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

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3239

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.

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 fraudulently and further that

he failed to maintain absolute integrity. 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.

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 violation 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 Sri G. Murali Krishna Reddy were

involved in the unauthorized coke business by diverting

3240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the same from the coke stock yard. Whether the workman

being in possession of movable or immovable 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. Further 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.

The points arise for determination are:

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?

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

explanation 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-1, annexed to the charge sheet.

Thus, the contention of the workman that charge sheet

itself is a conclusion of the Disciplinary Authority and it

speaks 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 no 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

contention of the workman that the enquiry conducted in

this case is reduced to an empty formality, 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. If 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 clearly 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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3241

workman is guilty of the charges leveled 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

mobile call details secured in this 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 3^rd day

of January, 2014.

M. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

3242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1232-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l-ch-vkbZ-

ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] /uckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&17012@30@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1232.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court

No. 2, Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of SBI Life Insurance Company Limited

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-17012/30/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 19 of 2012

Parties :

Shantanu Gupta (workman)

C/o SBI Life Insurance Company, Mumbai

C/o Investment Point, North Office Para,

Doranda, Ranchi

V/s.

the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Western

Express Highway Junction, Andheri (East),

Mumbai

Appearances :

On behalf of the

: Mr. Shantanu Gupta (workman

Workman/Union

himself)

On behalf of the

: Sh. Sanjay Prakash,

Management

Area Manager/Management’s Rep.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Banking/Insurance

Dhanbad, Dated the 24th February, 2014

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-17012/30/2011-IR(M) dated 13.3.2012.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the Management of SBI Life

Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai in terminating the

services of Shri Shantanu Gupta vide letter dated

5.8.2008, is legal and justified? What refief the

workman is entitled to?”

On receipt of the Order No.L-17012/30/2011-IR(M)

dated 13.03.2012 of the above mentioned reference from

the Government of India, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi

for adjudication of the dispute, the reference Case No. 19

of 2012 was registered on 27^th March,2012 and accordingly

an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through

the Registered Posts to the parties concerned, directing

them to appear in the Court on the date fixed, and to file

their written statements along with the relevant documents.

In pursuance of the said order, notices by the Registered

Posts were sent to the parties concerned.

Both the parties made their appearances personally

and filed their pleadings and photocopies of their

documents. The workman and the O.P./Management

through Area Manager both appeared in the case, and

personally contested all along under Section 36(3) of the

I.D.act, 1947.

2. The case of petitioner workman Shantanu Gupta

as set forth in his written statement is that he was appointed

and designated as Manger Bancassurance in the grade of

Manager (MS) as per the letter of appointment No. HR/H-

8/123/AG/763 dt.March, 12, 2007, issued by the Senior

Manager- Talent Acquisition SBI, Life Assurance Co.Ltd

subject to the terms and conditions as laid down therein.

His appointment was effective from the above date. He

was initially posted at Bhagalpur, later on as per the E-mail

instruction received on Aug., 7, 2008 from the Regional

Head. Central Region, he was temporarily deputed to Patna

Office effectively from Aug, 3,2008.Promotion and

expansion of insurance business by coordinating with the

designated officials of the various Branches of the State

Bank of India under Bhagalpur Module in Bihar and

Jharkhand was the main job of the workman. As he had

neither administrative nor financial nor decisive powers

over any one associated with him in the interest of the

organization, his job in its nature was purely clerical.

3. Further it is alleged by the workman that in the

month of October,2007,though the Management of the

company tried its level best to remove him by levelling

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3243

charges, as also to question his integrity against him, he

proved the allegations as false.Mr.Yogesh Sharma, the

Regional Manager, Delhi Circle, began to nurture malice

against him, so Mr. Sharma would visit Bhagalpur on tours,

would orally persuade him for his resignation on the

ground of non-performance .Mr. Sharma would mentally

torture him daily .Again on April,10,2008,Mr.Sharma on

his visit to Deoghar accordingly but orally persuaded him

for his resignation ,failing which he would recommend his

superiors for his termination, but the workman again

pleaded not guilty. The Company as per its letter

dt.May,27,2008 extended his service up to August

12,2008,while on probation for more than one year, but it

unresponded to his letter dt.June 6,2008 for its justification.

On June 26,2008,his previous Reporting Officer Mr.Yogesh

Sharma through an email instructed the workman to recover

Rs,.27, 097 from Mr. Manish Raj, as Mr. Raj had received

three months’ salary even after his resignation in

March,2008,alleging against the workman to have not

intimated anyone of Mr. Raj’s resignation.Mr.Yogesh

Sharma and Amresh Kumar under the instruction of

Ms.Debasree Verma,the Regional Head, Central Region,

harassed him to recover the dues. Whereas in reality, the

workman had intimated Mr.Yogesh Sharma in Patna and

Mr.Laloyd Monterio in Mumbai in March, 2008 by fax

respectively and on June 26, 2008 itself, the Management

of the company had recovered the dues (statement of

Manish Raj attached).The another attempt of the company

to malign the workman turned out its own frustration. At

last, he was called upon at Patna for his deputation there

as per the email dt.Aug. 7, 2008 of the Regional Head Central

Region, Patna, and at his presence, he was orally told to

hand over his laptop to the Regional Head of the Company,

who instructed him to accept his termination letter dt.

Aug 5, 2008, which was eventually sent by speed post, as

he had refused it. Though he appealed against it to the

MD and the CEO of the Company, it was ineffective. The

issuance of a cheque by the Management for Rs.15, 833

towards the payment of one month’s basic salary in lieu of

the notice period is again the violation of the provision

u/s 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The

Management’s withholding of his performance appraisal

report to his Reporting Officer Mr. Sharma for more than

240 days in a year since his joining deprived him of

confirmation of service. The abrupt termination of his

service by the Management before the end of his extended

service up to Aug.2008 as per its own letter dt.May 27,the

same year, as contrasted with its own statement for a

decision about his confirmation under review denotes its

sharp keenness in his termination malafide. As such the

action of the management in terminating him on ground

of alleged misconduct under para 9 (a) to (d) of the Service

Rule of the Company was biased and ex-parte,as it was

without a charge sheet, any domestic enquiry, and any

opportunity for his defence,against the theory of natural

justice as well as violation of the provision under Sec.

25- F of the Act.

4. Irrespective of the aforesaid repetitions, the

workman in his rejoinder with categorical denials has stated

that he had not any kind of powers except forwarding the

leave details of his subordinates, scrutinizing the

subordinates’ tour bills and forwarding the same to his

immediate Reporting Officer. He had neither Managerial

nor supervising power to insure an acceptance of his views

even from the lowest designated in discharge of his job of

promotion and expansion of the Company’s business. As

to the training aspect of his job, there was a separate

Trainer assigned for imparting training to the Officials of

SBI.The Training Manager would report to the Zonal

Training Manager of all practical purposes, Position

profile as in Annexure D indicates his main job nature

purely as manual and clerical. His few jobs of supervisory

nature do not debar him from being a workman as defined

under the I.D.Act.He was merely a sales promoter as per

the instructions of the DGM, the AGM and BM of the

Branches of the Company for mobilization of business.

His overall job nature and the one of a Development Officer

in the LIC was similar to mobilization of business. Only no

designating someone as Manager and paying him

Rs. 36,922 per month, but the nature of his duties

determines the employee as Manager or not. Besides, the

reference as per the Central Government letter dt 13.03.2012

proves the existence of an Industrial Dispute between the

Management and its employee. In spite of his continuous

service for 12 months as per his aforesaid appointment

letter by virtue of which his probation period was

supposed to end by 12.09.2007,the same was extended till

12.08.2007as per the Management’s letter dt.27.5.2008.He

worked almost for 18 months with Company. Yet the

Company unjustifiably and baselessly terminated his

service, disregarding his satisfactory performance.

5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the

O.P/Management with specific denials as stated in its

rejoinder/reply is that the petition of the petitioner is

unmaintinable.When petitioner Shantanu Gupta was

offered an appointment to the position of Manager-

Bancassurance in the M-5 Grade as per the Offer Letter dt.

Feb 14,2007 of the O.P./Managent,subject to his

acceptance of the terms, conditions of job profile of the

appointment, he had acceped.He was issued the

appointment letter dt.March 12,2007,and designated as

“Area Manager-Bancassurance” as per the Management’s

letter dt.Jan 10,2008.The employees of SBI Life Insurance

Co.Ltd are governed by the terms and conditions of

Service of Directly Recruited Officers as its applicability

clearly mentioned letter: Clause in his appointment letter

clause 14.The petitioner as the Manager- Bancassurance

had the role to achieve the target set by the SBI/Associate

Banks to expand the scope of business in territory through

the Branches of SBI/Associates Banks – Group &

3244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial business by increasing number of active

branches, judiciously attend the Customer Relationship

at regular interval for animation of sales in specific location/

branches, monitor the activities of regional sales officers

at regular intervals, and submit its weekly MIS, as well as

the performances of branches, CIFs, and identify

problems, visiting the branches, ensure the performance

of training and coaching as per the plan for adequately

equipping every branch/individual with domain

knowledge and process skill for doing his/her role in order

to increase Activation of CIFs at Quarterly intervals, and

timely commission/incentive payments as well, establish,

impove and cement the relationship with the officials at

Zonal/Regional Offices of SBI, Associate Banks, RRBs

and branches, DGMs, AGMs, and to attend performance

review meetings. The Manager- Banc assurance needs to

possess high quality skills of management, persuasion,

communication, leadership, motivation apart from great

business acumen. The role was that of a Co-ordinator and

supporter. So the petitioner being in the managerial cadre

was not a workman under Sec.2 (S) of the Industrial

Dispute Act, 1947, as he was appointed accordingly with

a monthly salary of Rs. 36,922. As per the Appointment

Letter under condition No.6, the petitioner had been on

probation for a period of 6 months from the date of his

joining which was extendable by a further period at the

discretion of the Management. His performance and

behaviour was too unsatisfactory during his probation

period as intimated to him several times orally, sometimes

through emails dt. June 22, 23 and Oct.15 2007; Jan.1, Feb

4, 8, 16, 26 and June 22 and 23, 2008 respectively. Over all,

In view of his poor performance and lack of seriousness in

the job, the probation of the petitioner was extended till

12.08.2008 as communicated to him as per the

Management’s letter dt. May 27, 2008.Yet the petitioner

did not show any improvement in his performance and

behaviour. Some issues relating to his integrity also came

to the light. Based on the recommendations of the

disciplinary committee, the competent authority after

considering all the facts or record decided to terminate the

service of the petitioner. As his service was neither

satisfactory nor confirmed, as per the letter of termination

dt.5.8.2008 his service was terminated by the Management

as per the terms under paras 6 & 11 of the letter of

Appointment for his breach of the conduct under para (3)

(a) to (d) of the terms and conditions of service directly

recruited Officers ; accordingly he was simultaneously

paid one month salary Rs.15,383/- in lieu of the notice

period through the cheque No.406991 dt.5.08.2008,and on

his refusal to accept it, it was sent by the Regd.post to

him. Thus the termination of the petitioner is just and

legal.

6. The O.P./Management has parawise emphatically

and categorically denied the allegations of the petitioner,

stating that he was appointed in the cadre of Manager in

M-5 Grade, a middle Management Cadre. The Company

has grades from M-9 to M-1 based on the nature of duties

of the employees. M-9 is an entry cadre for Accociates,

M-8 is a Senior executive Cadre; M-7 for Asstt. Managers,

M-6 Deputy Managers, and M-5 is a cadre for Managers.

So the petitioner is not a workman u/s 2(5) of the I.D.Act.

The role of the petitioner as the Manager Bancassurance

had much independent to develop the business in his

area just also as that of a co-ordinator and supporter in it.

As the petitioner was not a workman, so the provisions of

the I.D. Act do not apply, just as that u/s under its 25-F

about his termination not amounting to retrenchment. As

the job profile of Manager –Boncassurance is entirely

different from that of the Development Officers of LIC.

The role of a Manager-Boncassurance in SBI LIC is akin

to the role of a Senior Branch Manager in LIC, and the job

profile of the Development Officers in LIC is similar to that

of Unit manager in SBI.The petitioner was not a Unit

Manager. Hence he can not draw a parallel between his

role as a Manager-Busnassuance and that of a

Development Officer in LIC.Though the company has

stipulated a probationary period of one year, it can reduce

the probation period as mentioned in the Appointment

Letter of the petitioner for 6 months. As the petitioner was

terminated because of non-performance; hence no enquiry

was conducted.

FINDING WITH REASONS

7. In the reference, WWI Shantanu Gupta,the

petitioner for own sake, and MWI Sanjay Prakash, Sr.Area

Manager, SBI, LIC, Dhanbad for the Management have

been examined respectively.

On perusal of the pleading and evidences, oral and

documentary both, of the parties, it appears that there is

no dispute about the direct relationship of the parties as

an employee and the employer respectively. But their facts

at variance with each other evolve the two main points

essential for determination in order to give proper

adjudication in the reference.

Firstly: Whether the petitioner is the workman as

defined under Sec.2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 1947,

and

Secondly, whether the petitioner was legally

terminated by his employer.

At the outset, it is worth noting that the documents

of both parties being replica are referred hereinafter

accordingly. As to the first point, the indisputable fact is

that the appointment of the petitioner was to the post of

Manager (in Grade M5) Bancassruance based on the offer

and its acceptance of C.C. the contract as per the

Management’s letter and the letter of Appointment dt.

Feb.12 and March 12, 2007(Ext.W.1 and 2 = M.1 & 2)

respectively following his interview only subject to the

terms and conditions of Service of Directly Recruited

Officers 24^th Oct., 2001 SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3245

Mumbai (Ext.M.8). In course of extended probation, his

designation was changed as the Area Manager-

Brancassrance as per the Management’s letter dt.10.01.2008

(Extt.W.3 = M3) but without any change in his job

responsibility as promoter or co-ordinator for the

insurance business of the Management as per his position

Profile (Ext.W.4 = M.4). As per the remuneration Details

Annexure.1 (Ext.W.1/1= M 2/1) to his said appointment

letter, the basic monthly salary of the petitioner was

Rs.15833/-. Mr. Sanjay Prakash,the Sr.Area Manager as

the Representative for the Management has to contend

that the petitioner being the Manager in Grade M-5 is not

the workman as defined under the Industrial Dispute Act.

Whereas the petitioner has to argue that he was out and

out a workman under the I.D.Act, 1947 in the nature of his

job as a promoter/Co-ordinator in the business of the

insurance in the concerned Branches of the Company.

Whether the petitioner is a workman or not under Sec2(s)

of the I.D.Act depends upon the nature of his duties and

not the designation as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Sharad Kumar Vs. Government of National

Capital Territory of Delhi reported in (2002) 4 SCC 490 :

AIR 2002 Sc 1724.Nature of work and not the salary of an

employee will be main criterion to determine the status of

a workman “ as also held in the case of Shankarbhai

Nathalal Prajapati Vs. Maize Products (2003)3 CLR

919:(2003)96 FLR 829. In the instant case, the nature of the

job assigned to the petitioner by the Management was

merely that of a Promoter/Co ordinator in the insurance

business of the Company by co-ordinating its branches

in specified areas, but not that of the Manager nor later on

that of as the Area Manager initially appointed and latterly

designated respectively, as he had no status to take

independent decision. Hence the petitioner was factually

a workman in the terms of the said Act.

8. So far as the second point of termination of the

petitioner is concerned, as per his appointment letter

dt.12.3.2007 (Ext.W.2) as the Manager- Bauscassurance,

he was on probation for six months till 12.09.2007 in his

job of mobilizing the insurance Business of the Company

by co-coordinating with the designated officials of the

S.B.I. Branches in his assigned territory -203 branches in

Bihar and Jharkhand. Meanwhile the workman as stated

by himself in affidavited statement was verbally instructed

by the Management to resign over the allegation of his

previous employer about mismatch in his designation and

salary, he successfully reported to it as false. The

Management as per its letter dt. Jan.10, 2008 (Extt.W.3=M3)

changed his designation as AREA MANAGER without

any change in his earlier job responsibility with the same

terms and conditions as laid down in his appointment

Letter. The petitioner (WWI) has emphatically contended

that after his continuous working for more than one year,

the Management by its letter dt. 27^th May, 2008 (Extt. W.6

=M6) unreasonably extended his probation till 12^th

August,2008 due to lack of good performance. No sooner

had he reached Patna on his deputation from 7^th august,

2008 than he learnt of termination of his services based on

misconduct and lack of satisfactory performance as per

the Management’s letter dt .05.08.2008 (Ext.W.7 =M.7)

as contrasted with his performance upto the mark

as per Patna Circle –Summary Report as on 31.03.07

including Bhagalpur Module F.Y.07-08 (Ext.W.8).

Further emphatic contention of the petitioner is that

his termination was without any enquiry by the O.P./

Management, so it was illegal, biased, against the principle

of natural justice as well as contrary to the provision of

Sec, 25 F of the I.D. Act, as he was neither on probation,

nor charge sheeted for any unsatisfactory work or conduct

during probation, and besides, neither one month notice

or one month basic salary in lieu thereof was given to him

prior to it. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that he

was a confirmed employee for all intent and purpose, as

during his first probation period (March, 12 to Sept., 12,

2007), the Management had neither issued any intimation

of probation extension nor alleged any grievance for his

work, so his termination not being in accordance with any

standing order was punitive. The petitioner has relied upon

the verdict of the Hon’ble Apex Court that if the services

of a permanent employee are terminated, then prima facie

it constitutes punishment as held in the cases of

P.L.Dhinghra Vs. Union of India,1958 SCR 828 : AIR 1958

SC 36.

9. In response to it, the contention of Mr.Jay

Prakash, the Representative for the O.P./Management is

that the appointment of the petitioner (Ext.W.1,2 = M1 &

2 respectively) was undoubtedly contractual, and his

services were governed by the terms and conditions of

Services of Directly Recruited Officer (Ext.M.8) as also

referred under clause 14 of his appointment Letter (Extt.W.2

= M2).The performance and behaviour of petitioner

Shantanu Gupta as communicated to him several times

orally and at times via emails by his superiors (Extt.W.5 =

M.5 series) on specified dates was quite unsatisfactory,

so in view of his poor performances and apathy in his job,

his probation period was extended upto 12.08.2008 as per

Management’s letter dt.27.5.2008 (Extt.W.6 = M.6).He was

not confirmed.Desipte giving him sufficient opportunities,

there was no improvement in his performance nor his

services satisfactory. So he was terminated with his one

month basic pay of Rs.15,833 in lieu of his notice as per

the letter dtt.5.8.2008 (Ext.W.7 = M.7) for breach of his

conduct under clause 9 (3) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Terms

and Conditions of Services of Directly Recruited Officers

of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd (Ext.M.8).Since the

petitioner had refused to accept his termination letter with

one basic pay, it was indisputably sent it to him through a

Regd. Post. The termination of the petitioner was strictly

as per the terms and conditions of his appointment letter

and the aforesaid service rules of the Company, It was and

3246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is legal and justified in view of the facts of the present

case to which the provision of Article 311 of the Indian

Constitution is not applicable, because the SBI Life

Insurance Company is not a state as defined under its

Article 12, and accordingly, the ruling of P.L.Dhingra case

holds not good with the case under adjudication.

10. On perusal and consideration of the materials

available on the case record, it stands obvious that the

appointment of the petitioner was virtually contractual

with the O.P./Management that status of the petitioner/

workman though as the Asstt. Manager being on extended

Probation was unconfirmed in the terms and conditions

of his appointment/the services rules of the Directly

Recruited Officers; since his performance was not

satisfactory, the O.P./Management terminated his services

according to the terms of his appointment letter paras 11

to 13 read with clauses 4(1) and 6(1) of the aforesaid

Terms and Conditions of the Service of Directly Recruited

Officers binding upon the petitioner as well. The emails

(Extt.W.5 in five sheets) to the workman by his Senior Mr

Yogesh Sharma reflect the facts: “ why Purnea with zero

SBI Life presence ; Your absence from office without

intimation as gross misconduct on your part, you were

expected to update me on a daily basis’(regarding certain

targets..at least 10 branches per region achieve the 100

polices benchmark);are we any closer to the Gramin Bank

than 19 of July, when the first mail on the subject was

addressed to you; and your apathy but you Conveniently

ignore the mails, about how much faithful conduct of the

workman was towards the business of the company”. His

Patna Circle- Summary Report as on 31.03.09 with his

Bhagalpur Module F.Y 07-08 (Ext.W.8) apparently appear

to be intangible in lack of his specific pleading.

In this case, the petitioner has neither pleading nor

reply proof how his performance was upto the mark to the

satisfaction of the Management, so his termination of

services with payment of his one month salary/wages in

lieu of the Notice in compliance with the provision of Sec.

25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act appears to be justified.

Termination of probation by making over all assessment

of his performance will not amount to retrenchment as

held in the case of District Animal Husbandry Offices Bundi

Vs. Judge, Labour Court, Kota, (2002) 3 CLR 317:2003 LLR

99, rather it is the discontinuation of the petitioner’s

service which was based on the specified terms and

conditions of the contract entered between both the parties.

In the result, it is, in the terms of the reference, hereby

held and

ORDERED

That the Award be and the same is passed that the

action of the Management of SBI,Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,

Mumbai, in terminating factually discontinuing the services

of Shri Shantanu Gupta vide letter dt.05.08.2008 is quite

legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to any

relief.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1233-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bU'kqjsUl dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] /uckn

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2007 ,oa 34@2008) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&17012@24@2006&vkbZvkj (,e),

la- ,y&17012@29@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1233.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/2007

& 34/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad, now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation

of India and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-17012/24/2006-IR(M),

No. L-17012/29/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

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. 19 of 2007 and 34 of 2008

Employers in relation to the Management of L.I.C of

India, Bhagalpur

AND

Their workmen

Present : Sri Ranjan Kumar Saran, Presiding Officer

Appearances :

For the Employers

Sri Alok Choudhary, AAO

( P& IR)

For the workman

Sri B.N.P.Srivastava, Rep.

State : Bihar

Industry : Insurance

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3247

Dated 26/2/ 2014

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

and Employment 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:

Ref. No. 19/2007 (Order No. L-17012/24/2006-IR(M)

dt. 12.3.2007

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Divisional Office, Bhagalpur in down grading

the part time water men (Peon Grade) S/Shri Deepak

Prasad Sah, Goutam Kumar and Dasarath Choudhary

to Sweeper Grade and deducting the amount from

their salary in the Sweeper Grade is legal and

justified? If not , what relief all ofthem are entitled

to?”

Ref. No. 34/2008 (Order No. L-17012/29/2008-IR(M)

dt. 16.7.2008

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India, Divisional Office, Bhagalpur in down grading

the part time water man in respect of Sh. Ranjeet

Kumar Pandey from peon grade to Sweeper Grade

and deducting the amount from his salary in the

Sweeper Grade is legal and justified ? If not , what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date?”

2. Both the cases are received from the Ministry of

Labour. After receipt of reference, parties are noticed, the

workman files their written statement and the management

also files their written statement-cum-rejoinder and

documents.

3. Both the above reference cases have been heard

analogously as both the two cases are identical in nature.

As per petition of the Sponsoring Union the Ref. No. 34

of 2008 is heard analogously with 19 of 2007 .

4. The Short point involved in these reference is

that the workmen, were appointed as part time workman

by the management in the scale of Rs. 815- 1520 on

22.12.1992 in the peon grade as workmen under the

management. But subsequently they are regularized in the

post of sweeper grade.

5. The Claim of the workmen is that they are to be

regularized in the post of peon grade not in sweeper grade,

which is a lower grade. On the other hand the

management’s case is that the part time water man is similar

post of sweeper grade as per audit instruction. But part

time water man post is a part time post. From the documents

of the management it appears that the workmen were

confirmed on 06.07.1993, he reduced them in rank and

regularized them in sweeper grade on 1997 i.e. after five

years of service in peon grade he was reduced in sweeper

grade after confirmation. Moreover it is admitted that pay

scale of the workmen were recovered to equalize with the

scale of sweeper grade. Reduction to the post of sweeper

grade after getting scale of peon, is illegal.

6. Considering the facts and circumstance of this

case, I hold that the action of the management of LIC of

India, Divisional Office, Bhagalpur in down grading the

part time water man in respect of Sri Deepak Kr. Sah, Goutam

Kumar, Dasarath Choudhary and Sh. Ranjeet Kumar

Pandey and from Peon Grade to Sweeper Grade and

deducting the amount from their salary from Sweeper Grade

is illegal. The workmen be given the rank of peon grade

from the date of their confirmation in their grade i.e. on

06.07.1993 and accordingly their pay and benefits be given.

This is my award.

R. K. SARAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1234-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 89@2011) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@01@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1234.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/2011)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Gas Authority of India Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/01/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 17th March, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

3248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Industrial Dispute No. 89/2011

(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 GAIL (India) Ltd. and their workmen)

BETWEEN :

Sri C. Arumugam

1st Party/Petitioner

AND

1. The General Manager :

2nd Party/1st Respondent

Gail (India) Ltd.

4th Floor, Savitha Plaza,

Indira Gandhi Square

Puducherry-605505

2. The Director

2nd Party/2nd Respondent

Human Resources

Department

GAIL (India) Ltd.

165, Bhikaji Cama Place,

R.K. Puram, New Delhi.

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s. S. S. Ramachandran, S.

S. Mugundan, Advocates

For the 1st and 2nd Party/ : Sri A. Muraleedharun,

Respondents

Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment vide its Order No. L-30012/01/2011-IR (M)

dated 03.11.2011 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

GAIL (India) Ltd., in terminating the services of Sri

C. Arumugam, Chainman in violation of Section-25F

of the ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified? To what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?”

2. On receipt of the Industrial Dispute this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 89/2011 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their counsel

and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these :

The petitioner was appointed as Chainman in Gas

Authority of India on 22.05.1992 at Nagapattinam. He was

continuously working as Chainman without any break.

Initially he was paid at the rate of Rs. 900 per month. It

was enhanced from time to time. In June 2008, the petitioner

had drawn Rs. 3,000 as salary. The petitioner had put in 16

years of continuous service as Chainman with Gas

Authority of India (now GAIL (India) Ltd. Initially the

petitioner received salary from the Officer-in-Charge of

GAIL (India) Ltd. in Nagapattinam. Since the office was

shifted to Puducherry, the Officer-in-Charge who is a

competent authority of GAIL (India) Ltd. used to pay salary

to the petitioner. The service of the petitioner was utilized

continuously from 1992. The petitioner was fully engaged

in all the pipeline projects of the Company till 2008. The

petitioner has to assist the Revenue Inspectors and the

Local Sub-Registrar Office to assess the land value and

for getting the crop details consequent to the notification

for laying the gas pipelines. The compensation amount

payable to the land owners used to be paid by way of

cheque. The works relating to disbursement of cheques

and other related works were attended by the petitioner.

The petitioner had worked under different Officers-in-

Charge, Special Tahsildars and Revenue Inspectors. The

petitioner also assisted the Engineers of GAIL in getting

permission from the concerned departments for laying

pipelines in road crossing, river crossing, rail crossing,

etc. The service of the petitioner was utilized by the finance

department of GAIL in serving invoice to Bank. The

petitioner was helping the officials to transport files to

new premises whenever office was shifted. But,

surprisingly on 30.04.2008 the petitioner was orally

discharged from his duties. He had applied to the Office-

in-Charge to give him regular employment but no reply

was given by the GAIL. On applying under Right to

Information Act, the petitioner was told that since he was

appointed temporarily, regular appointment cannot be

given to him. The petitioner had raised the dispute

consequently. The petitioner was not given one month

notice on termination. He was not given wages in lieu of

notice also. An order may be passed directing the

Respondents to appoint the petitioner on regular basis in

GAIL (India) Ltd. and regularize the petitioner’s service

with effect from 22.5.1992 and to give arrears of wages.

Alternatively, the Respondent shall be directed to pay

Rs. 16.00 lakhs to the petitioner as compensation.

4. The Respondents have filed Counter Statement

contending as follows:

The claim made by the petitioner is not sustainable

either in law or on facts. The petitioner was not appointed

by GAIL or the competent authority who is authorized to

make the recruitment. The petitioner appears to have been

working under Special Tahsildar, the competent authority

appointed under the Petroleum and Mineral Pipelines Act

(PMP Act) for the purpose of acquiring the right of user of

land. There is no such post called Chainman in the

organization of the Respondents. The petitioner was not

appointed by GAIL through the process of recruitment.

The work of laying gas pipeline to various industries in an

around Nagapattinam was in the nature of time bound

project work and its requirement of manpower was

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3249

temporary and for a specific purpose and for a specific

period. With the conclusion of the said project work, the

requirement would come to an end and so also the

employment of the temporary or casual labourer employed

for the said work. The petitioner seems to have been

engaged by the competent authority nominated by the

Central Government to discharge the various functions

under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines Act for the

specific purpose of conducting survey to acquire the right

of user in the land by the Central Government under the

said Act to enable laying of the pipeline. Such casual

engagement will not confer any right on the petitioner to

seek any relief against GAIL. The payment vouchers

produced by the petitioner would show that the Special

Tahsildar who is the competent authority paid

remuneration to the petitioner from his imprest sanctioned

by GAIL for making the contingent expenses required to

be incurred in connection with the work of the project.

The Officer-in-Charge has only counter signed the imprest

bills. The competent authority have utilized the service of

the petitioner to assist the surveyors of the authority as

and when required. He was not allotted the main work of

surveying the gas pipeline area. 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 Ext.W1 to

Ext.W9 and Ext.M1

6. The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the action of the management in

terminating the service of the petitioner is

legal and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The points

7. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as

Chainman in Gas Authority of India Ltd. now GAIL (India)

Ltd. on 22.05.1992. It is claimed by the petitioner that he

was assisting in the work relating to laying of pipelines to

various industries. He is said to have been doing other

works for the Respondents also. He is said to have worked

for GAIL continuously from 22.05.1992 to 30.04.2008 on

which date he was orally terminated from service.

According to the petitioner, having put in 16 years of

service with GAIL (India) Ltd. he is entitled to be regularized

in its service. Alternatively, he has claimed compensation

from the Respondents also. It is stated by him in the Claim

Statement that he was not given any notice under Section-

25F of the ID Act before he was terminated. The stand of

the Respondents is that the petitioner was never engaged

by the organization. In a reluctant manner they have stated

in the Counter Statement that the petitioner seems to have

been appointed by the competent authority under the PMP

Act for the purpose of conducting survey to acquire right

of user in the land by Central Government to enable GAIL

to lay pipelines. According to the Respondents such casual

labour by the competent authority will not confer any right

on the petitioner to seek a relief against the Respondents.

8. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of Chief

Examination reiterating his case in the Claim Statement.

9. The Senior Manager (Law) of the Respondent

Organization has given evidence on behalf of the

Respondents. In the Proof Affidavit this witness has

repeated the case of the Respondents that the petitioner

was never appointed by them, that he was never their

employee but was engaged casually by the competent

authority appointed under the PMP Act.

10. The documents produced on behalf of the

petitioner would give an indication that the petitioner was

under the direct employment of the Respondents and not

under the Competent Authority. As seen from Ext.W1, the

copy of the Attendance Register the petitioner had joined

duty on 22.05.1992 as Chainman. The petitioner had

produced copies of salary payment vouchers starting from

March 1994 and upto January 2008. All these vouchers

are to the effect that payment was received by the petitioner

from the Gas Authority of India. Of course, the Special

Tahsildar who is the competent authority of Gas Authority

of India has certified that the petitioner has attended the

work for which he is being paid. In all these vouchers the

occupation of the petitioner is shown as Chainman itself.

In the later receipts the wording that the payment is made

by Gas Authority of India Ltd. is omitted. However, it is

clear that all along payment was made to the petitioner by

the Respondents itself. Apart from the above payment

vouchers, there are other documents also which would

show that the service of the petitioner was utilized in

different ways. Ext.W4 would show that the petitioner had

been handed over a cheque book by the State Bank of

India on requisition from the Special Tahsildar who is the

competent authority of Gas Authority of India. Ext.W5 is a

letter by a Senior Officer of GAIL (India) Ltd. to Indian

Overseas Bank requesting to issue Letter of Credit for

Rs. 12,50,000 to petitioner, the bearer of the letter. Ext.W6

is the letter written by the competent authority to the Post

Master of Nagapattinam informing him that since he is a

Touring Officer, all letters to him should be delivered to

the Office Chain Man, the petitioner.

11. Probably the petitioner might have been working

in the Office of the Competent Authority and doing the

work of surveying and the related work in connection with

the laying of gas pipelines by the Gas Authority of India.

It is clear from the documents that the petitioner was

working in the capacity as Chainman for several years.

Considering the nature of the work, it is also seen that the

petitioner was working regularly and continuously. The

fact that payment to the petitioner was directly made by

the Gas Authority itself would show that he was

3250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

under the employment of Gas Authority subsequently

GAIL (India) Ltd. for all purposes. Probably, he was working

mostly in the work related to laying of gas pipelines. It is

for this reason his work is certified by the competent

authority.

12. Again, though it is the case of the Respondents

that the competent authority is independent of the Gas

Authority of India itself, this does not seem to be the

position, when the facts are taken into account. The

competent authority is appointed for the Gas Authority of

India. The survey was done for the Gas Authority. The

entire work of the Competent Authority was for the Gas

Authority itself. In such circumstances, it is idle for the

Respondents to contend that the petitioner was not

working under them but was engaged by the Competent

Authority and they have nothing to do with the

engagement of the petitioner.

13. The very claim of the petitioner in the Claim

Statement is for regularization of the post. Thus there is

no case for the petitioner that he was appointed for the

regular post. He has not produced any appointment order

also. It is the case of the Respondent also that the

petitioner was not appointed in accordance with its

recruitment policy. Thus the engagement of the petitioner

was only on casual basis.

14. What is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled in the circumstance? Is he entitled to the relief of

regularization and reinstatement in service? The

Respondent’s counsel has referred to the precedents and

pointed out that in such a situation the petitioner was not

entitled to regularization, in any case. The counsel has

referred to the decision of the Apex Court in SECRETARY,

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. UMA

DEVI AND OTHERS reported in 2006 4 SCC 1 where it was

held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual

labourer is continued for a time beyond the terms of his

appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in

regular service or made permanent merely on the strength

of such continuance, if the original appointment was not

made by following a due process of selection as envisaged

by the relevant rules. It is not open to the Court to prevent

the regular recruitment at the instance of temporary

employees whose period has come to an end or ad-hoc

employees who by the very nature of their appointment

do not acquire any right, it was further held. In the decision

INDIAN DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

VS.

WORKMAN,

INDIAN

DRUGS

AND

PHARMACEUTICALS LTD reported in 2007 1 SCC 408

the Apex Court has held that the Court cannot create

a post that none exists or issue directions to absorb or

regularize temporary employees nor continue them in

service as these are purely executive or legislative

functions. Such questions cannot be decided in Court on

basis of emotions and sympathies, but must be decided

on legal principles, it was further held. In the decision

Union of India and Another VS ARULMOZHI INIARASU

AND OTHERS reported in 2011 7 SCC 397 the Apex Court

has held that in spite of uninterrupted engagement of

casual labourers for a long duration ranging between 8 to

14 years, doctrine of legitimate expectation is inapplicable

since at no point of time was a promise held out to the

labourers that they would be absorbed as regular

employees of the department. The counsel for the

petitioner has referred to the decision HARJINDER SINGH

VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION

reported in 2010 2 SLR 15 where the Apex Court has directed

reinstatement. However, it was a case where the junior of

a worker concerned was allowed to continue while he was

thrown out and work was still going on.

15. The engagement of the petitioner was only

casual in nature. There is nothing to show that the work of

the nature done by the petitioner is still continuing. In the

light of the legal principles referred to above, laid down by

the Apex Court, the petitioner is not entitled to

regularization. He is not entitled to reinstatement also.

16. It is seen from Ext.W1 itself that the petitioner

was engaged as early as in 1992. The salary payment

vouchers would show that his engagement continued at

least till January 2008 which is the last voucher seen

produced. The case of the petitioner is that he was orally

terminated from service on 30.04.2008. The vouchers show

that he was engaged for full time. In spite of this, the

petitioner was terminated from service orally, without notice

of termination. The petitioner though a casual employee,

is a worker as defined in Section-2(s) of the Industrial

Dispute Act. Before he was terminated from service, the

employer was bound to comply with the Sction-25F of the

Act. The case of the Respondent is that no notice under

Section-25(s) is required as the petitioner is not a workman

under it. It is apparent that the petitioner has been in the

service of the Respondent for long 16 years before he was

terminated from service. The Respondent has neither paid

any wages in lieu of notice, nor retrenchment

compensation under Section-25F(b) of the Act. The

petitioner was entitled to compensation before

retrenchment. During 2007-2008 the petitioner was drawing

a consolidated amount of Rs. 3,000 a month towards

wages. He had to put in a fight for several years before

getting a relief. Considering all these aspects, I fix the

compensation payable to the petitioner as Rs. 2,00,000/-.

The 1^st Respondent is directed to pay the amount within 2

months, failing which the amount will carry interest at the

rate of 9% per month.

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 17^th March, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3251

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Sri C. Arumugam

For the 1^st& 2^nd Party/

MW1, Sri A. Venkatesan

Management

Documents Marked :

On the petitioner’s side

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

5/1992

Copy of Attendance Register

Ex.W2

Copies of Salary Payment

Vouchers

Ex.W3

Copy of Receipt for payment

of money to receive “C” Form

Ex.W4

11.09.1998

Copy of Authorization Letter

to receive Cheque Books

issued by the 1^st Respondent

to the Petitioner

Ex.W5

08.05.2003

Copy of Authorization Letter

issued by the 1^st Respondent

to the petitioner to receive

documents from Indian

overseas Bank

Ex.W6

Copy of Authorization Letter

issued to the Postal Authority,

Nagapattinam authorizing the

petitioner to receive postal

documents

Ex.W7

17.10.2006

Copy of the order of the

Respondents

give

Deepavali allowance to the

contingent staff

Ex.W8

30.04.2008

Copy of the Representation

given by the petitioner to the

1^st Respondent for regular

appointment

Ex.W9

03.11.2011

Schedule of reference from

Ministry of Labour &

Employment

On the Management’s side :

Ex.No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

Recruitment Policy of the

Respondent Organization.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1235-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

isVªksfy;e dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] psUubZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 29@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@65@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 29/2012)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/65/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Friday, the 21st February, 2014

Present : K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 29/2012

Industrial Dispute No. 29/2012

(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 Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Ltd. and their workman)

BETWEEN

Sri J. K. Amulraj

: 1st Party/Petitioner

AND

The Chief Installation Manager : 2nd Party/

M/s. Hindustan Petroleum

Respondent

Corporation Ltd.

Chennai Terminal, 98/99,

Ellaiya Mudali Street

Washermanpet

Chennai-600021.

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/

Sri S. Anbazhagan,

Petitioner

Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

M/s. King & Partridge,

Respondent

Advocates

3252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour &

Employment, vide its Order No. L-30012/65/2011-IR(M)

dated 21.05.2012 referred the following Industrial Dispute

to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the Management of

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Chennai in

terminating the services of Sri J.K. Amulraj, an Ex-

General Service Assistant w.e.f. 31.03.2009 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 29/2012 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides have entered appearance through their

counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement

respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement filed by

the petitioner in brief are these:

The petitioner had joined the service of the

Respondent on 01.06.1987 as General Workman and he

was confirmed in the post on 03.08.1987. The petitioner is

a disabled person and was appointed through Special

Employment Exchange. A charge memo dated 28.07.2009

was issued to the petitioner alleging that he was un-

authorizedly absent from duty for 62 days. It was stated in

the charge memo that he has been habitually negligent

and his absence without leave is without sufficient

grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation. He was

alleged to have committed the misconduct coming under

Clause-31(5) and Clause-31(7) of the Standing Order. An

enquiry was conducted and a report was given against

him. Though the copy of the report was given to him, he

was not able to give any reply due to his ill-health. On

31.03.2009 the Respondent passed an order dismissing

the petitioner from service. The order of dismissal is illegal

and unjustified. The enquiry was not conducted in a fair

and proper manner. The Respondent did not consider

the explanation given by the petitioner regarding his

illness. An order may be passed holding that dismissal of

the petitioner from service is illegal and unjustified and

directing the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in service

with back wages and all other attendant benefits.

4. The Respondent has filed Counter Statement

contending as follows :

The Respondent is one of the Public Sector

Undertakings of Government of India. Frequent

absenteeism of the employees for a long period leads to

serious dislocation of work. The petitioner was frequently

remaining absent unauthorizedly and without permission.

During the period from August 2007 to December 2007, he

was unauthorizedly absent for 62 days. This is apart from

availing all the leaves to which he was entitled. It amounts

to misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Charges were

framed against the petitioner after calling explanation from

him. An enquiry was conducted, giving reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. The

Enquiry officer submitted findings holding that the charges

against the petitioner are proved. The explanation was

called for from the petitioner. He has submitted a reply

which was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner was

discharged from service by paying 30 days pay in lieu of

notice. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

The petitioner is not a disabled person as per the records

of the Respondent. The petitioner had participated in the

domestic enquiry and had signed the enquiry proceedings.

Enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. He

was defended by a representative in the enquiry

proceedings. During the pendency of the proceedings

also, the petitioner remained absent unauthorizedly for 88

days during July 2008 to December 2008. Even after

initiating the domestic enquiry the petitioner continued to

remain unauthorizedly absent. 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 Ext.W1 to

Ext.W17 and Ext. M1 to Ext. M11

6. The points for consideration are :

(i)

Whether the termination of the petitioner

from service by the Respondent is legal

and justified?

(ii)

What is the relief to which the petitioner is

entitled?

The Points

7. The petitioner had been in the service of the

Respondent as a General Workman. It is alleged by the

Respondent that during the period from August 2007 to

December 2007 he was on unauthorized absence for 62

days. A Charge Memo was issued to the petitioner and

domestic enquiry was conducted. The report of the

enquiry having turned against him, an order of dismissal

from service was made against him after obtaining his

explanation. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the

Appellate Authority against the dismissal order by the

Disciplinary Authority has been rejected. It is accordingly

the dispute is raised by the petitioner.

8. In the Claim Statement, the petitioner has

contended that the departmental enquiry against him was

conducted not in accordance with the principles of natural

justice. However, at the time of the argument the counsel

for the petitioner has stated that he is not challenging the

fairness of the enquiry. In spite of the contention in the

Claim Statement, the petitioner had never sought a

preliminary finding on the issue also. On going through

the enquiry proceedings I find that enquiry was conducted

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3253

in a fair and proper manner. Charge memo was issued and

his explanation was sought for before charges were framed

against him. In the enquiry proceedings he was represented

by a representative. So there was no denial of principles

of natural justice to the petitioner in the enquiry

proceedings also.

9. The finding against the petitioner in the enquiry

proceedings is on the basis of the admission made by the

petitioner itself. He had admitted during the proceedings

that he had remained unauthorizedly absent. However, he

had attributed his absence due to his personal ill health

and that of his family members. Even in the Claim

Statement and during the evidence of the petitioner, he

has no case that he was not absent during the period in

question. However, he does not seem to have produced

any documents during the enquiry proceedings to show

that he was actually indisposed and there was sufficient

reason and justification for his absence for the period in

question. The petitioner has produced certain documents

before this Court to show that he was ill during the period

of absence. However, these documents produced before

this Court, but not before the Enquiry Officer could not be

looked into. The Apex Court has held in CHAIRMAN AND

MD V.S.P. AND OTHERS VS. GOPARAJU SRI

PRABHAKARA HARI BABU reported 2008 4 MLJ 116

that a subsequent explanation before another authority

which had not been pleaded in the departmental

proceedings cannot by itself be a ground to hold that the

principles of natural justice had not been complied with in

the disciplinary proceedings. So there is no reason to differ

from the finding of the enquiring authority that the

petitioner was unauthorizedly absent during the period.

10. The argument that has been vehemently

advanced by the counsel for the petitioner is that the

punishment that is imposed on the petitioner is not in

proportion to the gravity of the offence charged against

him. He has pointed out that in imposing the punishment

the Respondent has considered his absence for a previous

period and even the absence for a subsequent period which

according to him is not at all justifiable. The counsel has

pointed out that the petitioner was not put to notice of

the fact that his previous absence would be referred to

and relied upon to impose punishment on him. The counsel

has referred to the decision in SRI BHARATI MILLS VS.

N.S. MOHAN reported in 1991 (2) MLJ 485 where it was

held that where the past conduct on record of service is

taken as an act by itself to impose the punishment that

cannot be done without putting the employee to notice.

The Enquiry Officer has stated in the report that the

petitioner was issued with Charge Sheet earlier for similar

misconduct for having remained unauthorizedly during

2005 and a lenient view was taken based on his undertaking

and affording an opportunity to show his improvement in

attendance but unfortunately he is still in the habit of

remaining absent unauthorizedly. There is no material to

show that previous absence of the petitioner, if any, was

not for valid reason. Even the enquiry report shows that

his explanation was accepted and he was not imposed

with any punishment. So there was no justification in

referring to his previous absence and relying upon that

for entering a finding against the petitioner.

11. The Enquiry Officer has considered the

subsequent absence of the petitioner also. This also is

without justification since the explanation of the petitioner

for the subsequent absence was not at all obtained. It is

found from the documents produced before this Court

that the Respondent itself has sent the petitioner to Apollo

Hospital for treatment. Ext.W5 is a letter by the Respondent

to the Apollo Hospital. Ext.W6 is the Fitness Certificate

issued from the hospital alongwith discharge summary. I

have referred to these documents to show that there must

have been some justification in the case of the petitioner

that he was falling ill frequently.

12. The petitioner has stated that he has entered

service with the Respondent as a disabled person. Of

course the Respondent has stated that its record will not

show that he was disabled. However, Ext.W1 a calling

letter issued to the petitioner from the Special Employment

Exchange for Disabled would show that he comes

under the category. Ext.W6 the certificate issued from

Apollo Hospital shows that the petitioner is a person

having seizure disorder. The discharge summary shows

that it was a known case of seizure disorder.

13. When the period of absence of the petitioner is

taken into account it could be seen that the punishment

imposed is not proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of

the Apex Court in COLOURCHEM LTD. VS. A.L.

ALASPURKAR AND OTHERS reported in 1998 3 SCC

192 where dismissal of the workman for the misconduct of

sleeping while on duty was found disproportionate. In

the case V. SENTHURVELAN VS. THE HIGH COURT OF

JUDICATURE, MADRAS (unreported) the night

watchman who was absent from duty was dismissed from

service. It was held by the High Court that the punishment

is disproportionate to the proved charge.

14. It is true that the petitioner was absent

unauthorizedly for more than two months. However, does

he deserve the punishment of dismissal from service for

this misconduct? It would have been sufficient if a lesser

punishment was imposed on him and he was allowed to

continue in service. I find that the petitioner is entitled to

better treatment in the matter of punishment. The

punishment imposed on the petitioner would be modified

and reduced to that of stoppage of two increments with

cumulative effect. The petitioner will not be entitled to

any back wages also. The period of his absence from duty

will be counted only for the purpose of continuity of

3254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

service. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service.

Accordingly, an order is passed as follows:

“The punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from

service is modified and is reduced to stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect. The petitioner

shall not be entitled to any back wages. The

petitioner shall be reinstated in service within one

month”.

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 21^st February, 2014).

K. P. PRASANNA KUMARI, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1^st Party/

WW1, Sri J.K. Amulraj

Petitioner Union

For the 2^nd Party/

MW1, Sri C.R. Lal

Management

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

07.07.1987 Calling letter from the Special

Employment Exchange for Disabled

Ex.W2

06.10.2005 Letter from the Respondent to K.J.

(series)

Hospital

12.09.2007 Medical

certificate

issued

to the petitioner

21.09.2007 Medical report of the petitioner

22.09.2007 Clinical report

23.10.2007 Fitness certificate

21.11.2007 Clinical report

10.11.2007 Fitness Certificate

Ex.W3

28.07.2008 Charge Sheet

Ex.W4

20.11.2008 Domestic enquiry proceedings

Ex.W5

21.01.2009 Letter from the Respondent to Apollo

Hospital

Ex.W6

24.01.2009 Fitness certificate alongwith

discharge summary

Ex.W7

30.01.2009 Domestic Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.W8

30.01.2009 Letter given by the petitioner to the

Enquiry Officer

Ex.W9

18.02.2009 Letter from the Respondent to Apollo

Hospital

Ex.W10 03.03.2009 Presenting Officer’s summation report

Ex.W11 14.03.2009 Enquiry report

Ex.W12 31.03.2009 Proceedings of the disciplinary

authority (dismissal order)

Ex.W13 07.07.2009 Order passed by the Appellate

Authority

Ex.W14 -

Copy of the 2(A) Petition

Ex.W15 02.11.2010 Reply filed the Respondent

Ex.W16 March 2011 Rejoinder filed by Petitioner

Ex.W17 29.03.2011 Minutes of the Conciliation Officer

On the Management side :

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

01.08.2007 Weekly consolidated reports from

August 2007 to December 2007

Ex. M5

Ex. M6

28.07.2008 Charge Sheet for the period from

August 2007 to December 2007

Ex. M7

20.11.2008

30.01.2009 Entire domestic enquiry proceedings

02.03.2009

Ex. M8

03.03.2009 Presenting Officer’s Summation

Report

Ex. M9

14.03.2013 Reply to the Enquiry Officer report

by the petitioner

Ex. M10 07.07.2009 Proceedings and order of the

Appellate Authority.

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1236-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

flfoy ,fo,'ku flD;wfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 45/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3255

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 45/2013

Ms. Rajwati w/o Shri Naveen,

R/o H.No.365, Indira Camp,

Rangpuri Mahipalpur,

New Delhi - 110037

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s Updater Services (P) Ltd.,

Branch Office, 15, Community Centre,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

2. The Manager,

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,

IGI Airport Terminal-3,

New Delhi-110037

...Managements

AWARD

M/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred

to as the contractor) is engaged in providing integrated

facility management services to various companies as well

as Government authorities. It mainly participates in

outsourcing contracts. Contract for providing

housekeeping services at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, was obtained by the

contractor. To carry out its contractual obligations, the

contractor appointed housekeeping staff/attendants.

Ms.Rajwati was one of the employees engaged by the

contractor. There were various complaints against

Ms.Rajwati relating to her work and conduct. When the

contractor was confronted with such complaints by Airport

Authority of India, the contractor took a decision to replace

Ms.Rajwati with some other employee. He transferred

Ms.Rajwati to some other station, which action was

perceived by Ms. Rajwati as termination of her services.

She raised a demand for reinstatement in service, which

demand was refuted. Ultimately, she raised a dispute before

the Conciliation Officer, which dispute was also contested.

Since dispute raised by Ms. Rajwati was contested,

conciliation proceedings did not result in favour of the

claimant. When 45 days from the date of filing application

before the Conciliation Officer stood expired, Ms.Rajwati

filed her claim before this Tribunal, while using provisions

of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 (in short the Act), without it being referred, for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under section

10(1)(d) of the Act. Since the dispute was within the period

of limitation as provided by sub-section (3) and in

consonance with provisions of sub-section (2) of section

2A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial dispute.

2. Claim statement was filed by Ms.Rajwati pleading

that she was engaged by the contractor as an attendant

with effect from 18.05.2010. She worked sincerely and

diligently. 12 hours duty was taken from her, without

payment of overtime wages. No appointment letter was

issued in her favour. She was not given any leave. On

28.12.2012, she was slapped by Ms.Gursaran Kaur, the

supervisor. She protested against that act of the

supervisor. It annoyed the authorities and she was not

allowed to resume her duties with effect from 01.03.2012.

The contractor terminated her services by not allowing

her to resume her duties. She served a legal notice of

demand but to no avail. Termination of services is violative

of provisions of section 25F of the Act. She claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. Her claim was contested by the contractor

pleading therein that there were various complaints against

the claimant. The Airport Authority of India lodged

complaints against work and conduct of the claimant many

a times. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security refused to renew

her entry pass. Constrained with these circumstances,

she was replaced by some other attendant. Her services

were transferred to other work place. The claimant opted

not to join her duties at the station, where she was

transferred. It is not disputed that she was engaged in

service on 18.05.2010 and rendered her services till

01.03.2012. Since the claimant had failed to resume her

duties, it cannot be said that her services were terminated

by her employer. Under these circumstances, there is no

case in favour of the claimant to seek reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages. Her claim is

liable to be dismissed.

4. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security makes a counter

to the claim pleading it is a regulatory body responsible

for implementation and enforcement of civil aviation

security at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

It issues airport entry passes in favour of employees of

the contractor. Process of issuance of entry passes does

not have any relation with conduct of the employers and

the employer, who engages employees to discharge

contractual obligations. Since the claimant is not an

employee of the answering management, she does not

have any claim against it. Her claim may be discarded,

pleads Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.

5. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i)

Whether claimant rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date of termination of her services?

(ii)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service with Updater

Services Pvt. Ltd.

6. Claimant entered the witness box and unfolded

facts in her favour. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Manager, deposed

3256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

facts on behalf of the contractor. Bureau of Civil Aviation

Security opted not to examine any witness.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.P. Sharma,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Tarun Dwivedi, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

contractor. Shri Jagat Singh, Sub Inspector, presented facts

on behalf of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. I have given

my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the

bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows.

Issue No.1

8. In Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence, claimant

swears that she joined as housekeeping attendant with

the contractor on 18.05.2010. She was slapped by

Ms.Gursaran Kaur, Supervisor, without any fault of hers.

She protested against the said action. It enraged her

employer. She was not allowed to resume her duty with

effect form 01.03.2012. Shri Rakesh Kumar admits in his

testimony that the claimant was engaged on 18.05.2010.

He further admits that her attendance as well as service

record was being maintained by her employer. Shri Rakesh

Kumar projects that on 01.03.2012 services of the claimant

were transferred to some other station, where she opted

not to join her duties.

9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar are appreciated, it came

to light that services of the claimant were availed by the

contractor since 18.05.2010. The claimant discharged her

duties as housekeeping attendant at Terminal 3, Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Her claim has

been that she was slapped by Ms. Gursaran Kaur,

supervisor on 18.12.2012, for no fault of hers. She protested

against the said act of the supervisor, which protest

enraged her employer. She was not allowed to resume her

duties on 01.03.2012 and thus her services were dispensed

with. As conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant served

the contractor till 01.03.2012, when she was transferred to

some other station. Out of facts referred above, it is evident

that the claimant served the employer from 18.05.2010 till

01.03.2012.

10. An employer may discharge a portion of his

labour force as surplusage in a running or continuing

business for variety of reasons, e.g., for economy,

convenience, rationalization in industry, installation of a

new labour saving machinery etc. The Act defines

“termination by the employer of the service of a workman

for any reasons whatsoever”, except the categories

exempted in sub-section 2(oo), to be retrenchment. The

definition of the term “retrenchment”, as enacted by the

Act, is extracted thus:

“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the age

of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation in

that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman as

a result of the non-renewal of the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned on its expiry or of such

contract being terminated under a stipulation

in that behalf contained therein; or

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

11. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

12. Section 25F of the Act lays down conditions pre-

requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month’s notice in writing

to the workman concerned.

(ii)

The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii)

The period of one month’s notice should have

expired before retrenchment is enforced, or

the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice the wages for the period.

(iv)

The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent to

15 days’ average pay for every one years’

service or any part thereof provided it exceeds

six months.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3257

(v)

The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

13. For seeking protection under Section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation of work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen,

as enacted by provisions of sub section (1) of Section 25-B

of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section introduces

a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in

“continuous service” within the meaning of clause (1) for

a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to

in continuous service for that period under an employer if

he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses

(a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968

Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year’s period

contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman actually

worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

14. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years’ service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

“Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed One year’s service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25-B has

further to show that he has worked during all the

period he has been in the service of the employer for

240 days in the year”.

15. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under Section 25-B of the Act will operate if

workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The explanation appended to Section 25-B of the

Act specifically includes the days on which workman was

laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with

full wages, or he has been absent due to temporary

disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment and in the case of a female,

maternity leave, under the expression ‘actually worked’

used under sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Act.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the

words ‘actually worked’ would not include holidays,

Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid.

The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition

in American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ

539], wherein it was ruled that the expression ‘actually

worked under the employer’, cannot mean those days only

when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but

must necessarily comprehend all those days during which

he was in the employment of the employer and for which

he had been paid wages either under express or implied

contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing

orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other

holidays, would be comprehended in the words ‘actually

worked” and it countenanced the contention of the

employer that only days which are mentioned in the

explanation should be taken into account for the purpose

of calculating the number of days on which the workman

had actually worked though he had not so worked and no

other days. The Court observed that the explanation is

only clarificatory, as all explanations are, and cannot be

used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent

in Lalappa Lingappa [1981 (1) LJ 308] was distinguished

by the Apex Court in the case referred above. The

precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of

India Ltd. [1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is crystal clear from

the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be

included in computing continuous service under Section

25-B of the Act.

16. As emerge out of facts unfolded by the claimant

and those conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant

served the contractor from 18.05.2010 till 29.02.2012. Period

of service rendered by the claimant, as detailed above,

nowhere includes Sundays and holidays. In a year, an

employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides three national

holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three national holidays

are added to the periods referred above, claimant could

establish beyond doubt that she rendered continuous

service of a period of 240 days in two calendar years, as

contemplated by Section 25-B of the Act. Resultantly, it is

concluded that the claimant has been able to project that

she rendered continuous service of 240 days in two

calendar years to avail benefits of provisions of Section

25-F of the Act. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour

of the claimant and against the contractor.

Issue No. 2

17. Claimant projects that her services were abruptly

dispensed with on 01.03.2012. Contra to it, Shri Rakesh

3258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Kumar deposed in bold words that services of the claimant

were transferred to some other site in Delhi, where she

opted not to join her duties. He declares that as on date,

claimant is on the rolls of the contractor. Out of facts

unfolded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, it emerged that services

of the claimant has neither been discharged, dismissed,

terminated nor otherwise retrenched. When she still

remains on rolls of her employer, it is not a case relating to

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination

of her services by her employer. As emerged out of record,

dispute relates to transfer of the claimant from one station

to another. Her employer wants her to comply transfer

order but she is adamant in joining her duties at Terminal

3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Whether

this dispute will fall within the ambit of section 2A of the

Act, so that the claimant may avail provisions of sub-

section (2) of the said section and seek adjudication of the

dispute from the Tribunal, without it being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under section

10(1)(d) of the Act? Answer is plain and simple. Her dispute

does not fall within the purview of section 2A of the Act,

since she continues to be on rolls of her employer.

Machinery, provided under section 2A of the Act for

resolution of disputes, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee, will not come to her rescue.

18. When the contractor had not terminated her

services at all, it is not a case wherein relief of reinstatement

in service may be granted in favour of the claimant. Under

these circumstances, it is evident that no cause of action

accrued in favour of the claimant to invoke provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, to seek

adjudication of the dispute. It is concluded that the

dispute is not maintainable as such. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the contractor and against the

claimant.

19. As concluded above, the contractor had not

taken any action to discharge, dismiss, retrench or

otherwise terminate services of the claimant. He opted to

transfer services of the clamant to some other station,

which order was not complied with. Claimant is still on the

rolls of her employer. Under these circumstances, relief of

reinstatement in service, as claimed, is not available. Claim

statement deserves dismissal. Same is, accordingly,

dismissed. An award is passed in favour of the contractor

and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 05.02.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1237-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

flfoy ,fo,'ku flD;wfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 46@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 46/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bereau of Civil Aviation Security

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 46/2013

Shri Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Chandu,

R/o House. No. 332,

Rangpuri Pahar,

Mahipalpur,

New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Updater Services (P) Ltd.,

Branch Office, 15, Community Centre,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

2. The Manager,

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,

IGI Airport Terminal-3,

New Delhi-110037

...Managements

AWARD

M/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred

to as the contractor) is engaged in providing integrated

facility management services to various companies as well

as Government authorities. It mainly participates in

outsourcing contracts. Contract for providing

housekeeping services at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, was obtained by the

contractor. To carry out its contractual obligations, the

contractor appointed housekeeping staff/attendants.

Shri Suresh Kumar was one of the employees engaged by

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3259

the contractor. There were various complaints against

Shri Suresh Kumar relating to his work and conduct. When

the contractor was confronted with such complaints by

Airport Authority of India, the contractor took a decision

to replace Shri Suresh Kumar with some other employee.

He transferred Shri Suresh Kumar to some other station,

which action was perceived by him as termination of his

services. He raised a demand for reinstatement in service,

which demand was refuted. Ultimately, he raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer, which dispute was also

contested. Since dispute raised by Shri Suresh Kumar was

contested, conciliation proceedings did not result in favour

of the claimant. When 45 days from the date of filing

application before the Conciliation Officer stood expired,

Shri Suresh Kumar filed his claim before this Tribunal,

while using provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), without

it being referred, for adjudication by the appropriate

Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Act. Since the

dispute was within the period of limitation as provided by

sub-section (3) and in consonance with provisions of sub-

section (2) of section 2A of the Act, it was registered as an

industrial dispute.

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Suresh Kumar

pleading that he was engaged by the contractor as an

attendant with effect from 18.05.2010. He worked sincerely

and diligently. 12 hours duty was taken from him, without

payment of overtime wages. No appointment letter was

issued in his favour. He was not given any leave. Ajay,

Incharge of the contractor at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport was in the habit of asking bribe for

renewal of entry passes of the employees. Claimant

protested against the said act and conduct of Shri Ajay,

which enraged the authorities and he was not allowed to

resume his duties with effect from 01.03.2012. The

contractor terminated his services by not allowing him to

resume his duties. He served a legal notice of demand but

to no avail. Termination of services is violative of

provisions of section 25F of the Act. He claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. His claim was contested by the contractor

pleading therein that there were various complaints against

the claimant. The Airport Authority of India lodged

complaints against work and conduct of the claimant many

a times. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security refused to renew

his entry pass. Constrained with these circumstances, he

was replaced by some other attendant. His services were

transferred to other work place. The claimant opted not to

join his duties at the station, where he was transferred. It

is not disputed that he was engaged in service on

18.05.2010 and rendered his services till 01.03.2012. Since

the claimant had failed to resume his duties, it cannot be

said that his services were terminated by his employer.

Under these circumstances, there is no case in favour of

the claimant to seek reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages. His claim is liable to be

dismissed.

4. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security makes a counter

to the claim pleading it is a regulatory body responsible

for implementation and enforcement of civil aviation

security at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

It issues airport entry passes in favour of employees of

the contractor. Process of issuance of entry passes does

not have any relation with conduct of the employers and

the employer, who engages employees to discharge

contractual obligations. Since the claimant is not an

employee of the answering management, he does not have

any claim against it. His claim may be discarded, pleads

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.

5. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i)

Whether claimant rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date of termination of his services?

(ii)

Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service with Updater

Services Pvt. Ltd.?

6. Claimant entered the witness box and unfolded

facts in his favour. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Manager, deposed

facts on behalf of the contractor. Bureau of Civil Aviation

Security opted not to examine any witness.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.P. Sharma,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Tarun Dwivedi, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

contractor. Shri Jagat Singh, Sub Inspector, presented facts

on behalf of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. I have given

my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the

bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows.

Issue No. 1

8. In Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence, claimant

swears that he joined as housekeeping attendant with the

contractor on 18.05.2010. Ajay, Incharge of the contractor

at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi International Airport was in

the habit of asking bribe for renewal of entry passes of the

employees. Claimant protested against the said act and

conduct of Shri Ajay, which enraged his employer. He was

not allowed to resume his duty with effect form 01.03.2012.

Shri Rakesh Kumar admits in his testimony that the claimant

was engaged on 18.05.2010. He further admits that his

attendance as well as service record was being maintained

by his employer. Shri Rakesh Kumar projects that on

01.03.2012 services of the claimant were transferred to some

other station, where he opted not to join his duties.

9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar are appreciated, it came

to light that services of the claimant were availed by the

3260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

contractor since 18.05.2010. The claimant discharged his

duties as housekeeping attendant at Terminal 3, Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. His claim has

been that Ajay, Incharge of the contractor at Terminal 3,

Indira Gandhi International Airport was in the habit of

asking bribe for renewal of entry passes of the employees.

Claimant protested against the said act, which protest

enraged his employer. He was not allowed to resume his

duties on 01.03.2012 and thus his services were dispensed

with. As conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant served

the contractor till 01.03.2012, when he was transferred to

some other station. Out of facts referred above, it is evident

that the claimant served the employer from 18.05.2010 till

01.03.2012.

10. An employer may discharge a portion of his

labour force as surplusage in a running or continuing

business for variety of reasons, e.g., for economy,

convenience, rationalization in industry, installation of a

new labour saving machinery etc. The Act defines

“termination by the employer of the service of a workman

for any reasons whatsoever”, except the categories

exempted in sub-section 2(oo), to be retrenchment. The

definition of the term “retrenchment”, as enacted by the

Act, is extracted thus:

“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the

age of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation

in that behalf; or

(bb)

termination of the services of the workman

as a result of the non-renewal of the contract

of employment between the employer and

the workman concerned on its expiry or of

such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

11. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

12. Section 25F of the Act lays down conditions pre-

requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month’s notice in

writing to the workman concerned.

(ii)

The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii)

The period of one month’s notice should

have expired before retrenchment is

enforced, or the workman has been paid in

lieu of such notice the wages for the period.

(iv)

The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent

to 15 days’ average pay for every one years’

service or any part thereof provided it

exceeds six months.

(v)

The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

13. For seeking protection under section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation of work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen,

as enacted by provisions of sub-section (1) of section

25B of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section

introduces a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is

not in “continuous service” within the meaning of clause

(1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall be

deemed to in continuous service for that period under an

employer if he has actually worked for the days specified

in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968

Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year’s period

contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman actually

worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3261

14. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years’ service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

“Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed One year’s service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25B has

further to show that he has worked during all the

period he has been in the service of the employer for

240 days in the year”.

15. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under section 25-B of the Act will operate if

workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The explanation appended to section 25-B of the

Act specifically includes the days on which workman was

laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with

full wages, or he has been absent due to temporary

disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment and in the case of a female,

maternity leave, under the expression ‘actually worked’

used under sub-section (2) of section 25-B of the Act.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the

words ‘actually worked’ would not include holidays,

Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid.

The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition

in American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ

539], wherein it was ruled that the expression ‘actually

worked under the employer’ cannot mean those days only

when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but

must necessarily comprehend all those days during which

he was in the employment of the employer and for which

he had been paid wages either under express or implied

contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing

orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other

holidays, would be comprehended in the words ‘‘actually

worked” and it countenanced the contention of the

employer that only days which are mentioned in the

explanation should be taken into account for the purpose

of calculating the number of days on which the workman

had actually worked though he had not so worked and no

other days. The Court observed that the explanation is

only clarificatory, as all explanations are, and cannot be

used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent

in Lalappa Lingappa [1981 (1) LJ 308] was distinguished

by the Apex Court in the case referred above. The

precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of

India Ltd. [1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is crystal clear from

the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be

included in computing continuous service under section

25-B of the Act.

16. As emerge out of facts unfolded by the claimant

and those conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant

served the contractor from 18.05.2010 till 29.02.2012. Period

of service rendered by the claimant, as detailed above,

nowhere includes Sundays and holidays. In a year, an

employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides three national

holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three national holidays

are added to the periods referred above, claimant could

establish beyond doubt that he rendered continuous

service of a period of 240 days in two calendar years, as

contemplated by section 25 B of the Act. Resultantly, it is

concluded that the claimant has been able to project that

he rendered continuous service of 240 days in two calendar

years to avail benefits of provisions of section 25F of the

Act. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the

claimant and against the contractor.

Issue No. 2

17. Claimant projects that his services were abruptly

dispensed with on 01.03.2012. Contra to it, Shri Rakesh

Kumar deposed in bold words that services of the claimant

were transferred to some other site in Delhi, where he opted

not to join his duties. He declares that as on date, claimant

is on the rolls of the contractor. Out of facts unfolded by

Shri Rakesh Kumar, it emerged that services of the claimant

has neither been discharged, dismissed, terminated nor

otherwise retrenched. When he still remains on rolls of

his employer, it is not a case relating to discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his

services by his employer. As emerged out of record,

dispute relates to transfer of the claimant from one station

to another. His employer wants him to comply transfer

order but he is adamant in joining his duties at Terminal 3,

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Whether

this dispute will fall within the ambit of section 2A of the

Act, so that the claimant may avail provisions of sub-

section (2) of the said section and seek adjudication of the

dispute from the Tribunal, without it being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under section

10(1)(d) of the Act? Answer is plain and simple. His dispute

does not fall within the purview of section 2A of the Act,

since he continues to be on rolls of his employer.

Machinery, provided under section 2A of the Act for

resolution of disputes, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee, will not come to his rescue.

18. When the contractor had not terminated his

services at all, it is not a case wherein relief of reinstatement

in service may be granted in favour of the claimant. Under

3262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

these circumstances, it is evident that no cause of action

accrued in favour of the claimant to invoke provisions of

sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Act, to seek

adjudication of the dispute. It is concluded that the

dispute is not maintainable as such. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the contractor and against the

claimant.

19. As concluded above, the contractor had not

taken any action to discharge, dismiss, retrench or

otherwise terminate services of the claimant. He opted to

transfer services of the claimant to some other station,

which order was not complied with. Claimant is still on the

rolls of his employer. Under these circumstances, relief of

reinstatement in service, as claimed, is not available. Claim

statement deserves dismissal. Same is, accordingly,

dismissed. An award is passed in favour of the contractor

and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 05.02.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1238-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

flfoy ,fo,'ku flD;wfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 48@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bereau of Civil Aviation Security

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 48/2013

Ms. Geeta Devi W/o Shri Hukam Singh,

R/o H.No. 377, Indira Camp,

Rangpuri Mahipalpur,

New Delhi - 110037

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s Updater Services (P) Ltd.,

Branch Office, 15, Community Centre,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

2. The Manager,

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,

IGI Airport Terminal-3,

New Delhi-110037

...Managements

AWARD

M/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred

to as the contractor) is engaged in providing integrated

facility management services to various companies as well

as Government authorities. It mainly participates in

outsourcing contracts. Contract for providing

housekeeping services at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, was obtained by the

contractor. To carry out its contractual obligations, the

contractor appointed housekeeping staff/attendants.

Ms.Gita Devi was one of the employees engaged by the

contractor. There were various complaints against

Ms. Gita Devi relating to her work and conduct. When the

contractor was confronted with such complaints by Airport

Authority of India, the contractor took a decision to replace

Ms. Gita Devi with some other employee. He transferred

Ms.Gita Devi to some other station, which action was

perceived by Ms. Gita Devi as termination of her services.

She raised a demand for reinstatement in service, which

demand was refuted. Ultimately, she raised a dispute before

the Conciliation Officer, which dispute was also contested.

Since dispute raised by Ms. Gita Devi was contested,

conciliation proceedings did not result in favour of the

claimant. When 45 days from the date of filing application

before the Conciliation Officer stood expired, Ms. Gita

Devi filed her claim before this Tribunal, while using

provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 2A of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act), without it being

referred, for adjudication by the appropriate Government

under section 10(1)(d) of the Act. Since the dispute was

within the period of limitation as provided by sub-section

(3) and in consonance with provisions of sub-section (2)

of Section 2A of the Act, it was registered as an industrial

dispute.

2. Claim statement was filed by Ms. Gita Devi

pleading that she was engaged by the contractor as an

attendant with effect from 18.05.2010. She worked sincerely

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3263

and diligently. 12 hours duty was taken from her, without

payment of overtime wages. No appointment letter was

issued in her favour. She was not given any leave. On

28.12.2012, she was slapped by Ms.Gursaran Kaur, the

supervisor. She protested against that act of the

supervisor. It annoyed the authorities and she was not

allowed to resume her duties with effect from 01.03.2012.

The contractor terminated her services by not allowing

her to resume her duties. She served a legal notice of

demand but to no avail. Termination of services is violative

of provisions of Section 25F of the Act. She claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. Her claim was contested by the contractor

pleading therein that there were various complaints against

the claimant. The Airport Authority of India lodged

complaints against work and conduct of the claimant many

a times. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security refused to renew

her entry pass. Constrained with these circumstances,

she was replaced by some other attendant. Her services

were transferred to other work place. The claimant opted

not to join her duties at the station, where she was

transferred. It is not disputed that she was engaged in

service on 18.05.2010 and rendered her services till

01.03.2012. Since the claimant had failed to resume her

duties, it cannot be said that her services were terminated

by her employer. Under these circumstances, there is no

case in favour of the claimant to seek reinstatement in

service with continuity and full back wages. Her claim is

liable to be dismissed.

4. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security makes a counter

to the claim pleading it is a regulatory body responsible

for implementation and enforcement of civil aviation

security at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

It issues airport entry passes in favour of employees of

the contractor. Process of issuance of entry passes does

not have any relation with conduct of the employers and

the employer, who engages employees to discharge

contractual obligations. Since the claimant is not an

employee of the answering management, she does not

have any claim against it. Her claim may be discarded,

pleads Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.

5. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i)

Whether claimant rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date of termination of her services?

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service with Updater

Services Pvt. Ltd.

6. Claimant entered the witness box and unfolded

facts in her favour. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Manager, deposed

facts on behalf of the contractor. Bureau of Civil Aviation

Security opted not to examine any witness.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.P. Sharma,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Tarun Dwivedi, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

contractor. Shri Jagat Singh, Sub Inspector, presented facts

on behalf of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. I have given

my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the

bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows.

Issue No. 1

8. In Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence, claimant

swears that she joined as housekeeping attendant with

the contractor on 18.05.2010. She was slapped by

Ms.Gursaran Kaur, Supervisor, without any fault of hers.

She protested against the said action. It enraged her

employer. She was not allowed to resume her duty with

effect form 01.03.2012. Shri Rakesh Kumar admits in his

testimony that the claimant was engaged on 18.05.2010.

He further admits that her attendance as well as service

record was being maintained by her employer. Shri Rakesh

Kumar projects that on 01.03.2012 services of the claimant

were transferred to some other station, where she opted

not to join her duties.

9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar are appreciated, it came

to light that services of the claimant were availed by the

contractor since 18.05.2010. The claimant discharged her

duties as housekeeping attendant at Terminal 3, Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Her claim has

been that she was slapped by Ms. Gursaran Kaur,

supervisor on 18.12.2012, for no fault of hers. She protested

against the said act of the supervisor, which protest

enraged her employer. She was not allowed to resume her

duties on 01.03.2012 and thus her services were dispensed

with. As conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant served

the contractor till 01.03.2012, when she was transferred to

some other station. Out of facts referred above, it is evident

that the claimant served the employer from 18.05.2010 till

01.03.2012.

10. An employer may discharge a portion of his

labour force as surplusage in a running or continuing

business for variety of reasons, e.g., for economy,

convenience, rationalization in industry, installation of a

new labour saving machinery etc. The Act defines

“termination by the employer of the service of a workman

for any reasons whatsoever”, except the categories

exempted in sub-section 2(oo), to be retrenchment. The

definition of the term “retrenchment”, as enacted by the

Act, is extracted thus:

“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

3264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the

age of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation

in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman

as a result of the non-renewal of the contract

of employment between the employer and

the workman concerned on its expiry or of

such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

11. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

12. Section 25F of the Act lays down conditions pre-

requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month’s notice in

writing to the workman concerned.

(ii)

The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii)

The period of one month’s notice should

have expired before retrenchment is enforced,

or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice the wages for the period.

(iv) The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent

to 15 days’ average pay for every one years’

service or any part thereof provided it

exceeds six months.

(v)

The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

13.For seeking protection under section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation of work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen,

as enacted by provisions of sub section (1) of Section 25B

of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section introduces

a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in

“continuous service” within the meaning of clause (1) for

a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to

in continuous service for that period under an employer if

he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses

(a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968

Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year’s period

contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman actually

worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

14. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years’ service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

“Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in an

industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed to

have completed One year’s service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not less

than 240 days during period of 12 calendar months

immediately preceding the retrenchment. These provisions

of law do not show that a workman after satisfying the

test under Section 25B has further to show that he has

worked during all the period he has been in the service of

the employer for 240 days in the year”.

15. Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under Section 25-B of the Act will operate if

workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The explanation appended to Section 25-B of the

Act specifically includes the days on which workman was

laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with

full wages, or he has been absent due to temporary

disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment and in the case of a female,

maternity leave, under the expression ‘actually worked’

used under sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Act.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3265

words ‘actually worked’ would not include holidays,

Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid.

The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition

in American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ

539], wherein it was ruled that the expression ‘actually

worked under the employer’. cannot mean those days only

when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but

must necessarily comprehend all those days during which

he was in the employment of the employer and for which

he had been paid wages either under express or implied

contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing

orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other

holidays, would be comprehended in the words ‘actually

worked’ and it countenanced the contention of the

employer that only days which are mentioned in the

explanation should be taken into account for the purpose

of calculating the number of days on which the workman

had actually worked though he had not so worked and no

other days. The Court observed that the explanation is

only clarificatory, as all explanations are, and cannot be

used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent

in Lalappa Lingappa [1981 (1) LJ 308] was distinguished

by the Apex Court in the case referred above. The

precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of

India Ltd. [1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is crystal clear from

the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be

included in computing continuous service under section

25-B of the Act.

16. As emerge out of facts unfolded by the claimant

and those conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant

served the contractor from 18.05.2010 till 29.02.2012. Period

of service rendered by the claimant, as detailed above,

nowhere includes Sundays and holidays. In a year, an

employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides three national

holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three national holidays

are added to the periods referred above, claimant could

establish beyond doubt that she rendered continuous

service of a period of 240 days in two calendar years, as

contemplated by section 25 B of the Act. Resultantly, it is

concluded that the claimant has been able to project that

she rendered continuous service of 240 days in two

calendar years to avail benefits of provisions of section

25F of the Act. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour

of the claimant and against the contractor.

Issue No. 2

17.Claimant projects that her services were abruptly

dispensed with on 01.03.2012. Contra to it, Shri Rakesh

Kumar deposed in bold words that services of the claimant

were transferred to some other site in Delhi, where she

opted not to join her duties. He declares that as on date,

claimant is on the rolls of the contractor. Out of facts

unfolded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, it emerged that services

of the claimant has neither been discharged, dismissed,

terminated nor otherwise retrenched. When she still

remains on rolls of her employer, it is not a case relating to

discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination

of her services by her employer. As emerged out of record,

dispute relates to transfer of the claimant from one station

to another. Her employer wants her to comply transfer

order but she is adamant in joining her duties at Terminal

3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Whether

this dispute will fall within the ambit of section 2A of the

Act, so that the claimant may avail provisions of sub-

section (2) of the said section and seek adjudication of the

dispute from the Tribunal, without it being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under section

10(1)(d) of the Act? Answer is plain and simple. Her dispute

does not fall within the purview of Section 2A of the Act,

since she continues to be on rolls of her employer.

Machinery, provided under Section 2A of the Act for

resolution of disputes, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee, will not come to her rescue.

18. When the contractor had not terminated her

services at all, it is not a case wherein relief of reinstatement

in service may be granted in favour of the claimant.. Under

these circumstances, it is evident that no cause of action

accrued in favour of the claimant to invoke provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, to seek

adjudication of the dispute. It is concluded that the

dispute is not maintainable as such. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the contractor and against the

claimant.

19. As concluded above, the contractor had not

taken any action to discharge, dismiss, retrench or

otherwise terminate services of the claimant. He opted to

transfer services of the clamant to some other station,

which order was not complied with. Claimant is still on the

rolls of her employer. Under these circumstances, relief of

reinstatement in service, as claimed, is not available. Claim

statement deserves dismissal. Same is, accordingly,

dismissed. An award is passed in favour of the contractor

and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 05.02.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1239-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

flfoy ,fo,'ku flD;wfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ

fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 47@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&15025@1@2014&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

3266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 47/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bereau of Civil Aviation Security

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-15025/1/2014-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 47/2013

Shri Rakesh Beniwal,

S/o Shri Sakru Ram,

R/o J-45, JJ Camp Tigri,

Khanpur, New Delhi

...Workman

Versus

1. M/s. Updater Services (P) Ltd.,

Branch Office, 15, Community Centre,

East of Kailash, New Delhi.

2. The Manager,

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security,

IGI Airport Terminal-3,

New Delhi-110037

...Managements

AWARD

M/s. Updater Services Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred

to as the contractor) is engaged in providing integrated

facility management services to various companies as well

as Government authorities. It mainly participates in

outsourcing contracts. Contract for providing

housekeeping services at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport, New Delhi, was obtained by the

contractor. To carry out its contractual obligations, the

contractor appointed housekeeping staff/attendants. Shri

Rakesh Beniwal was one of the employees engaged by

the contractor. There were various complaints against Shri

Rakesh Beniwal relating to his work and conduct. When

the contractor was confronted with such complaints by

Airport Authority of India, the contractor took a decision

to replace Shri Rakesh Beniwal with some other employee.

He transferred Shri Rakesh Beniwal to some other station,

which action was perceived by him as termination of his

services. He raised a demand for reinstatement in service,

which demand was refuted. Ultimately, he raised a dispute

before the Conciliation Officer, which dispute was also

contested. Since dispute raised by Shri Rakesh Beniwal

was contested, conciliation proceedings did not result in

favour of the claimant. When 45 days from the date of

filing application before the Conciliation Officer stood

expired, Shri Rakesh Beniwal filed his claim before this

Tribunal, while using provisions of sub-section (2) of

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act), without it being referred, for adjudication by the

appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Act.

Since the dispute was within the period of limitation as

provided by sub-section (3) and in consonance with

provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, it

was registered as an industrial dispute.

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Rakesh Beniwal

pleading that he was engaged by the contractor as an

attendant with effect from 18.05.2010. He worked sincerely

and diligently. 12 hours duty was taken from him, without

payment of overtime wages. No appointment letter was

issued in his favour. He was not given any leave. Shri

Ajay, Incharge of the contractor at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi

International Airport, was in the habit of asking bribe for

renewal of entry passes of the employees. Claimant

protested against the said act and conduct of Shri Ajay,

which enraged the authorities and he was not allowed to

resume his duties with effect from 01.03.2012. The

contractor terminated his services by not allowing him to

resume his duties. He served a legal notice of demand but

to no avail. Termination of services is violative of

provisions of section 25F of the Act. He claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. His claim was contested by the contractor

pleading therein that there were various complaints against

the claimant. The Airport Authority of India lodged

complaints against work and conduct of the claimant many

a times. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security refused to renew

his entry pass. Constrained with these circumstances, he

was replaced by some other attendant. His services were

transferred to other work place. The claimant opted not to

join his duties at the station, where he was transferred. It

is not disputed that he was engaged in service on

18.05.2010 and rendered his services till 01.03.2012. Since

the claimant had failed to resume his duties, it cannot be

said that his services were terminated by his employer.

Under these circumstances, there is no case in favour of

the claimant to seek reinstatement in service with continuity

and full back wages. His claim is liable to be dismissed.

4. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security makes a counter

to the claim pleading it is a regulatory body responsible

for implementation and enforcement of civil aviation

security at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.

It issues airport entry passes in favour of employees of

the contractor. Process of issuance of entry passes does

not have any relation with conduct of the employers and

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3267

the employer, who engages employees to discharge

contractual obligations. Since the claimant is not an

employee of the answering management, he does not have

any claim against it. His claim may be discarded, pleads

Bureau of Civil Aviation Security.

5. On perusal of pleadings, following issues were

settled:

(i) Whether claimant rendered continuous

service of 240 days in preceding 12 months

from the date of termination of his services?

(ii) Whether claimant is entitled to relief of

reinstatement in service with Updater

Services Pvt. Ltd.?

6. Claimant entered the witness box and unfolded

facts in his favour. Shri Rakesh Kumar, Manager, deposed

facts on behalf of the contractor. Bureau of Civil Aviation

Security opted not to examine any witness.

7. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri R.P. Sharma,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Tarun Dwivedi, authorized

representative, raised submissions on behalf of the

contractor. Shri Jagat Singh, Sub Inspector, presented facts

on behalf of Bureau of Civil Aviation Security. I have given

my careful considerations to arguments advanced at the

bar and cautiously perused the records. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows.

Issue No. 1

8. In Ex.WW1/A, tendered as evidence, claimant

swears that he joined as housekeeping attendant with the

contractor on 18.05.2010. Shri Ajay, Incharge of the

contractor at Terminal 3, Indira Gandhi International

Airport, was in the habit of asking bribe for renewal of

entry passes of the employees. Claimant protested against

the said act and conduct of Shri Ajay, which enraged his

employer. He was not allowed to resume his duty with

effect from 01.03.2012. Shri Rakesh Kumar admits in his

testimony that the claimant was engaged on 18.05.2010.

He further admits that his attendance as well as service

record was being maintained by his employer. Shri Rakesh

Kumar projects that on 01.03.2012 services of the claimant

were transferred to some other station, where he opted

not to join his duties.

9. When facts unfolded by the claimant and those

conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar are appreciated, it came

to light that services of the claimant were availed by the

contractor since 18.05.2010. The claimant discharged his

duties as housekeeping attendant at Terminal 3, Indira

Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. His claim has

been that Shri Ajay, Incharge of the contractor at Terminal

3, Indira Gandhi International Airport was in the habit of

asking bribe for renewal of entry passes of the employees.

Claimant protested against the said act, which protest

enraged his employer. He was not allowed to resume his

duties on 01.03.2012 and thus his services were dispensed

with. As conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant served

the contractor till 01.03.2012, when he was transferred to

some other station. Out of facts referred above, it is evident

that the claimant served the employer from 18.05.2010 till

01.03.2012.

10. An employer may discharge a portion of his

labour force as surplusage in a running or continuing

business for variety of reasons, e.g., for economy,

convenience, rationalization in industry, installation of a

new labour saving machinery etc. The Act defines

“termination by the employer of the service of a workman

for any reasons whatsoever”, except the categories

exempted in sub-section 2(oo), to be retrenchment. The

definition of the term “retrenchment”, as enacted by the

Act, is extracted thus:

“(oo) “retrenchment” means the termination by the

employer of the services of a workman for any reason

whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by

way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a)

voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b)

retirement of the workman on reaching the

age of superannuation if the contract of

employment between the employer and the

workman concerned contains a stipulation

in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the services of the workman

as a result of the non-renewal of the contract

of employment between the employer and

the workman concerned on its expiry or of

such contract being terminated under a

stipulation in that behalf contained therein;

(c)

termination of the services of a workman on

the ground of continued ill-health”.

11. Definition of retrenchment is very wide and in

two parts. The first part is exhaustive, which lays down

that retrenchment means the termination of the service of

a workman by the employer “for any reason whatsoever”

otherwise then as a punishment inflicted by way of

disciplinary action. Thus main part of the definition itself

excludes the termination of service, as a measure of

punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action from

the ambit of retrenchment. The second part further excludes

(i) voluntary retirement of the workman, or (ii) retirement

of workman on reaching the age of superannuation, or (iii)

termination of the service of a workman as a result of non-

renewal of contract of employment, or (iv) termination of

contract of employment in terms of a stipulation contained

in the contract of employment in that behalf, or (v)

3268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination of service on the ground of continued ill health

of the workman. Reference can be made to the precedents

in Avon Services (Production Agencies) (Pvt.) Ltd. [1979

(I) LLJ 1] and Mahabir [1979 (II) LLJ 363].

12. Section 25F of the Act lays down conditions pre-

requisite to retrenchment, which are as follows:

(i)

There should be one month’s notice in

writing to the workman concerned.

(ii) The notice should specify the reasons for

retrenchment.

(iii) The period of one month’s notice should

have expired before retrenchment is enforced,

or the workman has been paid in lieu of such

notice the wages for the period.

(iv) The workman has been paid retrenchment

compensation which should be equivalent

to 15 days’ average pay for every one years’

service or any part thereof provided it

exceeds six months.

(v) The notice is also given to the appropriate

Government.

13. For seeking protection under Section 25-F of the

Act an employee should be in continuous service under

an employer for not less than one year. Continuous service

for a period of one year may include period of interruption

on account of sickness or authorized leave or accident or

strike, which is not illegal or lockout or cessation of work

which is not due to any fault on the part of the workmen,

as enacted by provisions of sub section (1) of section 25B

of the Act. Sub-section (2) of the said section introduces

a fiction to the effect that even if a workman is not in

“continuous service” within the meaning of clause (1) for

a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to

in continuous service for that period under an employer if

he has actually worked for the days specified in clauses

(a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majoo (1968

Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that one year’s period

contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act. Consequently, an enquiry

has to be made to find out whether the workman actually

worked for not less than 240 days during the period of 12

calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

14. In Ramakrishna Ramnath [1970 (2) LLJ 306], Apex

Court announced that when a workman renders

continuous service of not less than 240 days in 12 calendar

months, he is deemed to have completed one years’ service

in the industry. It would be expedient to reproduce

observations made by the Apex Court in that regard, which

are extracted thus:

“Under Section 25-B a workman who during the

period of 12 calendar months has actually worked in

an industry for not less than 240 days is to be deemed

to have completed One year’s service in the industry.

Consequently an enquiry has to be made to find out

whether the workman had actually worked for not

less than. 240 days during period of 12 calendar

months immediately preceding the retrenchment.

These provisions of law do not show that a workman

after satisfying the test under Section 25B has

further to show that he has worked during all the

period he has been in the service of the employer for

240 days in the year”.

15.Interruption of service occurred during the

course of job has to be included in uninterrupted services.

Fiction under Section 25-B of the Act will operate if

workmen has actually worked for 240 days in a calendar

year. The explanation appended to section 25-B of the

Act specifically includes the days on which workman was

laid off under an agreement or he has been on leave with

full wages, or he has been absent due to temporary

disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the

course of his employment and in the case of a female,

maternity leave, under the expression ‘actually worked’

used under sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Act.

Question for consideration would be as to whether the

words ‘actually worked’ would not include holidays,

Sundays and Saturdays for which full wages are paid.

The Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition

in American Express Banking Corporation [1985 (2) LLJ

539], wherein it was ruled that the expression ‘actually

worked under the employer’. cannot mean those days only

when the workman worked with hammer, sickle or pen, but

must necessarily comprehend all those days during which

he was in the employment of the employer and for which

he had been paid wages either under express or implied

contract of service or by compulsion of statute, standing

orders etc. The Court ruled that Sundays and other

holidays, would be comprehended in the words ‘actually

worked” and it countenanced the contention of the

employer that only days which are mentioned in the

explanation should be taken into account for the purpose

of calculating the number of days on which the workman

had actually worked though he had not so worked and no

other days. The Court observed that the explanation is

only clarificatory, as all explanations are, and cannot be

used to limit the expanse of the main provision. Precedent

in Lalappa Lingappa [1981 (1) LJ 308] was distinguished

by the Apex Court in the case referred above. The

precedent was followed in Standard Motor Products of

India Ltd. [1986 (1) LLJ 34]. Thus, it is crystal clear from

the law laid above that Sundays and holidays shall be

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3269

included in computing continuous service under section

25-B of the Act.

16. As emerge out of facts unfolded by the claimant

and those conceded by Shri Rakesh Kumar, claimant

served the contractor from 18.05.2010 till 29.02.2012. Period

of service rendered by the claimant, as detailed above,

nowhere includes Sundays and holidays. In a year, an

employee may get 52 weekly offs, besides three national

holidays. In case 52 weekly offs and three national holidays

are added to the periods referred above, claimant could

establish beyond doubt that he rendered continuous

service of a period of 240 days in two calendar years, as

contemplated by section 25 B of the Act. Resultantly, it is

concluded that the claimant has been able to project that

he rendered continuous service of 240 days in two calendar

years to avail benefits of provisions of section 25F of the

Act. The issue is, therefore, answered in favour of the

claimant and against the contractor.

Issue No. 2

17. Claimant projects that his services were abruptly

dispensed with on 01.03.2012. Contra to it, Shri Rakesh

Kumar deposed in bold words that services of the claimant

were transferred to some other site in Delhi, where he opted

not to join his duties. He declares that as on date, claimant

is on the rolls of the contractor. Out of facts unfolded by

Shri Rakesh Kumar, it emerged that services of the claimant

has neither been discharged, dismissed, terminated nor

otherwise retrenched. When he still remains on rolls of

his employer, it is not a case relating to discharge,

dismissal, retrenchment or otherwise termination of his

services by his employer. As emerged out of record,

dispute relates to transfer of the claimant from one station

to another. His employer wants him to comply transfer

order but he is adamant in joining his duties at Terminal 3,

Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. Whether

this dispute will fall within the ambit of section 2A of the

Act, so that the claimant may avail provisions of sub-

section (2) of the said section and seek adjudication of the

dispute from the Tribunal, without it being referred for

adjudication by the appropriate Government under section

10(1)(d) of the Act? Answer is plain and simple. His dispute

does not fall within the purview of section 2A of the Act,

since he continues to be on rolls of his employer.

Machinery, provided under section 2A of the Act for

resolution of disputes, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee, will not come to his rescue.

18. When the contractor had not terminated his

services at all, it is not a case wherein relief of reinstatement

in service may be granted in favour of the claimant.. Under

these circumstances, it is evident that no cause of action

accrued in favour of the claimant to invoke provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, to seek

adjudication of the dispute. It is concluded that the

dispute is not maintainable as such. Issue is, therefore,

answered in favour of the contractor and against the

claimant.

19. As concluded above, the contractor had not

taken any action to discharge, dismiss, retrench or

otherwise terminate services of the claimant. He opted to

transfer services of the claimant to some other station,

which order was not complied with. Claimant is still on the

rolls of his employer. Under these circumstances, relief of

reinstatement in service, as claimed, is not available. Claim

statement deserves dismissal. Same is, accordingly,

dismissed. An award is passed in favour of the contractor

and against the claimant. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 05.02.2013

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1240-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 145@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@46@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 145/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 1-4-2014.

[No. L-30012/46/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 145/2012

3270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Raj Kumar,

S/o Shri Raj Singh,

R/o VPO : Bhaingra Khurd,

Distt. Rohtak,

Haryana

...Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikri Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2. M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No.43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043

...Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2. Shri Raj Kumar was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since April, 2011. In

October 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-30012/46/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.10.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of Shri Raj

Kumar, S/o Shri Raj Singh from Indian Oil Corporation

Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect from 20.09.2011 is

legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled

to?”

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Raj Kumar

pleading therein that he was engaged as Security Guard

by the Contractor on 23.03.2010. He performed his duties

at Tikri Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and

punctually. He was made to work overtime, for which

overtime allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime

allowance for overtime work performed by him, which

demand irked the contractor. His services were illegally

terminated on 20.09.2011, without giving one months’

notice or pay in lieu thereof. His salary for last several

months remained unpaid. Action of termination of his

services is illegal and void ab initio. He claims

reinstatement in service of the Contractor with continuity

and full back wages.

4. The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that

the claimant resigned his services voluntarily in October,

2011 and accepted a sum of Rs.6142.00 towards full and

final settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself

resigned the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor

to terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a

security guard on 01.04.2011, as projected by the

Contractor. His wages were paid in time. His services were

not satisfactory. He used to behave indecently on many

occasions. Since the Contractor has not taken any action

to dispense with the services of the claimant, there was no

occasion to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof,

besides retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6. Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 25.04.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7. Shri Ajay Pandey, tendered his affidavit as

evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since none was there

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3271

on behalf of the claimant, opportunity could not be

accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

through an ordeal of cross examination. No other witness

was examined by the Contractor. Corporation opted not

to examine any witness.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9. Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

13.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.04.2011. His last drawn

wages were Rs.6142.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 04.10.2011.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex.MW1/1. He was paid his dues in cash. Facts unfolded

by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An un-assailed

testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it contains

some inherent defects, having bearing on its veracity. Since

facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any

defect, which may give inference to the effect that he is

not a reliable witness, his testimony is found to be

acceptable.

10. As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from September

2011.

11. The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12. No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 13.03.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1241-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 146@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@44@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1241.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/44/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 146/2012

Shri Dharam Pal,

S/o Shri Jai Pal,

R/o Plot No. 75,

Sainik Enclave Part I,

Jharoda Kalan, CRPF Camp,

Najafgarh, New Delhi-110072

...Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

3272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2. M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No.43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043

...Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2. Shri Dharam Pal was engaged as a gunman by

the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of the

Corporation. He served there since August 2010. In March

2012, he resigned his job and obtained full and final

settlement of his dues from the Contractor. Subsequently,

he perceived that the amount, paid to him by the Contractor

towards full and final settlement of his dues, was meager.

He raised a demand for reinstatement in service of the

Contactor, which demand was not conceded to. Therefore,

he raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since

his claim was contested by the Contractor, conciliation

proceedings ended into a failure. On consideration of

failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the

appropriate Government referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-30012/44/2012-

IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.10.2012 with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Dharam Pal, S/o Shri Jai Pal from Indian Oil

Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 15.09.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Dharam Pal

pleading therein that he was engaged as gunman by the

Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated on

15.10.2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay in

lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4. The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that

the claimant resigned his services voluntarily on 30.03.2012

and accepted a sum of Rs. 3865.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. However, it is not disputed that

the claimant was engaged as a security guard on

01.08.2010. His wages were paid in time. His services were

not satisfactory. He used to behave indecently on many

occasions. Since the Contractor has not taken any action

to dispense with the services of the claimant, there was no

occasion to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof,

besides retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6. Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 25.04.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7. Shri Ajay Pandey, tendered his affidavit as

evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since none was there

on behalf of the claimant, opportunity could not be

accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

through an ordeal of cross examination. No other witness

was examined by the Contractor. Corporation opted not

to examine any witness.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3273

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9. Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

13.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs. 3865.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 30.03.2012.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex. MW1/1. He was paid his dues through cheque

No.001001 dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of Rs.3895.00

on Dwarka branch of Bank of Baroda. Photocopy of the

said cheque is Ex.MW1/2. Facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

remained un-assailed. An un-assailed testimony is to be

accepted as true, unless it contains some inherent defects,

having bearing on its veracity. Since facts unfolded by

Shri Pandey nowhere suffers from any defect, which may

give inference to the effect that he is not a reliable witness,

his testimony is found to be acceptable.

10. As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, that the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 30.03.2012.

11. The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12. No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 13.03.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1242-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 147@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@43@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1242.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 147/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/43/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 147/2012

Shri Suraj Bhan,

S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram,

R/o Village Assanda,

Tehsil-Bahadurgarh,

Dist. Jhajjar, Harayana-124501

...Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2. M/s. Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No.43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043

...Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

3274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2. Shri Suraj Bhan was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Depot, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since July 2011. In

October 2011, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-30012/43/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 28.10.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Suraj Bhan, S/o Shri Lakhi Ram from Indian Oil

Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 19.10.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Suraj Bhan

pleading therein that he was engaged as gunman by the

Contractor on 01.07.2011. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated on

10.09.2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay in

lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4. The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that

the claimant resigned his services voluntarily on 04.10.2011

and accepted a sum of Rs.6441.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. Claimant was engaged as a security

guard on 01.07.2011, as projected by the Contractor. His

wages were paid in time. His services were not satisfactory.

He used to behave indecently on many occasions. Since

the Contractor has not taken any action to dispense with

the services of the claimant, there was no occasion to give

one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides

retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6. Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 25.04.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7. Shri Ajay Pandey, tendered his affidavit as

evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since none was there

on behalf of the claimant, opportunity could not be

accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

through an ordeal of cross examination. No other witness

was examined by the Contractor. Corporation opted not

to examine any witness.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9. Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

13.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.07.2011. His last drawn

wages were Rs.6441.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 04.10.2011.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3275

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex. MW1/1. He was paid his dues of Rs. 6441.00 in cash.

Facts unfolded by Shri Pandey remained un-assailed. An

un-assailed testimony is to be accepted as true, unless it

contains some inherent defects, having bearing on its

veracity. Since facts unfolded by Shri Pandey nowhere

suffers from any defect, which may give inference to the

effect that he is not a reliable witness, his testimony is

found to be acceptable.

10. As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 10.09.2011.

11. The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12. No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 13.03.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1243-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 144@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30012@45@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1243.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 144/

2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30012/45/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 144/2012

Shri Jai Bhagwan,

S/o Sh. Deep Chand,

R/o VPO Ladravan,

Tehsil-Bahadurgarh,

Dist. Jhajjar, Harayana-124503

...Workman

Versus

1. The Manager,

Indane Gas Terminal,

M/s. IOCL, Tikari Kalan,

Delhi-110041.

2. M/s Beehive Security and Surveillance,

H.No.43, Rathi Enclave,

New Roshan Vihar,

Kakraula More, Najafgarh,

New Delhi-110043

...Management

AWARD

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (in short the Corporation)

deals with procurement, export, import, refining, storage,

transportation, sale and distribution of petroleum products

and crude oil. The Corporation owns and operates many

refineries in India. It recruits its work force, in consonance

with the recruitment rules. Jobs, which are of intermittent/

casual/sporadic in nature, are got performed through

employees of a contractor. The Corporation engages

security guards through a contractor, registered with

Directorate General of Resettlement, Ministry of Defence,

3276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Government of India, New Delhi. Directorate General of

Resettlement has formulated a scheme for benefit and

employment of ex-servicemen and the contractors,

registered with it, follow the said scheme. M/s. Beehive

Security and Surveillance (in short the Contractor) is one

of security agencies, registered with the Directorate General

of Resettlement and provides security guards to the

Corporation.

2. Shri Jai Bhagwan was engaged as a security guard

by the Contractor to work at Tikri Kalan Deport, Delhi, of

the Corporation. He served there since August 2010. In

March 2012, he resigned his job and obtained full and

final settlement of his dues from the Contractor.

Subsequently, he perceived that the amount, paid to him

by the Contractor towards full and final settlement of his

dues, was meager. He raised a demand for reinstatement in

service of the Contactor, which demand was not conceded

to. Therefore, he raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. Since his claim was contested by the Contractor,

conciliation proceedings ended into a failure. On

consideration of failure report, submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No.L-30012/45/2012-IR(M), New Delhi dated 18.10.2012

with following terms:

“Whether action of the management of M/s. Beehive

Security & Surveillance in terminating services of

Shri Jai Bhagwan, S/o Shri Deep Chand from Indian

Oil Corporation Depot, Tikri Kalan, Delhi, with effect

from 22.08.2011 is legal and justified? What relief

the workman is entitled to?”

3. Claim statement was filed by Shri Jai Bhagwan

pleading therein that he was engaged as gunman by the

Contractor on 01.08.2010. He performed his duties at Tikri

Kalan Depot of the Corporation regularly and punctually.

He was made to work overtime, for which overtime

allowance was not paid. He demanded overtime allowance

for overtime work performed by him, which demand irked

the contractor. His services were illegally terminated on

26.08.2011, without giving one months’ notice or pay in

lieu thereof. His salary for last several months remained

unpaid. Action of termination of his services is illegal and

void ab initio. He claims reinstatement in service of the

Contractor with continuity and full back wages.

4. The Corporation contests the claim pleading that

job, for performance of works of intermittent/casual/

sporadic in nature, was assigned to the Contractor. The

Contractor engaged his employees to carry out his

contractual obligations. There was no relationship of

employer and employee between the claimant and the

Corporation. The Corporation has followed provisions of

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. No

cause has been made out against the Corporation. Claim

put forth by the claimant is liable to be dismissed.

5. The Contractor dispels the claim pleading that

the claimant resigned his services voluntarily on 30.03.2012

and accepted a sum of Rs.7085.00 towards full and final

settlement of his dues. Since the claimant himself resigned

the job, there was no occasion for the Contractor to

terminate his services. However, it is not disputed that

the claimant was engaged as a security guard on

01.08.2010. His wages were paid in time. His services were

not satisfactory. He used to behave indecently on many

occasions. Since the Contractor has not taken any action

to dispense with the services of the claimant, there was no

occasion to give one months’ notice or pay in lieu thereof,

besides retrenchment compensation. Claim put forward is

not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

Contractor.

6. Claimant was called upon to adduce evidence to

substantiate his claim. Instead of bringing evidence on

record to establish his claim, claimant opted to abandon

the proceedings since 25.04.2013. The Tribunal was

constrained to proceed with the matter under rule 22 of

Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 and evidence of

the claimant was closed.

7. Shri Ajay Pandey, tendered his affidavit as

evidence on behalf of the Contractor. Since none was there

on behalf of the claimant, opportunity could not be

accorded to him to purify facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

through an ordeal of cross-examination. No other witness

was examined by the Contractor. Corporation opted not

to examine any witness.

8. Arguments were heard at the bar. None came

forward on behalf of the claimant to present facts. Shri Ajit

Singh, authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the Contractor. Shri Naveen Kumar Chaudhary,

authorized representative, raised submissions on behalf

of the Corporation. I have given my careful consideration

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:-

9. Shri Ajay Pandey swears in his affidavit dated

13.03.2014, tendered as evidence, that the claimant joined

services of the Contractor on 01.08.2010. His last drawn

wages were Rs.7085.00. Claimant resigned the job and

took full and final settlement of his dues on 30.03.2012.

Receipt was executed by him in that regard, which is

Ex. MW1/1. He was paid his dues through cheque No.1003

dated 30.03.2012 drawn for a sum of Rs.7085.00 on Dwarka

branch of Bank of Baroda. Photocopy of the said cheque

is Ex. MW1/2. Facts unfolded by Shri Pandey remained

un-assailed. An un-assailed testimony is to be accepted

as true, unless it contains some inherent defects, having

bearing on its veracity. Since facts unfolded by Shri Pandey

nowhere suffers from any defect, which may give inference

to the effect that he is not a reliable witness, his testimony

is found to be acceptable.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3277

10. As emerge out of his testimony, which gets re-

affirmation from the documents, referred above, the

claimant tendered his resignation, accepted full and final

settlement of his dues and left services of the Contractor

for good. The fact that he accepted his full and final

settlement of his dues makes it apparent that the claimant

resigned from service on his own. These facts are sufficient

to conclude that the claimant left his services on his own

and marched away in search of greener pastures. Under

these circumstances, the claimant cannot agitate that his

services were terminated by the Contractor. It cannot be

said that the services of the claimant were terminated/

discontinued by the Contractor with effect from 30.03.2012.

11. The Contractor could establish that it had not

initiated any action to dispense with the services of the

claimant. Hence, it cannot be said that the Contractor

terminated his services, which act amounts to retrenchment,

as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 (in short the Act). By any stretch of imagination, it

cannot be said that action of the Contractor, in accepting

resignation of the claimant, amounts to retrenchment.

Therefore, provisions of section 25F of the Act does not

come into play.

12. No case has been projected by the claimant for

application of provisions of section 25G and 25H of the

Act. It is evident that the claimant is not entitled to any

intervention by this Tribunal. When he himself resigned

the job, no occasion would arise to assess legality and

justifiability of action of the Contractor in that regard. The

claimant is not entitled to any relief, not to talk of relief of

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages. His claim statement is brushed aside. An award is,

accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated : 13.03.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1244-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

bU'kqjsUl dkjiksjs'ku vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 06@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&17012@56@2008&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1244.—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 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 Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-17012/56/2008-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/06/2010

Date : 19 .02.2014

Party No. 1 (a)

The Manager,

LIC of India, Jeevan Prakash,

Adalat Road, Aurangabad

(b)

The Branch Manager,

LIC, Ambejogai Branch,

Ambejogai, Distt. Beed(MS).

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri Amol Sanjay Sarvade,

R/o Mukundraj Colony,

Behind Police Station,

Ambejogai Beed (MS).

AWARD

(Dated: 19^th February, 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 LIC of India and their workman, Shri Amol

Sanjay Sarvade, for adjudication, as per letter No. L-17012/

56/2008-IR (M) dated 06.09.2010, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Life

Insurance Corporation of India in alleged illegal

dismissal from service of Shri Amol Sanjay Sarvade,

Temporary sub-staff w.e.f. 31.12.2007 is legal and

justified? What relief the workman concerned is

entitled to 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 Amol

Sanjay Sarvade , (‘the workman” in short), filed the

statement of claim and the management of LIC of India

(“Party No. 1” in short) filed their written statement.

3278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The case of the workman as presented in the

statement of claim is that he has passed SSC and

Agriculture diploma and his name was registered in the

Employment Exchange, Beed and the party No.1 called for

the names of the eligible candidates from the Employment

Exchange as it had vacant posts of sub-staff and as he

was eligible for the post of sub-staff, his name was

recommended by the Employment Exchange to the office

of party No.1 and he appeared in the written test as well as

oral test along with other candidates and he was selected

as temporary sub-staff by party No.1 as per order dated

16.04.2007 and the party No.1 issued the appointment order

dated 16.04.2007 for his appointment for the period from

16.04.2007 to 19.07.2007 on salary of Rs. 4105 per month in

Ambejogai branch and thereafter, he was engaged by party

No.1 as a sub-staff for the period from 10.07.2007 to

30.08.2007 on daily wages of Rs.50 and he was again

appointed by party No.1 by order dated 07.09.2007 for a

period of 78 days on salary of Rs.4105 per month and he

was again engaged by party No.1 on daily wages of Rs. 50

from 24.11.2007 to 30.12.2007 and he worked continuously

from 16.04.2007 to 30.12.2007 without any break and he

worked for 260 days from 16.04.2007 to 30.12.2007 and the

party No.1 illegally terminated his services from 31.12.2007

without any reason and though he worked for more than

240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of the

termination, the party no.1 neither gave one month’s notice

nor one month’s pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment

compensation to him, before termination of his services

as required under section 25-F of the Act and as such, his

termination dated 31.12.2007 is illegal.

It is further pleaded by the workman that while

terminating the services, party No.1 did not adhere to the

seniority list and retained junior employees in service and

more than 100 similar employees were working in the office

of the party No.1 and party No.1 did not obtain any

permission from the appropriate Government and failed to

follow the mandatory provisions of sections 25-G, 25-H

and 25-N of the Act, while terminating his services.

It is also pleaded by the workman that as the Central

Government declined to refer the dispute for adjudication,

even after submission of the failure report by the

Conciliation Officer, he filed Writ Petition No.152/2010,

before the Hon’ble High Court, Judicature of Bombay,

Bench of Aurangabad and by order dated 10.08.2010, the

Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and directed

the Government to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for

adjudication and accordingly, the Central Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The workman has prayed to quash and set aside the

order of termination dated 31.12.2007 and for a direction to

the party No.1 to reinstate him in service with continuity

and full back wages.

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

inter-alia that Life Insurance Corporation of India (“LIC”

in short) is a body corporate established under the

provision of section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation

Act, 1956 (“Insurance Act” in short) and in accordance

with the provisions of section 23(1) of the Insurance Act,

it is empowered to engage such number of employees as it

deems fit, to carry out its functions and business and

under section 48 of the Insurance Act, the Central

Government is empowered to make rules in respect of the

aforesaid enactment and in accordance with the provisions

of section 49 of the Insurance Act, LIC has framed

regulations which are known as Life Insurance Corporation

of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 (“the Regulations” in

short) and section 49 of the Insurance Act before its

amendment by the amended Act of 1981, empowered the

LIC to make regulation providing for the terms and

conditions of services of the employees of LIC including

the transferred employees and accordingly, the LIC framed

the regulations and as a consequence of the Amendment

Act amongst others, the Central Government was

empowered to make rules to provide for the terms and

conditions of services of the employees of LIC, vide clause

(cc) of sub-section 2 of section 48 and the Regulations

and other provisions in force, immediately before the

commencement of the Amendment Act shall be deemed to

be the Rules made by the Central Government under

section 48(2) (cc) and (c) and the Rules made by the Central

Government shall have the effect notwithstanding

anything contained in, among others, the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law for the time being in

force and the Regulations are having statutory effect and

thus the Regulations are having overriding effect

notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any

other enactment, settlement or award for the time being in

force and Regulation 4 of the Regulations empowers the

Chairman of LIC to issue instructions from time to time to

carry out the provisions of the Regulations and Regulation

8(1)of the Regulations provides that, “Notwithstanding

anything contained in these Regulations, a Divisional

Manager may employ staff in class III and IV, on a temporary

basis subject to such general or special directions as may

be issued by the Chairman from time to time and according

to Regulation 8(2), “no person appointed under sub-

regulation (1) shall only by reason of such appointment

be entitled to absorption in the service of LIC or claim

preference for recruitment to any post”.

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

workman was employed on temporary basis for a specified

period and after expiry of such temporary appointment

period, his services stood automatically terminated, due

to non renewal of the temporary period of appointment

and as such, the termination of the workman did not

amount to retrenchment and the provision of Section 25-F

of the Act were not applicable to his case and therefore,

the reference is incompetent in law.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3279

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that it was

required to appoint persons in the category of class IV

sub-staff on purely temporary basis and as such, names

of candidates, who fulfilled minimum eligibility conditions

of qualification and age were called for from the

Employment Exchange and the name of the workman and

some other candidates were sponsored by the Employment

Exchange, Beed for preparation of the panel of temporary

staff and accordingly, a panel of 22 temporary peons was

prepared, basing on the certificates and oral interview and

the name of the workman was at serial no.15 in the said list

and the letter of appointment dated 16.04.2007 issued to

the workman was specifically for a period of 85 days from

16.04.2007 to 09.07.2007 and in para 5(V) of the said letter,

it was categorically mentioned that appointment given to

him was purely on temporary basis and it would come to

an end on expiry of the said period as mentioned in para 2

thereof, or at any time prior to that, in case of necessity to

terminate such appointment, without assigning any reason

and in para 5(VI) of the said letter, it was stated that if the

terms and conditions mentioned there in are acceptable to

him, then to report for duties and his employment

automatically came to an end on 09.07.2007, after expiry of

the period of employment and the workman was not

engaged as sub staff on daily wages of Rs. 50 from

10.07.2007 to 30.08.2007 as claimed and the workman was

again temporarily appointed vide letter dated 07.09.2007

on the terms and conditions similar to his first appointment,

for 85 days from 07.09.2007 to 23.11.2007 and his such

employment automatically ended on the expiry of the period

of appointment.

It is also pleaded by the party No.1 that petty works

like filing of dockets, arranging of racks, shifting of racks

and cup boards etc. was periodically available in its office

and the workman was engaged to do such petty works

from 27.08.2007 to 30.08.2007, 24.11.2007 to 30.11.2007,

21.12.2007 to 30.12.2007 and on 10.07.2007 and he was

paid Rs. 1500, Rs. 350, Rs. 500 and Rs.1000

respectively under vouchers and the workman did not

work continuously from 16.04.2007 to 30.12.2007 and he

did not work for 240 days in the preceding 12 months of

the date of termination and the provisions of the Act are

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

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has pleaded that he

has claimed the work which available before the date of

his termination and he has not claim regularisation and

permanency and therefore, the Act, Regulations and

service Rules of party No.1 and the judgment of the

Hon’ble Courts referred in the written statement are not

applicable to his case.

5. Both the Parties have led oral evidence in support

of their respective claims, besides placing reliance on

documentary evidence. The workman, who has examined

himself as a witness, in his examination-in-chief on affidavit

has reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim.

In his cross-examination, the workman has admitted

that he was appointed as a temporary peon in LIC and

there was no written test for his appointment and there

was no medical test before his temporary appointment.

The workman has further admitted that in Ext.-I, it has

been mentioned that his appointment was on temporary

basis and for specific period and in his appointment letter,

it has been clearly mentioned that he would not be entitled

to any other benefit for or on account of the employment

on temporary basis and by reason of his temporary

appointment, he would not be entitled to any preference

for recruitment to any post or claim absorption/

regularisation in the service of the corporation and the

appointment shall come to an end on the expiry of the

period mentioned in para 2 or any time prior to that, if it

becomes necessary to terminate such appointment, without

assigning any reason there for and he accepted all the

conditions mentioned in his temporary appointment order

and joined in service and his first appointment was for 85

days and his second appointment was for 78 days and

except Exts. W-I and W-II, no other appointment letter

was issued to him by the LIC and he has not filed a single

document in support of his claim that he worked with LIC

on daily wages of Rs. 50.

6. One Hemant Baburao Mali, a Manager (Legal &

Housing and House Property Finance Department) of LIC

has been examined as a witness on behalf of the party

no.1. The evidence of the witness for the party no.1 is in

the same line as taken by party no.1 in the written

statement.

In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that his evidence on affidavit is based on documents

relating to the workman and the workman did not work

under him directly and no seniority list of temporary

workmen employed in LIC was prepared. This witness has

further stated that as other candidates in the panel were

there, the workman was not engaged again after 30.12.2007.

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

learned advocate for party no.1 that the workman was

appointed purely on temporary basis for a fixed period,

mentioned in his appointment letters and after expiry of

the said period, his appointment automatically came to

an end and as such, the termination of the workman does

not amount to retrenchment as defined in the Act and in

view of the Rules made by Central Government under

clause (cc) of section 48 (2) of the Insurance Act, the

provisions of the Act or any other law for the time being

in force are not applicable to the corporation in the matter

to which the provisions of Staff Regulations, 1960 apply

and in case of conflict between the Act and the Staff

Regulations, the Staff Regulations shall prevail and

Regulation 8 of Staff Regulation deals with temporary

staff and empowers the authorities mentioned therein to

employ person on temporary basis to the post of Class III

3280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

& IV and it further provides that no person appointed on

temporary basis shall be entitled to claim absorption in

service or preference for recruitment to any post and as

such, the reference is devoid of any merit and is liable to

be rejected. In support of such contentions, reliance has

been placed on the decisions reported in AIR 1982 SC-

1126(A.V. Nachane Vs. Union of India)), 1994 SC-2184

(LIC Vs. Asha Ambekar) and the judgment of the Hon’ble

High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 1655 of

2002 (Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Ravindra

Vyenkat ladhe and others).

It is to be mentioned that no argument was

advanced from the side of the workman.

8. Perused the appointment orders of the workman,

Exts. W-I and W-II, the other documents on record and

the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it is found that

the appointment of the workman was made for a specific

period as per Regulation 8 of the Staff Regulation 1960

and the appointment was made on temporary basis. It is

also found from the said orders that it was specifically

mentioned therein that by such appointment, the

employee would not be entitled to any other benefit or to

be entitled to any preference for recruitment to any post

or claim absorption/regularization in the service of the

corporation and the appointment should come to an end

on the expiry of the period mentioned in the appointment

order. It is also found from the materials on record that

accepting the conditions of the appointment orders, the

workman joined with the corporation. In view of the

definition of “retrenchment” as given in Section 2(oo) of

the Act, the termination of the services of the workman

by afflux of period as stipulated in his appointment letters

doesn’t amount to “retrenchment” under the Act and the

status of the workman was purely temporary, under

regulation 8 of Staff Regulation of the corporation. Hence,

the provisions of the Act including provision of Sections

25-F, 25-G, 25-H and 25-N, of the Act are not applicable to

the case of the workman.

9. The decision of the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay in WP no. 1655 of 2002 is a direct decision in

regard to the point of controversy. The Hon’ble High

Court of Bombay in its decision have stated as follows:

“Now in so far as the present case is concerned, it

would be necessary advert first and for most to the Life

Insurance Staff Regulations of 1960. These Regulations

were initially framed by the corporation with the previous

approval of the Central Government in exercise of powers

conferred by Section 49 (2) of the Life Insurance

Corporation Act, 1956. Regulation 8 in relation to

temporary Staff provides thus:

Temporary Staff

-8(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in these

Regulations, a Divisional Manager may employ staff in

Classes III and IV on a temporary basis subject to such

general or special directions as may be issued by the

Chairman from time to time.

-(2) No person appointed under sub-regulation (1)

shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled

to absorption in the service of the Corporation or

claim preference for recruitment to any post.

Regulation 4 provides that the Chairman may, from

time to time, issue such instructions or directions as may

be necessary to give effect to, and carry out, the provisions

of the regulations and in order to secure effective control

over the staff employed in the Corporation. In so far as

the members of the temporary staff are concerned, sub-

regulation (2) of Regulation 8 specifically provided that

no person appointed under sub-regulation (1) shall be

entitled to claim absorption or preference for recruitment

only by reason of such appointment.

Parliament amended the provisions of the Life

Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 by Amending Act 1 of

1981. As a result of the amendment, clause (cc) was

inserted in sub-section (2) of Section 48 which confers

power upon the Central Government to make rules to carry

out the provisions of the Act. By and as a result of clause

(cc) as inserted, the Central Government is empowered to

provide for the terms and conditions of service of the

employees of the corporation. The rule-making power in

Section 48 (2) (cc) extends to the following:

“(cc) the terms and conditions of service of the

employees and agents of the Corporation, including

those who became employees and agents of the

Corporation on the appointed day under this Act”

Sub-section (2A) was also introduced in Section 48

by the Amending Act and it provides as follows:

(2A) The regulations and other provisions as in force

immediately before the commencement of the life

Insurance Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1981, with

respect to the terms and conditions of service of

employees and agents of the Corporation including

those who became employees and agents of the

Corporation on the appointed day under this Act,

Shall be deemed to be rules made under clause (cc)

of Sub-section (2) and shall, subject to the other

provisions of this section, have effect accordingly”

(emphasis supplied).

As a result of Sub-section (2A), the Staff Regulations

that were framed in 1960 are deemed to be Rules made

under clause (cc) of Sub-section (2) of Section 48.

Sub-section (2B) of Section 48, as amended,

provides that the rule making power that is conferred by

clause (cc) of Sub-section (2) shall include the power to

give retrospective effect to the rules ; to amend the

regulations and the provisions referred to in sub-section

(2A) with retrospective effect from a date not prior to 20^th

June 1999. Sub-section (2C) of Section 48 has a significant

bearing in the present case and provides thus:

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3281

“(2C) The provisions of clause (cc) of sub-section

(2) and sub-section (2B) and any rules made under

the said clause (cc) shall have effect, and any such

rule made with retrospective effect from any date

shall also be deemed to have had effect from that

date, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order

of any court, tribunal or other authority and

notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), or any other law or

any agreement, settlement, award or any instrument

for the time being in force”. (emphasis supplied)

The effect of sub-section (2C) is to impart overriding

effect to the provisions of clause (cc) of sub-section (2) as

well as to any rules which have been made under clause

(cc) notwithstanding any judgment, decree or any order

of any Court or Tribunal or other authority and

notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 or any other law or any other agreement,

settlement or other instrument for the time being in force.

Regulations 8 of the Staff Regulation of 1960

which empowers the authority nominated therein to recruit

class III and IV personnel on a temporary basis is,

therefore, a rule within the meaning of Section 48(2)(cc).

That is specifically provided for in sub-section 2A. A

person appointed on a temporary basis under sub-

regulation (1) of Regulation 8 is not entitled to absorption

in the services of the Corporation or to claim preference

for recruitment to any post. In exercise of the power

conferred by Regulation 4, statutory instructions were

issued by the Chairman of the Corporation on 28th June,

1993 defining the method and manner of recruitment of

temporary staff. These rules have overriding effect over

the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Sub-

section 2C of Section 48 specifically provides so.

The amended provisions of the Life Insurance

Corporation Act, 1956 came up for consideration before a

Bench of three Learned Judges of the Supreme Court in

M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance

Corporation of India, Machilipatnam (1994) 2 SCC 323.

The Supreme Court held that as a result of the statutory

fiction that is created by the provisions of sub-section

(2A), regulations relating to the terms and conditions of

service of employees and agents of the Corporation framed

under Section 48 (2) (bb) shall be deemed now to be Rules

under Section 48 (2)(cc) and all “such rules shall have

overriding effect over the provisions contained in the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so far as the terms and

conditions of employment of such employees who also

conform to the requirement of the definition of “workman”

under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are concerned”.

Construing these provisions, the Supreme Court held that

the termination of the services of a person appointed as

probationer under Regulation 14 shall be deemed to be in

pursuance of the rules framed under Section 48 (2) (cc)

and would have overriding effect over Section 2(oo) and

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The

Court held thus:

‘‘The amendments introduced in Section 48 of the

Corporation Act have clearly excluded the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act so far as they are in conflict

with the rules framed under section 48 (2) (cc). The result

whereof will be that termination of the service of the

appellant shall not be deemed to be “retrenchment” within

the meaning of section 2(oo) even if sub-section (bb) had

not been introduced in the said section. Once Section 2

(oo) is not attracted, there is no question of application of

Section 25-F on the basis of which the termination of the

service of the appellant can be held to be invalid. The

termination of the service of the appellant during the period

of probation is in terms of the order of appointment read

with Regulation 14 of the Regulations, which shall be

deemed to be now Rules under Section 48(2)(cc) of the

Corporation Act”.

The Supreme Court noted that the constitutional

validity of the Amending Act of 1981 was upheld in A.V.

Nachane Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 205. The Court

held that the wisdom of the legislature in either extending

the protection of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, or denying the same cannot be assessed by the

Court unless it is held to be violative of any of the

provisions of the Constitution.

“Earlier such employees used to be governed by

the regulations framed by the Corporation under Section

49 of the Corporation Act as well as by the provisions of

the Industrial Disputes Act, being “workman” within the

meaning of that Act. It was up to them to enforce the

rights or remedies in terms of the regulation so framed

under the Corporation Act or in accordance with the

provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. But after the

amendment introduced by the Parliament in Section 48,

the employees of the Corporation shall not be entitled to

protections to which they were entitled before the coming

into force of the amendment aforesaid. The amendments

cannot be held to be violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution merely on the grounds that a section of the

employees of the Corporation had the benefit or protection

of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, which

now they have been deprived of. The wisdom of the

legislature in extending the protection of the provisions

of the Industrial Disputes Act or denying the same cannot

be judged by the courts unless any such step held to be

violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution”.

‘‘The decision of the Supreme Court concludes the

present case. The Tribunal was in error in coming to the

conclusion that the order of retrenchment must fail for

failure to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen were

temporary workmen. Under the terms of their engagement,

3282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

their services could be dispensed with and the power to

dispense with a member of the temporary staff is implicit

in Regulation 8 of the Staff Regulations of 1960. Upon the

enforcement of the Amending Act of 1981, the regulation

acquired the character of a rule framed under Section

48(2)(cc). The rule overrides the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 by virtue of the provisions of Section

48 (2C)”.

10. Applying the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Court as mentioned above to the present case at

hand, it is found that Regulation 8 of Life Insurance Staff

Regulations, 1960 is applicable to LIC and upon the

enforcement of the Amending Act of 1981, the regulation

acquired the character of a rule framed under Section 48

(2)(cc) and the said rule overrides the provisions of the

Act and other laws for the time being in force, by virtue of

the provisions of Section 48 (2)(2C) of the Life Insurance

Corporation Act and as such, the workman is not entitled

for any relief. Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The action of the management of Life Insurance

Corporation of India in dismissing Shri Amol Sanjay

Sarvade, Temporary sub-staff from services w.e.f.

31.12.2007 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled

to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1245-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 26@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@36@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1245.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 26/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30011/36/2009-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 26/2009

Registered on 15.2.2010

The Vice President,

Petroleum Workers’ Union,

Plot No.3-A, Sector 19A,

Chandigarh

...Petitioner

Versus

The DGM (HR), IOCL,

Marketing Division, Yusuf Sarai,

New Delhi.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

Ex parte.

For the Management :

Sh. Paul S. Saini, Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on 21.2.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-30011/

36/2009-IR(M)) Dated 2.2.2010, by exercising its powers

under Section 10, Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Indian Oil Corporation in denying the

reinstatement of Late Sh. Dharam Singh, E-Tank

Truck Driver at par with his co-employee, Sh.

Darshan Singh, Helper, charge-sheeted with the same

misconduct as well as faced the similar charge of

offence in a criminal case, is just, fair and legal?

What relief, the legal heir of the deceased employee

is entitled to and from which date?”

The claimant filed statement of claim pleading that

Dharam Singh was an Tank Truck driver at Ambala and

was issued a charge-sheet dated 21.4.1995 for alleged

misconduct of theft, fraud etc. and also a case was

registered against him and a Co-helper Darshan Singh.

Both Dharam Singh and Darshan Singh were convicted

by the Lower Court, but the order was set aside by the

Appellate Court vide order dated 14.7.1999. That Dharam

Singh died on 26.3.2000. On his acquittal, Darshan Singh,

Co-helper was reinstated in service. Since both Dharam

Singh and Darshan Singh were on the same footing and

were acquitted by the Court and since Darshan Singh has

been reinstated, Dharam Singh was also entitled to

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3283

reinstatement with all the consequential benefits. Since

he has died the benefits accrued to him, be paid to the

applicant being his widow.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that though both Dharam Singh and Darshan Singh were

acquitted by the Court but in departmental inquiry both

were found guilty and consequentially dismissed. The

age of superannuation of Dharam Singh was 31.10.1999

and he made a representation for his reinstatement only

after his superannuation and he expired on 26.3.2000. After

his death, all the terminal benefits including employees

contribution were paid to his widow. That Dharam Singh

was not entitled to be reinstated as a matter of right and

the applicant cannot claim for relief.

Initially the applicant was represented by an

advocate who stopped appearing and she was proceeded

against ex parte vide order dated 24.10.2013.

The management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. Paul.S. Saini, counsel for the

management.

Since the applicant did not lead any evidence in

support of her case and it cannot be said that Dharam

Singh deceased was entitled to reinstatement at par with

his co-employee Darshan Singh, the applicant is not

entitled to any relief and the reference is accordingly

answered against them. Let hard and soft copy of the

award be sent to the Central Government for further

necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1246-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@21@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30011/21/2009-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 10/2009

Registered on 29.9.2009

The General Secretary,

Petroleum Employees Union,

C/o IOCL (Lube Filling Union),

P.O. Manesar, Gurgaon

...Petitioner

Versus

The DGM (HR),

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Indian Oil Bhawan,

Usuf Sarai, New Delhi.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

Ex parte.

For the Management :

Sh. Paul. S. Saini, Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on 21.2.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-30011/

21/2009-IR(M)) Dated 8.9.2009, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub-section (1) Clause (d) and Sub-

section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of Dy. General Manager (HR),

IOCL (Marketing Divn.) of not promoting eligible

workmen of Grade V to Grade VI, Blue Collar/White

Collar to Operation Officer, Grade II, not forming

Departmental Promotion Committee as per Career

Progression Scheme as arrived under MOS dt.3/8/

99 signed by erstwhile IBP Co. Ltd. and the union in

accordance with the scheme of amalgamation of IBP

Co. Ltd. with IOCL is just, fair and legal? To what

relief the workmen are entitled to and from which

date?”

In response the notice the workmen appeared and

filed statement of claim pleading that they were the

employees of IBP Company Ltd. which has been merged

with IOCL Ltd. vide order dated 30.4.2007 and all the

employees of the IBP Company became the employees of

3284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the IOCL. The employees were to be given promotion etc.

as per the Amalgamation Scheme which has not been

implemented by the respondent management.

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that all eligible and empanelled workmen have been

promoted as per the scheme and the reference is not

maintainable.

Workman Union used to appear through counsel

but later on it did not appear and consequently notice was

again given through registered cover on 24.10.2013. On

that day again no one put in appearance on behalf of

workman Union and the same was ordered to be proceeded

against ex parte.

Management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. Paul.S. Saini, counsel for the

management.

It is the definite stand of the respondent management

that it had implemented the amalgamation scheme and the

workers have been promoted as per the Rules and

Regulations. No evidence has been led on behalf of the

Union to show that the management has not followed the

provisions of Amalgamation Scheme or violated the same

in any manner. Thus it cannot be said that the respondent

management has not followed the scheme of Amalgamation

of IBP Company Limited with IOCL.

In result, the Union is not entitled to any relief and

the reference is answered against the workman Union.

Let hard and soft copy of the award be sent to the Central

Government for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1247-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u vkW;y

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

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

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] paMhx<+ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 9@2009) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&30011@22@2009&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court No. 2, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-30011/22/2009-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II,

CHANDIGARH

Present : SRI KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 9/2009

Registered on 11.9.2009

The General Secretary,

Petroleum Employees Union,

C/o IOCL (Lube Filling Union),

P.O. Manesar, Gurgaon

...Petitioner

Versus

The DGM (HR), IOCL,

Marketing Division,

Indian Oil Bhawan, No. 1,

Sri Aurobindo Marg,

Usuf Sarai, New Delhi.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

Ex parte.

For the Management :

Sh. Paul. S. Saini, Adv.

AWARD

(Passed on 21.2.2014)

Central Government vide Notification No. L-30011/

22/2009 IR(M) Dated 3.9.2009, by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub

Section (2-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) has referred the following

Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

“Whether the action of Dy. General Manager, IOCL

Ltd. (Marketing Divn) in not following the provisions

of scheme of Amalgamation of IBP Co. Ltd with IOCL

(Marketing Divn) is just, fair and legal? To what

relief the union is entitled?”

In response to the notice the workman filed

statement of claim pleading that of IBP Company was

amalgamated with IOCL and its employees became the

employees of the IOCL w.e.f. 2.5.2007. That as per scheme

of the amalgamation, the employees were to be given

promotions after a minimum period but the scheme has

not been adhered to by the respondent management and

ignored the rights of the workmen for promotion etc.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3285

Respondent management filed written reply pleading

that all eligible and empanelled workmen have been

promoted as per the scheme and the reference is not

maintainable.

Workman-Union used to appear through counsel

but later it did not appear and consequently notice was

again given through registered cover for 24.10.2013. On

that day again no one put in appearance on behalf of

workman-Union and the same was ordered to be proceeded

against ex parte.

Management did not lead any evidence.

I have heard Sh. Paul.S. Saini, counsel for the

management.

It is the definite stand of the respondent management

that it had implemented the amalgamation scheme and the

workers have been promoted as per the Rules and

Regulations. No evidence has been led on behalf of the

Union to show that the management has no followed the

provisions of Amalgamation Scheme or violated the same

in any manner. Thus it cannot be said that the respondent

management has not followed the scheme of Amalgamation

of IBP Company Limited with IOCL. Therefore the workman

is not entitled to any relief and accordingly the reference

is answered against the workman-Union. Let hard and

soft copy of the award be sent to the Central Government

for further necessary action.

KEWAL KRISHAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1248-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,p-Mh-,iQ-

lh- LVS.MMZ ykbiQ bU'kqjsUl daiuh fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼

fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd

fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;]

Hkqcus'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 58@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS]

tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&17012@5@2012&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 58/2012)

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 HDFC Standard Life Insurance

Company Limited and their workman, which was received

by the Central Government on 1/4/2014.

[No. L-17012/5/2012-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 58/2012

Date of Passing Award – 27^th February, 2014

Between :

The Manager,

Regional Human Resource,

HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

794, Saheed Nagar, 3rd Floor,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa

...1st Party-Management

(And)

Their workman Shri Pradeep Kumar Samal,

S/o. Shri R.C. Samal, Plot No. 227,

Unit-9, Bhoi Nagar, Baya Baba Math Lane,

Bhubaneswar, Orissa

...2nd Party-Workman

Appearances :

None

… For the 1st Party-

Management

Shri Pradeep Kumar Samal … For himself the

2nd Party-Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

has referred an industrial dispute existing between the

employers in relation to the management of LIC of India

and their workman in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide letter

No. L-17012/5/2012 IR(M), dated 22.5.2012 in respect of

the following matter :-

“Whether the action of the Management of HDFC

Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhubaneswar, in

terminating the services of Shri Pradeep Kumar

Samal, Ex-Assistant Branch Manager vide order

dated 16.6.2011 without giving proper compensation

package including LTA benefits, etc. is legal and

justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. In pursuance of the letter of reference the 2^nd

Party-workman filed his statement of claim and stated that

he was appointed as Financial Planning Officer by the

Management of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company

Limited on 23.8.2007 and joined the said post on the very

same date at Keshari Complex Branch, Bhubaneswar. In

September, 2009 he was promoted to the post of Business

Development Manager and thereafter to the post of

3286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Assistant Branch Manager in July, 2010. During the entire

period of his employment he performed all his duties

sincerely and satisfactorily without any stigma or adverse

remark. But to his utter surprise his services were terminated

with immediate effect vide letter dated 16.6.2011 issued by

the Manager, Regional Human Resource, Bhubaneswar.

Accordingly he was not allowed to do his duties with

effect from 18.6.2011. Although the 2^nd Party-workman was

designated as Manager, but by nature of his duties and

responsibilities he is a workman as per the definition of

“workman” given under section 2(s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. At no point of time he was entrusted

with any managerial or administrative work. He did not

exercise any independent power and authority. He worked

for more than 240 days during the last twelve calendar

months, which constituted one year continuous and

uninterrupted service as per provisions of Section 25-B of

the Industrial Disputes Act. Refusal of employment

amounts to retrenchment. Hence he is entitled to get the

retrenchment compensation and benefits as provided

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and non-

compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F renders his

termination void-ab-nitio. The termination of his service

is not only illegal, unjustified, malafide and arbitrary, but

also against the principles of natural justice. The

Management has turned down his request to reinstate

him. Hence this reference. The Management has also

violated the provisions of Section 25-G and H of the

Industrial Disputes Act. As such his termination be

declared as illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated

with full back wages and other consequential service

benefits.

3. The 1^st Party-Management despite service of

notice did not turn up nor filed any written statement.

Hence the case was set exparte against it.

4. The 2^nd Party-workman Shri Pradeep Kumar Samal

in exparte evidence has filed his own affidavit and four

documents in the shape of xerox copies.

5. Having heard the 2^nd Party-workman and perused

the evidence filed by him in support of his claim it is prima

facie proved on the basis of his evidence and documents

that he was appointed as Financial Planning officer by the

1^st Party-Management on 23.8.2007. He served the

Management for nearly four years without any break.

Although he was initially appointed as Financial Planning

Officer and later promoted to the post of Assistant Branch

Manager, but he worked like a workman without being

entrusted with any managerial and administrative power.

He had rendered one year’s continuous service as defined

under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Hence

before termination the 1^st Party-Management had to follow

the provisions of Section 25-F of the aforesaid Act. But

the allegation of the 2^nd Party-workman is that he was

terminated from service without any legal notice or

payment of retrenchment compensation. In this view of

the matter his retrenchment from service is illegal and

unjustified. Therefore he is entitled to be reinstated in

service with full back wages as proved exparte.

6. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1249-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

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

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

vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] Hkqcus'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

69@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 1&4&2014

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&43011@16@2011&vkbZvkj (,e)]

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/2012)

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 NALCO Smelter and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

1/4/2014.

[No. L-43011/16/2011-IR(M)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer,

C.G.I.T.-cum-Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO. 69/2012

Date of Passing Award – 26^th February, 2014

Between :

The General Manager, NALCO Smelter,

Nalco Nagar, Angul.

The General Manager, NALCO CPP, Nalco

Nagar, Angul.

The Executive Director, NALCO Mines

& Refinery Complex, Damanjodi,

Koraput, Orissa.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3287

The Secretary, Utkal Contractors’

Association, NALCO Refinery Site,

At./Po. Damanjodi,

Dist. Koraput, Orissa.

The Secretary, NALCO Contractor

Welfare Association, At./Po. Nalco,

Dist. Angul.

...1^st Party-Managements

(And)

1. The General Secretary,

Alumina Mazdoor Sangh,

NALCO, Damanjodi, Koraput, Orissa.

2. The General Secretary,

Thika Karmachari Sangh, NALCO,

Damanjodi, Koraput, Orissa.

3. The General Secretary,

Koraput Alumina Shramik Sangh,

NALCO, Damanjodi, Koraput, Orissa.

4. The General Secretary,

Mines Thika Karmachari Sangh, NALCO

Mines, Damanjodi, Koraput, Orissa.

5. The General Secretary,

NALCO Industrial Workers’ Union, (CITU),

Nalco Nagar, Angul, Orissa.

6. The General Secretary, NALCO

Thika Mazdoor Sangh (BMS),

BHEL Colony, C/2, CPP NALCO Nagar,

Angul, Orissa.

7. The General Secretary,

NALCO Shramik Congress Union (INTUC),

NALCO Smelter Plant,

NALCO Nagar, Angul, Orissa.

8. The General Secretary,

NALCO Nirman Mazdoor Sangh (HMS),

NALCO Nagar, Angul, Orissa

...2^nd Party-Unions.

Appearances:

Shri R.N. Upadhaya,

…

For the 1^st Party-

A.G.M. (HRD).

Management No. 1 & 2.

Shri S.S. Panda,

…

For the 1^st Party-

General Manager HRD.

Management No. 3.

Shri R.N. Rath,

…

For the 1^st Party-

Auth. Rep.

Management No. 4

None

…

For the 1^st Party-

Management No. 5.

Shri Shyama Nayak.

…

For the 2^nd Party-

General Secretary.

Union No. 2

Shri Minaketan Turuk …

For the 2^nd Party-

General Secretary.

Union No. 4.

None.

…

For the 2^nd Party-

Union No. 1, 3 and 5 to 8.

ORDER

Case taken up. Authorized representatives for the

1^st Party-Management No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are present. General

Secretaries of the 2^nd Party-Union No. 2 and 4 are only

present. Rest of the parties are absent.

2. The 2^nd Party-Union No. 1 to 8 have not filed any

statement of claim despite being given more than sufficient

time and a period of nearly one year and seven months

has elapsed. On the last date they were asked to file the

statement of claim within three weeks otherwise

appropriate order will be passed in the case. Today only

the 2^nd Party-Union No. 2 and 4 are present and they have

also not filed any statement of claim nor any time petition

for adjournment has been given. The 2^nd Party-Union No(s).

1, 3 & 5 to 8 did not even turn up nor sent any statement of

claim nor time petition. Hence this Tribunal is constrained

to pass appropriate order.

3. As the 2^nd Party-Union No(s). 1 to 8 have failed

to file any statement of claim despite taking time and giving

sufficient opportunity and there is no occasion for the 1^st

Party-Managements to file any written statement this

Tribunal cannot enter upon the adjudication of the matter

in dispute without pleadings. Hence there is no alternative

except to return the reference to the Government for

necessary action at their end.

4. The reference is accordingly returned to the

Government for taking necessary action at its end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1250-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

eSustj] Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dkuiqj ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 37@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 4&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@20@2007&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 37/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

3288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Court, Kanpur, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The District Manager, Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 4-4-2014.

[No. L-40012/20/2007-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. 37 of 2007

Between :

Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav,

Son of Sri Ram Bharosey Yadav,

Through Sri Lalta Prasad Bajpai,

18/06 Sashtri Nagar, Kanpur

And

The District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Office of District Manager Telecom,

Etawah

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL, New Delhi vide

notification no. L-40012/20/2007 IR DU dated 23.07.2007,

has referred the following dispute for adjudication.

2. Whether the action of the management of

Telecom District Manager BSNL, Etawah, in terminating

the services of their workman Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav

with effect from 01.07.98 is legal and justified? If not what

relief the workman is entitled to?

3. Brief facts are-

4. It has been alleged by the claimant that he was

appointed as a Jeep Driver by the opposite party on

01.11.96. He was being paid his wages at Rs.64/- per day

as casual labor by the management through voucher. As

such he had been in service till 30.6.98, and he continuously

worked for more 240 days preceding 12 calendar months.

The opposite party without issuing any notice or notice

pay and without making any retrenchment compensation

terminated his services with effect from 01.07.98 orally.

5. The claimant has raised a dispute earlier wherein

in I.D. Case No. 287 of 99 was registered but there being

no date of termination in the said reference so the said

industrial dispute was decided on23.05.06 on the basis of

vague reference.

6. The claimant has been working as driver on Jeep

No. UP-75-9612. He has filed the copies of the payment

vouchers and other relevant record to prove his case.

7. Therefore he has prayed that it should be

declared that his services were terminated illegally and he

should be reinstated with consequential benefits.

8. The Opposite party has filed the written statement

refuting he aversions made by the claimant. It is stated

that the claimant was never appointed as a Jeep Driver by

the management. It is also denied that he was being paid

Rs.64/-per day. It is also denied that he has worked since

01.11.96 to 30.06.98; as such he has never completed 240

days. Other aversion has also been refuted and it is claimed

that the claim of the workman is liable to be dismissed.

9. Claimant has filed several documents along with

its earlier award as well as along with list 7/1-2 and 16

documents have been filed along with this list. Mostly the

documents are copies of payment of vouchers.

10. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence.

11. Claimant has adduced himself as w.w.1 in its

earlier case no. I.D. 287 of 99. He has also produced himself

in the present UI.D as w.w.w1.

12. Opposite party has adduced M.W.1 Sri Narottam

Singh in earlier I.D. No. 287/99. That statement has been

taken on this file for consideration. Opposite party has

also adduced Sri Mohd. Irshad M.W. 2 in the present case.

13. I have considered the oral as well as documentary

evidence of both the parties adduced by them in earlier

case as well as in the present case, after summoning the

earlier file.

14. I am taking the statement of M.W.1 Sri Narottam

Singh who is an officer of the opposite party.

15. He has stated on oath and admitted the whole

case of the claimant in the examination in chief itself. He

admitted that the claimant was engaged as a daily wager

at the post of Jeep Driver in Nov.96 due to the death of

regular driver of the department. He also admitted that the

work of driver was taken from him till June 98. Thereafter

he was transferred. He also admitted that he was being

paid Rs.64 per day.

16. This witness was cross examined thoroughly

but nothing has come out in his statement which may go

against the statement of W.W.1.

17. W.W.1 has stated on oath the whole aversions

made by him in the claim statement that he was appointed

on 01.11.96 and worked there till 30.06.98 as driver.

18. He has proved the documents filed by him which

is paper no. 7/3-19. Mostly these are the payment vouchers

of the opposite party department.

19. I have gone through all these payment vouchers.

There is clear indication that the claimant has worked for

more than 240 days before the date of his termination i.e.

01.07.98 in a calendar year.

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3289

20. M.W.1 who has been an officer of the opposite

party has also admitted this fact. W.W.1 has been cross

examined thoroughly but nothing has come out to make

his statement dis-believable.

21. Statement of M.W.2 is totally in contradiction of

M.W.1, whereas both of them were the officers of the

opposite party. Therefore, the statement of M.W.2 cannot

be relied upon.

22. Therefore the statement of WW.1 coupled with

the documentary evidence is acceptable and he has proved

his case that his services were terminated by the opposite

party without issuing any notice, notice pay or

retrenchment compensation as provided under the I.D Act.

23. As such on the basis of above findings the

reference is decided in favor of the claimant and against

the opposite party.

24. Therefore it is held that the action of the

management in terminating services of the opposite party

with effect from 01.07.98 is neither legal nor justified.

Consequently the workman is held entitled for his

reinstatement with all consequential benefits except back

wages.

25. Reference is, therefore, answered in favor of the

workman and against the opposite party.

12.04.2014

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1251-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

fefyVªh iQkeZ fcUukxqMh dSaVksuesaV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;] dksydkrk

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh 13@2012) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1251.—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

13 of 2012) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Management of Military Farm,

Binnaguri Cantonment and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 4/4/2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Application No. CGIT-13 of 2012

(under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947)

Parties

Shri Kamal Routh,

Vill. Binnaguri Bazar,

P.O. Binnaguri,

Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin-735203

...Applicant

Versus

Management of Military Farm,

Binnaguri Cantonment,

Dist. Jalpaiguri, Pin-735203

...Opp. Party

Present : Dipak Saha Ray, Presiding Officer

Appearance :

On behalf of the Management

None

On behalf of the Workmen

None

State : West Bengal

Dated : 21st February, 2014

AWARD

This is an application filed by one Shri Kamal Routh

under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

against the Management of Military Farm challenging his

termination of service by the management as illegal, invalid

and void ab-initio and praying for his reinstatement in

service with back wages.

2. The applicant is found absent on two consecutive

dates of hearing in spite of service of notice. The above

conduct of the Applicant goes to show that the he is not

at all interested to proceed with the case further.

In view of the above, instant application is dismissed

being not moved.

Dated, Kolkata

The 21st February, 2014

Justice DIPAK SAHA RAY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1252-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

dkjiksjs'ku fyfeVsM ,aM vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ

3290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2@11 dk 2012 ikVZ&2) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&4&2014 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@201@2011&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1252.—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-

2/11 of 2012 part-II)) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai now as shown in

the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Nuclear Power

Corporation Limited and Anr. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 4/4/2014.

[No. L-42011/201/2011-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. Katake, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/11 of 2012

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.

& ANR.

The Site Director

M/s. NPCIL, TMS (Distt. Thane)

Post Tapp, Via Boiser

Distt. Thane-401 504

The Director (HR)

Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.

12th floor, Vikram Sarabhai Bhavan

Central Avenue, Anushakti Bhavan

Mumbai-400 094.

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

Shri Avinash G. Petkar

Sahkar (DDR) Colony

Ganeshpur

Bhandara 441 904 (MS).

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER

Mr. V. H. Kantharia,

Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN

Mr. A. P. Kulkarni,

Advocate

Mumbai, dated the 10th March, 2014

AWARD PART-II

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-42011/201/2011-IR (DU),

dated 24.02.2012 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of

Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication :

“Whether the action of the management of

M/s. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,

Tarapur, Maharashtra Site, Distt: Thane in imposing

the punishment of ‘dismissal from services’ with

immediate effect vide order No. TMS/TAPS 3 & 4/

HR/DC/092501 dated 29/06/2009-01/07/2009 is legal

and justified and in proportion to the charges of

misconduct? What relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. In the Part-I Award the preliminary issues were

decided in favour of the first party. It was held that the

inquiry was held fair and proper. So also the findings of

the Inquiry Officer were found not perverse. Therefore in

this Second Part of Award the only issue before the

Tribunal is:

Sr.

Issues

Findings

No.

Whether the punishment of

dismissal from service is

shockingly disproportionate

to the proved misconduct?

Whether the workman can be

reinstated with full back-wages?

What order?

As per final

order.

REASONS

Issues Nos.3, 4 & 5 :-

3. The charges levelled against the second party

workman Avinash G. Petkar were that on 14/11/2008 at

9 a.m. he abused and man handled Shri Pankaj Kashyap,

Tradesman/C and Shri Sheikh Younus, AR Trades man/F

while they were on duty in Room No. 2004 SB-106, fl. EL

operating Island TAPS 3 & 4 Plant site and had violated

the provisions of Section 14 (h) under Schedule I of Model

Standing Orders (Central Rules) under (Industrial

Employment Standing Orders) Act. He had also threatened

Pankaj Kashyap that he would harm his family members.

He also created panic amongst fellow employees and

disturbed peaceful working condition. In the inquiry

proceedings the workman has admitted the charges and

the IO held him guilty for the above charges. The

competent authority served the workman with notice as

to why his service should not be terminated. After hearing

the disciplinary authority dismissed the workman from

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3291

their services. In this respect it was argued on behalf of

the workman that, punishment of dismissal from services

for the misconduct of riotous behaviour and assaulting

Co-worker is shockingly disproportionate.

4. The Ld. adv. for the workman submitted that lesser

punishment than the dismissal would have served the

purpose. In support of his argument the Ld. adv. resorted

to Bombay High Court ruling in Cadbury India Ltd. V/s.

V. B. Save 1996 (73) FLR 1262. In that case the Inquiry

Officer therein found workman guilty of assaulting co-

workman. The competent authority thus terminated the

services of the workman. The Labour Court found that the

Inquiry was fair and proper. However the punishment was

disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Therefore the

workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% of the

back-wages without continuity of service. Both the parties

were dissatisfied and had taken the matter in writ petition.

The Hon’ble High Court in that case while confirming the

order of reinstatement without back-wages with continuity

of service observed that :

“In my considered view the end of justice would

adequately met if the workman is reinstated with

continuity of service and deprivation of full back

wages. That way he would still retein his job, not

lose the benefits of continuity of service and yet

have a long career before him in which he can reform

himself and not repeat the activities attributed to

him.”

5. In this respect the Ld. adv. for the first party

pointed out that it was not the first act of misconduct of

the workman. Previously also there were two incidences

of misconduct for which inquiries were initiated against

the workman and lesser punishment was awarded so as to

get opportunity to the workman to reform himself. Instead

of reforming himself, the workman has repeated the

misconduct of assault on the third occasion. The Ld. adv.

pointed out that the workman has admitted in his cross

examination at Ex-23 that in 2006 & 2008 disciplinary actions

were taken against him and he was punished. The

misconduct under consideration is the third act and

workman has repeated the misconduct of assault on co-

worker. Therefore he submitted that the ratio laid down in

the above ruling is not attracted to the set of facts of the

present case as on earlier two occasions, opportunity was

already given to the workman to get himself reformed.

6. Furthermore the Ld. adv. also submitted that the

workman was serving in Nuclear Power Corporation of

India which is a very sensitive department and such type

of repeated riotous behaviour and assault on Co-worker

at the work place and in the residential colony should not

be tolerated at all. In this respect the Ld. adv. further

submitted that high standard of discipline is required to

be maintained in such a sensitive department which is

dealing with research and development in nuclear power.

The Ld. adv. for the first party also submitted that dismissal

from service no doubt causes great hardship. At the same

time grave misconduct should not go unpunished and

punished of dismissal from service has to be imposed to

the grave misconduct. In support of his argument, the Ld.

adv. resorted to Apex Court ruling in Hombe Gowda

Educational Trust & Anr V/s. State of Karnataka & Ors.

(2006) I SCC 430. In para 19 the judgement the Hon’ble

Apex Court observed that :

“Assaulting a superior at a workplace amount to an

act of gross in discipline. The respondent is a

teacher. Even under grave provocation a Teacher is

not expected to abuse the head of the institution in

a filthy language and assault him with a chappal.

Punishment from dismissal therefore cannot be said

to be wholly disproportionate so as to shock ones

conscious.”

7. In the case at hand neither victim herein is superior

of the workman nor workman is a Teacher. The victim herein

is Co-worker to whom workman had assaulted and abused

at the work place and his behaviour was riotous. However

in the case at hand on earlier two occasions the workman

was held guilty and lesser punishment was awarded.

Inspite of that he did not take any lesson and repeated the

act of assault. This misconduct is third misconduct proved

against the workman. Assault and riotous behaviour at

the workplace in the Nuclear Power Corporation is no

doubt a very serious misconduct as the said department

is very sensitive and having national importance. Therefore

ratio laid down in the above referred judgement would

squarely attract to the case at hand.

8. In this respect Ld. adv. for the second party

submitted that mere assault cannot be termed as a grave

misconduct. In support of his argument the Ld. adv.

resorted to Apex Court ruling in State of M.P & Ors V/s.

Hazarilal 2008 II CLR 182 wherein the Hon’ble Court

observed that

“Assault by respondent Peon on an outsider not an

act involving moral turpitude.”

In that case as the victim was outsider the Hon’ble

Court in that case held that respondent has not committed

any misconduct within the meanings of the provisions of

Service Rules though he was involved in a matter of

causing simple injury to another person. In the criminal

case he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500. After

considering all these circumstances the State

Administrative Tribunal held that punishment of removal

from service is grossly excessive. In Writ Petition Hon’ble

High Court clarified that punishment does not involve

any moral turpitude and every power vested in public

authority has to be exercised fairly, justly and reasonably.

The Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the verdict of the High

Court by dismissing the appeal. However facts in that

3292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

case were altogether different. In that case though workman

therein has assaulted an outsider, he was not found guilty

for any misconduct within the meaning of the provisions

of Service Rules. The facts in the case at hand are altogether

different than the facts of the above cited case. Therefore

ratio laid down therein is not attracted to set of facts of the

case at hand.

9. The Ld. adv. for the second party also resorted

to another Apex Court ruling in Palghat BPL & PSP

Thozhilali Union V/s. BPL India Ltd. & Anr. 1996 I CLR

368. In that case three workmen were dismissed for

assaulting company’s officers. The Labour Court modified

the punishment and directed reinstatement with 25 % back-

wages. High Court restored the order of dismissal. Apex

Court took into consideration the facts that numbers of

workmen were agitating by their collective bargain for

aceptance of their demand and the management though

initially agreed to settle in conciliation, lateron resiled form

the same. In the circumstances, while confirming the order

of Labour Court the Hon’bleApex Court in para 6 of the

judgement observed that;

“......Stones were thrown and officers were attacked

which resulted in grievous injuries to the officers.

But it is seen that the appellants alone were not

members of the assembly of the workmen standing

at the BPL Bus Stop.”

10. In the circumstances the Hon’ble Court held

that the discretion exercised by the Labour Court under

Sec. 11-A of I.D. Act is proper and justified. In that case

mob of agitating workmen had pelted stones at the officers

as the management had resiled from the terms which they

had earlier agreed. It was the action of agitating mob of

workmen, for that only three workmen were held guilty.

Furthermore the members of the group were fighting for

the cause of justice and welfare for all the workmen. In the

circumstances ratio laid down in this ruling is not attracted

to the set of facts of the case in hand where the action of

assault was neither by group nor for the cause of justice

as in the above referred case.

11. In this respect the Ld. adv. for the first party

submitted that the act of assault on co-worker for the

second time, in the premises of Nuclear Power Corporation

which is a sensitive department is no doubt a grave

misconduct and punishment of dismissal cannot be said

shockingly disproportionate. In support of his argument

the Ld. adv. for the first party resorted to Apex Court ruling

in Muriadih Colliery of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. V/s. Bihar

Colliery Kamgar Union (2005) 3 SCC 331. In that case the

workman therein was dismissed from service for assaulting

senior official. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the

punishment of dismissal and directed reinstatement by

with-holding one increment. On the point in para 1 of the

judgmenet the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that;

“The courts below by condoning an act of physical

violence, have undermined the discipline in the

organisation, hence, in the above factual back drop it can

never be said that the Industrial Tribunal could have

exercised its authority under Section 11-A of the Act to

interfere with the punishment of dismissal.”

12. In that case the person assaulted was senior

officer whereas in the case at hand it is a co-worker.

However it was an act of violence in a sensitive premises

like Nuclear Power Corporation and this act of violence of

assault on co-worker was the second act on the part of

workman herein. Therefore it amount to grave misconduct

deserving punishment of dismissal.

13. In this respect the Ld. adv. also resorted to

another Apex Court ruling in Tata Engineering Locomotive

Co. V/s. N.K. Singh (2006) 12 SCC 554. In this case the

workman therein was dismissed from service for act of

violence for assaulting the Town Warden who had gone

to execute the decree alongwith Nazir of Civil Court. The

Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal and

awarded lesser punishment. High Court confirmed the said

award. While setting aside the order, Hon’ble Apex Court

in para 10 observed that;

“The labour and the High Court have not found that

misconduct was of any minor nature. On the contrary, the

finding on facts that acts complained of were established

has not been disturbed. That being so, the leniency shown

by the Labour Court is clearly unwarranted and would in-

fact encourage in discipline. without indicating any reason

as to why it was felt that punishment was disproportionate,

the Labour Court should not have passed the order in the

manner done.”

14. In the case at hand the workman has assaulted

co-worker at the workplace. It was his second incident of

assault. Earlier though he was held guilty, he was given an

opportunity to improve himself and lesser ‘punishment

was awarded to him. The act under consideration is

repetition of act of assault on co-worker in the premises of

Nuclear Power Corporation. Therefore the misconduct of

assault has to be treated as grave misconduct for which

punishment of dismissal cannot be said shockingly

disproportionate. Accordingly I decide this issue no.3 in

negative. Consequently I also decide this issue no.4 in

the negative and proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference stands rejected with no order as to

cost.

Date: 10/03/2014

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1253-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3293

bathfu;¯jx xzqi ,.M lsaVlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&II] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 62@2013) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14012@04@2013&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 62/2013)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-II, Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Bengal Engineering Group and Centres

and their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 4/4/2014.

[No. L-14012/04/2013-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-II, DELHI

Present : Shri Harbansh Kumar Saxena

ID No. 62/13

Sh. Manoj Kumar

Versus

Bengal Engineering Group & Centres

No DISPUTE AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

vide notification No. L-14012/04/2013-IR(DU) dated

24.05.2013 referred the following industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication :-

‘Whether the action of Bengal Engineering Group

& Centre, Roorkee in terminating the services of Sh.

Manoj Kumar, Part Time Regimental Mali w.e.f

20.6.2012, in violation of provisions of Section 25 F,

G, H of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is unjustified?

What relief the workman is entitled to?

On 08/7/13 reference was received in this tribunal.

Which was register as I.D. No. 62/13 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 Sh. Manoj Kumar

not filed claim statement but management in response to

reference filed response wherein it mentioned as

follows:-

1. That the above mentioned I.D. filed by the

applicant is not maintainable in the eyes of Law because

application made by applicant is self-contradictory due to

prayer of O.A is bad in the eyes of law. Identical issue has

already dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of Uttrakhand

at Nainital Bench in W.P No. 644/2013 (s/s) . Copy has

enclosed for the perusal of this court. Principal of res-

judicata is applicable here.

2. That the above mention matter is not maintainable

because this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the

matter. Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal has the

jurisdiction.

Brief facts of the case:-

(a) It is submitted here that the above named

workmen has filed a case/representation dated

4.7.2012 in the office of Asst. Labour

Commissioner (Central ) Dehradun (UK)

regarding regularization of his services. That the

reply has been filed in the office of ALC

Dehradun (UK) vide his office letter No-75328/

thu/Civ(P) dated 18.10.2012. The payment paid

to the individual every month out of non Public/

Regimental Funds.

(b) That the workman was appointed as regimental

Mali on the basis of contractual workman.

Contract /Agreement has enclosed for the

perusal of this tribunal.

the welfare fund. Hence he has no right to regular

there services as per rules.

(d) It is also relevant to mention here that his father

was expired, after the death of his father his case

was considered maximum times for appointment

in respondents office & final as per rules case

was turndown. Same issue was challenged

before the Hon’ble high court of Uttrakhand at

Nainital Bench in W.P. No. 644/2013 (s/s) and

same was dismissed. Copy has enclosed for the

perusal of this court. Principle of res-judicata is

applicable here.

(e) That the above mentioned Case filed by the

workmen/applicant is not maintainable in the eyes

of law because workmen/applicant has

challenged the same in I.D. No. 61/2013 principle

of Res-Judicata is also applicable /Order-2 , Rule

-2 , CPW Petitioner/Workmen filed a W.P. No.

644/2013, which was dismissed on 11.6.2013.

Relevant /operative part of judgment is

3294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 19, 2014/CHAITRA 29, 1936

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mentioned in Para 12. Judgment State of Gujrat

(L&S) 1079, 2003(1) SLJ 90 SC.

It is relevant to mention here that workman has not

filed the claim statement, Hence this I.D. may be dismissed

for non for prosecution or dismiss default.

PRAYER :

(i) It is therefore, respectfully prayed that I.D. of

the workmen /applicant may be dismissed with

the cost of litigation.

(ii) May also pass any further order(s) as be deemed

just and proper to meet the ends of justice.

On the basis of aforesaid averments made by

respondent. I am of considered view that workman is not

at all interested in further progress of the I.D. His intension

is apparent from non filing of claim statement as well as

non-production of evidence by way of affidavit.

In these circumstances it is a fit case in which no

dispute award may be passed.

Reference is accordingly decided.

No. Dispute Award is accordingly passed.

Dated : 28//03/2014

HARBANSH KUMAR SAXENA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 vizSy] 2014

dk-vk- 1254-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

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

ch-oh-th- bafM;k fyfeVsM ,.M vnlZ ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa

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

dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k ,oa Je U;k;ky;&1] fnYyh

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 4@2014) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 4&4&2014 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@03@2014&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)]

ih- ds- os.kqxksiky] vuqHkkx vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th April, 2014

S.O. 1254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

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

Government hereby publishes the Award (I.D. No. 4/2014)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, Delhi, now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of The Manager, M/s. BVG India Limited

and Others and their workman, which was received by the

Central Government on 4/4/2014.

[No. L-42012/03/2014-IR(DU)]

P. K. VENUGOPAL, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. I, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 4/2014

Shri Anil Kumar

S/o Sh.Shyodan Singh,

R/o A-234, Tigri J.J.Colony,

New Delhi-110062

....Workman

Versus

The Manager,

M/s. BVG India Ltd.,

510, 5th Floor, Surya Kiran Building,

19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001.

The Medical Superintendent,

Safdarjunq Hospital,

New Delhi,

....Managements

AWARD

M/s. BVG India. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the

Contractor) is engaged in providing mechanized

housekeeping services. It mainly participates in

outsourcing contracts. Contract for providing

housekeeping services in VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital

was obtained by the Contractor. To carry out its contractual

obngations, the Contractor appointed Safai karamchari and

supervisors. ShriAnil Kumar was one of the ernployees

engaged by the Contractor. His services were dispensed

with on 14.12.2012. He raised a demand for reinstatement

in service, which demand was refuted. Ultimately, he raised

a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, which dispute

was also contested. Since dispute raised by Shri Anil

Kumar was contested, conciliation proceedings did not

result in favour of the claimant. When 45 days from the

date of filing application before the Conciliation Officer

stood expired, Shri Anil Kumar filed his claim before this

Tribunal, while using provisions of sub-section (2) of

section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short

the Act), without it being referred for adjudication by the

appropriate Government under section 10(1)(d) of the Act.

Since the dispute was within the period of limitation, as

provided by sub-section (3) and in consonance with

provisions of sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, it

was registered as an industrial dispute.

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Anil Kumar

pleading that he was engaged by the Contractor as a clerk

with effect from 01.06.2010. He worked sincerely and

diligently. No attendance card, pay slip, ESI card, PF Slip,

bonus, washing allowance, overtime allowance, earned

leave, medical leave, casual leave were given to him. When

he insisted for the aforesaid benefits,that act enraged the

authorities and he was not allowed to resume his duties

with effect from 15.12.2012. The Contractor terminated his

¹Hkkx II—[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % vizSy 19] 2014@pS=k 29] 1936

3295

services by not allowing him to resume his duties. No

charge sheet was issued to him. Neither one month notice

nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation

was paid to him. Juniors to him are still employed with the

Contractor and fresh appointments have also been made.

Termination of services is violative of provisions of

sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act and Rules 77 and 79

of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. He claims

reinstatement in service with continuity and full back

wages.

3. Claim was demurred by Safdarjung Hospital (in

short the Hospital) pleading that contract was awarded to

the Contractor for outsourcing mechanized housekeeping

services in VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital with effect

from 01.01.2010 for a period of one year, which contract

was further extended up to 31.05.2013. Safai karamchari

and supervisors were provided by the Contractor. No

provision of outsourcing of clerks was there in the contract

agreement. It was the Contractor who engaged employees

to discharge contractual obligations. Since the claimant is

not an employee of the Hospital, he does not have any

claim against it. His claim may be discarded, pleads the

Hospital.

4. No written statement was filed by the Contractor.

Shri Gaurav Anand, Assistant Manager (HR), made a

statement on oath that services of the claimant have not

been terminated till date. He is still on the rolls of the

Contractor. The claimant is absent from service since

14.12.2012. On his unauthorized absence, action of

termination of services has not at all been taken. The

Contractor is ready to allow the claimant to join his duties

with effect from 28.03.2014. Since the claimant is still in

service of the Contractor, his claim under sub-section (2)

of section 2A of the Act is not made out.

5. Out of facts unfolded by Shri Anand, it emerged

that services of the claimant has neither been discharged,

dismissed, terminated nor otherwise retrenched. When the

claimant still remains on rolls of his employer, it is not a

case relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or

otherwise termination of his services by his employer.

Whether this dispute will fall within the ambit of section

2A of the Act, so that the claimant may avail provisions of

sub-section (2) of the said section and seek adjudication

of the dispute from the Tribunal, without it being referred

for adjudication by the appropriate Government under

section 10(1)(d) of the Act? Answer is plain and simple.

His dispute does not fall within the purview of section 2A

of the Act, since he continues to be on rolls of his employer.

Machinery, provided under section 2A of the Act for

resolution of disputes, relating to discharge, dismissal,

retrenchment or otherwise termination of service of an

employee, will not come to his rescue.

6. When the Contractor had not terminated his

services at all, it is not a case wherein relief of reinstatement

in service may be granted in favour of the claimant. Under

these circumstances, it is evident that no cause of action

accrued in favour of the claimant to invoke provisions of

sub-section (2) of section 2A of the Act, to seek

adjudication of the dispute. It is concluded that the dispute

is not maintainable as such.

7. As concluded above, the Contractor had not

taken any action to discharge, dismiss, retrench or

otherwise terminate services of the claimant. Claimant is

still on the rolls of his employer. Under these

circumstances, relief of reinstatement in service, as claimed,

is not available. Claim statement deserves dismissal.

However as stated by the Contractor and conceded by

the claimant in his statement made on oath, the claimant

shall join his duties with effect from 28th March, 2014.

With these observations, an award is passed in the matter.

It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 27.03.2014

Dr. R. K. YADAV, 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.